Slideshow image

Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image

slideshow image

slideshow image

slideshow image

slideshow image

Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In


Remember Me

Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

Studies of a Falsified Photo, Part 2

Studies of a Falsified Photo, Part 2


Hunting for Beam #2

Pictured above is a very good photo with which to start our search for beam #2. We've already used this picture in the placement of the photographer.

The above photo is dated 9-17-01. Please note that there is an excavating machine very close to the area where, according to the photo of the molten metal, we would expect to find this very molten metal 10 days later.

Lets review what we've learned in part 1 of this essay.

We use 2 reference lines to place the photographer and put him close enough to the base of the west slope of the debris hill to create the effect we see in his photo.

This is shown below.

We then set up the basic relations between beam #1, the supposed location of the molten metal near the base of the slope and where we would expect to see beam #2.

This is shown below.

The excavator in the above picture is incredibly close to the location of the supposed location of the molten metal, no?

So it took 10 days for this machine to move a few feet and dig up this molten metal. And then it took only 6 days for the crews to clean about 30 feet of the top of the entire mound, as mentioned in part 1. But I will discuss the absurd dating of the forged photo a bit later.

Now we will set up major reference objects in the general area where we expect to find beam #2.

We choose 5 major core column box beams as our reference objects because they are clearly visible in all photos we will be studying.

We choose core box columns because:

1) They are the largest identifiable objects in the rubble.

2) They are very difficult to move.

3) They allow us to see if the rubble pile is moving or shifting over time.

4) They were moved using cranes and large steel cable. They were moved from their original locations directly onto trucks or clearly outside of the rubble and placed in an organized fashion.

In other words, if someone were to claim that beam #2 was moved from it's original location and placed again in the rubble where we see it in the original photo in question, we would know that this person has no idea what he is talking about.

It would be a silly claim not worth considering.

We show the 5 reference objects below. We will refer to the same 5 objects many times during our search for beam #2.


So lets zoom in and look for the beam.

I show the beam we are looking for in the lower left corner of the picture.

The large circle allows for a very large margin of error.

But even if you can find the beam outside of this circle, that's good enough for me.

Can you find the beam?

And zooming in even further, can you find the beam?

I can't.

But, hey, that's only one picture.

Lets look at a second picture, shown below.

This photo was obviously taken before the clean-up began.

This is an excellent picture to understand what I mean by "ground level".

Please notice that there are no large mounds of rubble in the foreground.

The base of the large, central mound of rubble is actually near or within where the original west wall of the North Tower used to be.

Those men seen on the right side of the picture are standing on ground level. Therefore, any photographer in that area must have been standing on ground level also (or on top of some object).

Any claim that the photographer was lower than ground level would be absurd. They can be closer or farther away, but not lower than ground level.

We now use the south wall projection line to place the photographer, shown below.

He was standing to the left of the photographer of this picture, as can be seen in a comparison of the 2 beam #1 pictures, shown below.

Next, we mark the areas where we would expect to see beam #2 and where the excavation machine was supposedly seen picking up the molten metal.

Lets zoom in and search for beam #2.



Something is wrong, here.

Lets keep searching.

We will analyze the next 2 pictures using the same methods.

Projecting and placing the photographer...

Locating our reference objects to find our way around....

We now zoom in and seach for beam #2.

Any luck?

Folks, it looks like beam #2 doesn't actually exist in the location the original picture would have us believe.

And yet another picture.

We know to look for beam #2 between the reference objects shown below.

Can you see it there? I can't.

Below we use yet another picture of where we would expect to find beam #2.

Do you see any beam that looks like beam #2 protruding from the mound?

Beam #2 was intentionally placed in the original picture using digital manipulation.

Someone is trying very hard to lie to us.

They want us to believe that there was an excavation machine that picked up an object dripping with molten metal on 9-27-01.

You would think that some people who view this photo would question it's authenticity by simply considering how absolutely stupid the machine operator would have to be to attempt to pick up molten metal in his bucket.

You would also think that a viewer with a scientific background would question it's authenticity simply by considering the environmental conditions required to keep this small amount of material molten FOR 16 DAYS!

(Some scientists have argued that the thermite reaction contains it's own oxygen, so can continue underground and even under water. While that is true, a simple calculation as to the QUANTITY of oxygen, and other active chemical ingredients of a thermite reaction, that would be required to keep this metal in molten form for 16 days, or at least 384 hours, would show the absurdity of such a statement.)

But no. Not many people seem to think about how silly the claim is.

Hopefully this essay can help the many wonderful people in the 9-11 truth movement understand that false and misleading information is being force-fed to us through some media which you perhaps never previously suspected.

Let us proceed to part 3 where we see examples of bad photoshopping in the digital manipulation of the photo with which Steven Jones leads off his aforesaid mentioned paper.

Created on 09/13/2007 05:03 PM by admin
Updated on 03/25/2008 12:50 AM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL