Studies of a Falsified Photo, Part 1
An Introduction
The author claims that the very first photograph in the paper by Steven Jones entitled "
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? " is a forgery.
The photograph in question was supposedly taken by Frank Silecchia on 9-27-2001.
I have been in communication with Steven Jones, expressing my views to him through the forum of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. I was told in no uncertain terms that I am mistaken, and that the photographer himself has recently reaffirmed that the photograph is real and untampered with.
I have repeatedly asked for a copy of the original digital image with it's meta-data intact. My repeated requests were ignored.
He later told me that he "doesn't have the original".
In fact, nobody seems to have the original. I was unable to find the photo with it's meta-data intact through the many archived photo collections available on the internet. A simple Google search of the name of the photographer will show that many people have tried to find the original photo with no success.
A good collection of available photo archives is listed
here.
The photo is shown below. It was obtained by separating it from the pdf version of the paper by Steven Jones.
We make the following claims:
1) This photo is not real. It is a digitally manipulated composite of at least 3 different images.
2) Section 1 shows an image of a recognizable landmark in the WTC Building 1 (North Tower) debris. This beam shows clear and provable signs of being digitally manipulated.
3) Section 2 shows a beam protruding from the North Tower debris. This beam simply did not exist in the location shown. It does not exist in the location shown in any other known photo of the North Tower rubble. It was added using a computer program like Photoshop.
This article will show that it is physically impossible that the beam in section 2, called "beam #2", existed in the WTC debris in the location shown.
This article will also show that the beam shown in section 1, called "beam #1" contains digitally added and altered elements.
My proof is divided into 3 parts.
Part 1, the present part, will locate the position and orientation of the supposed photographer and beam #2 within the WTC wreckage.
Part 2 will examine many known photographs of the WTC debris in search of beam #2 in the locations we would expect it to be. We will show that it simply is not there.
Part 3 will examine the digitally manipulated features of beam #1.
Here you can see the digitally manipulated image of the beam followed by 8 pictures of the same beam from different angles taken at different times in the clean-up process.
The first 6 pictures were taken from the west side of the remains of the North Tower. The last 2 pictures were taken from the east side, or the WTC plaza area.
Please note that of all the pictures, picture #3 seems to have been taken at about the same angle as the altered image.
Lets take a closer look.
This is a very interesting set of photos that allow us locate the orientation and position of the supposed photographer with satisfactory precision.
Please observe that there is an object seen behind the beam in question. The movement of this object behind the beam relative to the beam allows us to judge angles rather precisely.
What is this object behind the beam?
We will call it "object A".
Note how the individual markings on object A line up with the beam in almost the same way in the first and third pictures. These 2 pictures were taken at almost the same angle.
The following 2 pictures show the beam from the opposite direction. This allows us to see what object A actually is.
It is just another box beam with a pole right next to it. Below is a second view of these objects.
Having identified a picture of the beam from just about the same angle, lets look at the uncropped, panoramic picture of the beam from this angle.
Fascinating. We almost have enough information to locate the position where the supposed photographer was standing.
Well, we know where the photographer who took the above picture was standing. Note how the photographer, beam #1 and that tall building with 2 domes far in the background line up.
Also note how this photographer is standing on ground level.
In fact, the entire immediate area around which this photographer is standing is at ground level. This was also true just after the demolitions occured on 9-11-01. Remarkably, this immediate area did not have a "mountain" of debris on it just after the demolitions occured. The reader can verify this for themselves in the many photos to follow, particularly in part 2 of this article.
As was mentioned before, we expect the supposed photographer who "took" the digitally manipulated picture to be in the same general location of this photographer, just a little bit forward (not lower, because he is already standing on the ground. You can't go lower than ground level).
To better understand what we mean by "ground level", lets look at the following picture.
You can see that the hill of rubble doesn't start to slope upwards until you reach the base of what I call the "west slope". This is actually just inside the perimeter of where the North Tower actually stood, inside the "footprint".
You'll be able to see this in all the pictures to follow.
Finally, using the above picture, we are able to place the alleged photographer.
This picture is also taken at an angle in which beam #1 is in alignment with the building with 2 domes.
It just lines up with the other side of the same dome. Therefore, we place the photographer a bit to the left.
We also place him pretty close to the beginning of the "west slope" since he is clearly close to a slope in the picture he is supposed to have taken.
And notice that this also places him just inside a line extending along the south wall of the North Tower.
Whether this position is off 20 or 30 feet in any direction, I, personally, do not really care. Since the beam we are trying to locate, called "beam #2", doesn't actually exist, if anyone manages to locate something that looks like it even close to where we predict it should be, we would consider that acceptable.
We will grant a very lenient margin of error to anyone who locates the beam.
Lets look at the original picture again to get a general idea just where on the west slope we would expect to find beam #2.
Again, make the green circles as big or as small as you wish. I don't really care.
Whatever helps you find beam #2 is OK by me.
These are the general relations we will use to hunt for beam #2 in
part 2 of this essay.
Created on 09/06/2007 09:19 PM by admin
Updated on 10/26/2008 10:58 PM by admin
|
|
