Evidence And Circumstance Justifying Suspicion, WTC 1 scanned plans have signs of fakery Options

[Christophera]

Some questions for you Chris.

2. Why did the group behind the demolition mark the "leaked" blueprints with revision clouds to show where the core was removed. Why did the same group then add digital initials to those revisions to make it look like someone actually made the revision of the removal of the core from the blueprints? I thought they wanted to keep it hidden, not draw attention to it?

Your question is so messed up it doesn't make sense.

What is a revision cloud?

Nobody marked anything to show where the core was removed.

[Zippy]

And you are wrong. I didn't say that. Is your reading okay?

Let me explain so you can understand and yeah, my reading is okay. Thanks for your concern.

You said the PA had no choice but to allow a documentary to be filmed according to Freedom of expression and the United States law that gave them (the filmmakers) the right to information of public origin. That statement was in direct response from you to my question asking why they, when trying to keep the concrete core a secret, allowed the documentary to be filmed. Honestly. Would they obey a law to film and expose a despicable act such as wiring two towers for demolition?!

My point is that they went to extreme measures to hide the core from view while planting explosives in it to later blow them up and kill thousands of people. All of a sudden they were worried about honoring a law to allow a documentary to be filmed?! A documentary where they actually discussed the concrete core? The same core which they went to extreme measures to keep hidden?

You make no sense.

Where are those photos of the box columns falling away from around the core? You know. The columns you claim were the first part of the demolition sequence.

Where is you proof that the filmmakers needed FOIAs to get information? Where is your proof that some weren't answered?

Are you still saying that you do not have a drawing that you made that shows the core and dimension?

[Zippy]

Your question is so messed up it doesn't make sense.

What is a revision cloud?

Nobody marked anything to show where the core was removed.

You're in construction (so you claim) and you don't know what a revision cloud is? Wow. That says alot. I'm really starting to doubt your so-called experience.

Here's the explanation. Blueprints are preliminary until the lead engineer puts his stamp on them. After the his stamp is put on them they are considered final. They are then distributed to the construction company with a stamp of "Construction" on them.

Changes to the finalized, stamped blueprints are called revisions. When a change is made, be it due to a situation in the field during construction or a mistake being found, a draftsperson will change the blueprint accordingly. When the change is made on the blueprint/s, the draftsperson circles or "clouds" the change with a red grease pencil so it stands out. The draftsperson then marks each "cloud" on the blueprint with a small triangle containing a number. The draftsperson then goes into the title block at the bottom of the blueprint and puts in the number of the revision, an brief explanation, and his initials to show that he made the change. The changed blueprint/s are then reproduced and sent out to applicable parties to replace the original.

You claim that there are "digitally altered" initials in the title block of some of the drawings indicating that they are "faked" in some way indicative of a second set of blueprints. I would really like an explanation on this from you.

You claiming that the initials are digitally altered or added means that you believe they (whomever they is) made these changes. My question to you is, of for what purpose? The only explanation I can come up with is to show the removal of the core from the originals and and create the second set. Which is totally ridiculous. Why you you note something you wish to keep secret. They would have just removed the core and left it at that.

So again. What are you claiming when you say the initials are digitally altered therefore showing that the drawings are fake?

Please explain.

[Zippy]

Nobody marked anything to show where the core was removed.

So then what are the fake initials for? What were they "digitally altered" or "digitally added" for?

[Christophera]

You're in construction (so you claim) and you don't know what a revision cloud is? Wow. That says alot. I'm really starting to doubt your so-called experience.

Here's the explanation. Blueprints are preliminary until the lead engineer puts his stamp on them. After the his stamp is put on them they are considered final. They are then distributed to the construction company with a stamp of "Construction" on them.

Changes to the finalized, stamped blueprints are called revisions. When a change is made, be it due to a situation in the field during construction or a mistake being found, a draftsperson will change the blueprint accordingly. When the change is made on the blueprint/s, the draftsperson circles or "clouds" the change with a red grease pencil so it stands out. The draftsperson then marks each "cloud" on the blueprint with a small triangle containing a number. The draftsperson then goes into the title block at the bottom of the blueprint and puts in the number of the revision, an brief explanation, and his initials to show that he made the change. The changed blueprint/s are then reproduced and sent out to applicable parties to replace the original.

You claim that there are "digitally altered" initials in the title block of some of the drawings indicating that they are "faked" in some way indicative of a second set of blueprints. I would really like an explanation on this from you.

You claiming that the initials are digitally altered or added means that you believe they (whomever they is) made these changes. My question to you is, of for what purpose? The only explanation I can come up with is to show the removal of the core from the originals and and create the second set. Which is totally ridiculous. Why you you note something you wish to keep secret. They would have just removed the core and left it at that.

So again. What are you claiming when you say the initials are digitally altered therefore showing that the drawings are fake?

Please explain.

Man, you really have it confused.

Firstly, I've never heard of "revision cloud". Specific revisions yes.

Secondly, the blue prints have no "revision clouds".

Third, I've not said the initials are digitally altered. I've said that the entire revision table is fake and the anomalies in it of the initial column cannot be taken for initials because they are not characters of the alphabet.

Accordingly, seeing as you have simply deepened the confusion with your last post or shown that you don't understand what I'm saying or are intentionally confusing it, you are going to have to go back to my original answers and make sense of them and make your reponses from the position I present rather than one of misinterpretation of that position.

ON EDIT:Your last 2 posts appear as evasion or intentional obsufucation because of the nonsensical, perhaps intentional misinterpretations.

This post has been edited by Christophera: May 7 2008, 04:59 PM

[Zippy]

Man, you really have it confused.

Firstly, I've never heard of "revision cloud". Specific revisions yes.

Secondly, the blue prints have no "revision clouds".

Third, I've not said the initials are digitally altered. I've said that the entire revision table is fake and the anomalies in it of the initial column cannot be taken for initials because they are not characters of the alphabet.

Accordingly, seeing as you have simply deepened the confusion with your last post or shown that you don't understand what I'm saying or are intentionally confusing it, you are going to have to go back to my original answers and make sense of them and make your reponses from the position I present rather than one of misinterpretation of that position.

ON EDIT:Your last 2 posts appear as evasion or intentional obsufucation because of the nonsensical, perhaps intentional misinterpretations.

Really? Let's look at some of your previous statements. I have quoted you from another thread I have been reading from another site. Here is your first quote from earlier in this thread:

CIRCUMSTANCE 4:
After downloading the plans I examined them to find that the resolution of the scan had been destroyed making very few of the dimensions legible. Detail bullets are also not legible. And examination of the title block and revision table revealed an anomaly which cannot be an accident or error of the scan process.

Two aspects stand out in the below zoom of the revision table of AA.141.tiff of the downloadable digital scan files.

1. The characters in the initial table below ARE NOT of the alphabet
2. The perfectly straight pixilation of the characters is not possible with a scan of a pencil drawing.

The characters of the initials are not of the alphabet and the straight pixelation of the characters is not possible. Both of you statements here deal with the characters of the initials.

Here is the next quote from the other thread on a different site:

"gamey tries to generalize again that by cherry picking a best case scenario from a pencil drawn character enlarged to show a pixel straight segment, that he has shown the fact that the revision table contains digitally altered data is false. By no means has he done so."

See where it says "...the revision table contains digitally altered data..."? right after speaking of a "...pencil drawn character..."

So you can play your stupid games with your crap plans, (what characters are those and why are they so straight?)

I went back a page in that other thread and found the above quote from you.

Let's look at quotes from your site shall we?

Below is a zoom of that cell. Not much to be said about it except it definitely does not belong there and it is some sort of digital, graphic artifact. Not a hand lettered initial. far too straight for too many pixels

Not a hand lettered initial. So what kind of initial could it be if not hand lettered hmmm?

Following is a zoom of that cell. Again, it is some sort of digital, graphic artifact. Not a hand lettered initial and far too straight for too many pixels

The quote above is another instance. "Not a hand lettered initial...".

Comparison of the initials of the revisions tables of 99 and 139 above show the same initials circled in blue are suspicious and could be the same numbers copied and pasted perhaps after being separated from their accompanying triangular detail numbers and being altered by scaling.

Another quote above from your site. "...initials circled in blue are suspicious and could be the same numbers copied and pasted..." Copied and pasted?! As in digitally altered? I didn't know there term "copied and pasted" was used in anything other than digital manipulation when referring to images.

So after reading all that information from the other forum and your own website, you are definitely claiming that the initials in the title block were digitally altered. Don't try and play me as the stupid one here.

The fact that you have never heard of revision clouds tells me that you have never had anything to do with blueprints at all. That's a basic concept for revising blueprints and is used all the time.

[Zippy]

Secondly, the blue prints have no "revision clouds".

Really? Shall I prove you wrong yet again?

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/Zippy1111/revision1.png)

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/Zippy1111/revision2.png)

Or better yet, here is a revision cloud from the very drawing that you note as having altered initials. It's drawing A-A-141.

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/Zippy1111/revision3.png)

See the triangle with the number in it? The one that touches the revision cloud that you say isn't there? Are you really versed in construction or are you pulling our collective leg here.

[Christophera]

Thank you for spending the time to show us the plans are not finished developed plans. Now I now what you are referring to. Since I know the plans misrepresent the structure, I'm not much interested in looking at them so never noticed the encircled areas. Also they are really poor reproductions. Once I found the faked revision tables, I stopped looking at them.

Really? Let's look at some of your previous statements. I have quoted you from another thread I have been reading from another site. Here is your first quote from earlier in this thread:



The characters of the initials are not of the alphabet and the straight pixelation of the characters is not possible. Both of you statements here deal with the characters of the initials.

Here is the next quote from the other thread on a different site:



See where it says "...the revision table contains digitally altered data..."? right after speaking of a "...pencil drawn character..."



I went back a page in that other thread and found the above quote from you.

Let's look at quotes from your site shall we?



Not a hand lettered initial. So what kind of initial could it be if not hand lettered hmmm?



The quote above is another instance. "Not a hand lettered initial...".



Another quote above from your site. "...initials circled in blue are suspicious and could be the same numbers copied and pasted..." Copied and pasted?! As in digitally altered? I didn't know there term "copied and pasted" was used in anything other than digital manipulation when referring to images.

So after reading all that information from the other forum and your own website, you are definitely claiming that the initials in the title block were digitally altered. Don't try and play me as the stupid one here.

The fact that you have never heard of revision clouds tells me that you have never had anything to do with blueprints at all. That's a basic concept for revising blueprints and is used all the time.

First show us an image of steel core columns in the core area from 9-11 at an elevation off the ground.

I've asserted that things that should be characters of the alphbet in the revision table of the initial columns are not, but I've not said someone alterd the initials intentionally. I've said they altered the plans intentionally and the initials were inadvertently altered.

Prove the plans are not faked by proving they are correct. Do this by showing images of the supposed steel core columns in the core area with their interconnecting structures.

Or are you more comfortable changing the subject?

This post has been edited by Christophera: May 8 2008, 01:05 PM

[Zippy]

Thank you for spending the time to show us the plans are not finished developed plans.

Sorry. The fact that the drawings have revisions on them does not mean that they are unfinished. You should know this being in the construction field. I find it funny that I have to explain this stuff to you.

Now I now what you are referring to. Since I know the plans misrepresent the structure, I'm not much interested in looking at them so never noticed the encircled area.

I understand. You knew the plans so well that you made an erroneous statement about them not having revision clouds. Right. And no, they don't misrepresent the structure. They match everything perfectly.

Once I found the faked revision tables, I stopped looking at them.

Nope not fake. Your assement is completely wrong. I told you I asked someone who does digital imagery as a profession and he laughed at your statements when i showed him.

First show us an image of steel core columns in the core area from 9-11 at an elevation off the ground.

I don't need to. I have photos of the core columns during construction and after 9/11. One day does not remove these columns from existing.

I've asserted that things that should be characters of the alphbet in the revision table of the initial columns are not, but I've not said someone alterd the initials intentionally. I've said they altered the plans intentionally and the initials were inadvertently altered.

Inadvertently altered?! Are you listening to yourself?

Prove the plans are not faked by proving they are correct. Do this by showing images of the supposed steel core columns in the core area with their interconnecting structures.

I have proven they are correct. They match 99% of all the photos. What do you have to back up your photos of what you claim to show a concrete core wall? Just your own assessment?

Or are you more comfortable changing the subject?

Who's changing the subject. We're talking about your concrete core aren't we. My point in all this is that your core was not needed to facilitate the demolition. You are complicating this by throwing your garbage around.

Do you have anyone who agrees with you that there was a concrete core?

Do you have a drawing of the core and it's dimensions?

[Christophera]

Really? Let's look at some of your previous statements. I have quoted you from another thread I have been reading from another site. Here is your first quote from earlier in this thread:



The characters of the initials are not of the alphabet and the straight pixelation of the characters is not possible. Both of you statements here deal with the characters of the initials.

Here is the next quote from the other thread on a different site:



See where it says "...the revision table contains digitally altered data..."? right after speaking of a "...pencil drawn character..."



I went back a page in that other thread and found the above quote from you.

Let's look at quotes from your site shall we?



Not a hand lettered initial. So what kind of initial could it be if not hand lettered hmmm?



The quote above is another instance. "Not a hand lettered initial...".



Another quote above from your site. "...initials circled in blue are suspicious and could be the same numbers copied and pasted..." Copied and pasted?! As in digitally altered? I didn't know there term "copied and pasted" was used in anything other than digital manipulation when referring to images.

So after reading all that information from the other forum and your own website, you are definitely claiming that the initials in the title block were digitally altered. Don't try and play me as the stupid one here.

The fact that you have never heard of revision clouds tells me that you have never had anything to do with blueprints at all. That's a basic concept for revising blueprints and is used all the time.

Your objections to my stating that the revision tables show characters that are not pencil scans or characters are really not coherent enough to respond to.

Anyone can tell on simple examination that what I say is true. Your plans are incomplete, they come from a party with a 6 billion dollar interest in having the official story be true. Your position is laughable.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/A-A-159.revtab.jpg)
(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/wtc1rev.tabAA-139.jpg)

Your failure to explain why there is no elevator where a 12 foot concrete wall runns with a 3 x 7 running its length, and instead posting incoherent criticisim of, ........ I'm not sure what, is BS.

Get real.

[Christophera]

I am a Computer Graphics professional with many years experience in the film industry, FWIW.

Looking forward to your answer, respectfully, Saturna.

Saturna,

Perhaps you could comment on a digital anomalie that appears in the blueprints that came from silverstein of WTC 1.

The original is here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...A/A-A-159_1.png

This is a zoom of some of the cells in the revision table.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/A-A-159.revtab.jpg)

About 20% of the plans have them and each is different.

My take is that somebody copied all of the intitals and other cell data from a set of plans and made separate files for each cell. Then used a spread sheet to shift the file names around and process the batches with something like quickeys controlling photoshop and insert sized but "altered in many ways" initials, dates, bullets, etc. contained in the revision table to use a few samples for spreading over 200 sheets making the all little different.

If you look at a few you will see that the characters are all very similar in some hard to describe fashion.

They batched some dot clouds at 1000x or something and accidentally mixed them in and it was distributed in the automated positioning in the tables. Dunno, what'cha think?

This post has been edited by Christophera: Mar 7 2009, 05:11 AM

[Christophera]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

Approximately 20% of the sheets show signs of digital tampering with the scanned blueprints of WTC 1 from silverstein.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/A-A-159.revtab.jpg)

Note that the digital anomalie above appears in the revision table left of the title block below.

Below we see an "01" in the date. Do people realize that before 2000 hardly anyone used an extra "0" in a date?

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/1967fakeplan.titblk.jpg)

Why do the 1964 site drawing title block have a refined title block text, and the above have one freehanded with pencil?

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/dec63.datebox.jpg)

Then the beam is not even shown, just the free handed insulation.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/planimages/wtc1.diagonals.prelim.jpg)

The plans have NO DETAILS on required diagonal bracing and horizontal interconnections between supposed steel core columns

All of the above evidence fully justify, along with the circumstance of guilani taking the WTC documents from NYC office and refusing to return them, and the fact that FEMA never gave plans of the towers for NIST to use in analysis of collapse; complete suspicion of ANYONE trying to pass off the scanned blueprints from silverstein as being the actual design and configuration of the twin towers.

Can we believe that the quasi leadership of a truth movement would use such information in such circumstance if they really were looking for the truth?

This post has been edited by Christophera: Mar 10 2009, 09:42 PM

[dMz]

Merged old "plan pixel" posts here. Will be moving to Alternate Theories soon.

[Christophera]

Really? Shall I prove you wrong yet again?

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/Zippy1111/revision1.png)

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/Zippy1111/revision2.png)

Or better yet, here is a revision cloud from the very drawing that you note as having altered initials. It's drawing A-A-141.

(IMG:http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/Zippy1111/revision3.png)

See the triangle with the number in it? The one that touches the revision cloud that you say isn't there? Are you really versed in construction or are you pulling our collective leg here.

Your point only proves that somebody drew lines on the blueprints to match the fake revision tables they were going to apply and that the plans even if you were correct, would be hopelessly obsolete.

[Christophera]

The "World Trade Center files" are where the plans for the Twins are. Locked away in the fortress in private custody not subject to freedom of information laws illegally allowed to leave the city offices and taken by guiliani.

(IMG:http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0204/barrett.jpg)

Our concern is based on the following facts, as we understand them. On or about December 24, 2001, Commissioner George Rios, on behalf of the City of New York and/or the Department of Records and Information Services of the City of NewYork, entered into a contract with the Rudolph W. Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs Inc., signed by Saul Cohen, President, concerning the records of the mayoralty of Rudolph Giuliani. The records are said to include appointment books, cabinet meeting audiotapes, e-mails, telephone logs, advance and briefing memos, correspondence, transition materials, and private schedules, as well as Mr. Giuliani�s departmental, travel, event, subject, and Gracie Mansion files. Giuliani's "World Trade Center files"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF163AF936A15752C0A9649C8B63
Rudy Giuliani has spent a lifetime dictating his own legend. When he was U.S. attorney in Manhattan, he abruptly ended the longtime practice of publishing annual reports, making reporters and others utterly dependent on his version of how productive the office was. And now, while peddling the story of his mayoralty for millions to publishers and moviemakers, he's gained exclusive control over a public record ordinarily available to all.

Gabe Pressman, the city's greatest television newsman, did an op-ed piece in the Times last week celebrating Bloomberg's destruction of Giuliani's eight-year stonewall. As accurate as this piece may prove to be about Bloomberg, it failed to note that the wall around Giuliani's public life has only relocated to a fortress in Queens. Giuliani does not trust the Bloomberg administration to resist FOIL requests for him, nor does he trust the charter to safeguard his myth. He will shape it himself for profit, laundering the people's papers through his own cadre of mercenaries and true believers, leaving for the public eye only what he sees fit.

In more detail.



NYCLU Press Release
February 6, 2002
NYCLU Attorney Beth Haroules added, "The City Charter is clear: documents such as these cannot be transferred without a detailed inventory and they can only be transferred to the official municipal archives under the control of DORIS. This contract violates both of these provisions which are designed to ensure public access."

"The NYCLU calls on Mayor Bloomberg to recognize this contract for what it is -- a contract to sign away the public's right to know -- and accord it the same treatment as the Decency Commission! This is an opportunity for Mayor Bloomberg to set a tone of open government in the new administration. It would be a welcome change."





The NYCLU's Letter To Mayor Bloomberg And Corporation Counsel Cardozo
February 6, 2002the Freedom of Information Law confers access to public documents and papers. That interest has been compromised by the recent transfer of all of the records of the Giuliani mayoralty, out of the direct custody and control of the New York City Department of Records and Information Services and the Municipal Archives ("DORIS") pursuant to a contract between the City and the Rudolph W. Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs Inc. The transfer also appears to violate DORIS' obligations under the City Charter.

...
concerning the records of the mayoralty of Rudolph Giuliani. The records are said to include appointment books, cabinet meeting audiotapes, e-mails, telephone logs, advance and briefing memos, correspondence, transition materials, and private schedules, as well as Mr. Giuliani's departmental, travel, event, subject, and Gracie Mansion files. Giuliani's "World Trade Center files" and "Millennium Project files," together with 6000 files of photographs, 1000 audiotapes, and 15,000 videotapes, are also reported to be a part of the records covered by the contract. In addition, the records include those of his chief of staff and every deputy mayor, together with their chiefs of staff. Finally, gifts such as plaques, awards, personalized clothing, and other items presented to the mayor and deputy mayors, as well as World Trade Center-related materials are alleged to be included as part of the records. All of these items were reported to have been delivered from the control of the City to a warehouse storage facility in Long Island City at the end of December 2001.
.....

The City also violated the Freedom of Information Law by transferring records to the custody of the Giuliani Center without first compiling a detailed list. Section 87(3)© of the Public Officer Law obligates an agency to maintain a "reasonably detailed list by subject matter" of all agency records, "whether or not [those records are] available under this article." Such a list is necessary to prevent the inappropriate destruction of documents and to inform the public as to the content of the documentary collection. The list appended to the December 24th contract as Attachment A does not contain sufficiently detailed information to satisfy this requirement. And the documents appear, therefore, to have been transferred without complying with this requirement.

....

World Trade Center-related materials are alleged to be included as part of the records. All of these items were reported to have been delivered from the control of the City to a warehouse storage facility in Long Island City at the end of December 2001. We are unaware that DORIS has compiled a more detailed list of the records transferred than that appended to the Contract as Attachment A.


...

For these reasons, we urge the City to terminate the contract and to exercise its right of unrestricted access to the documents so as to ensure the documents are properly preserved.


...

We thank the Committee for its prompt attention to our request. Should you have any questions with reference to our request, please feel free to contact us.

Very truly yours,



Donna Lieberman Arthur Eisenberg Beth Haroules