IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Shredding disinformation, How worth my time is it?

waterdancer
post Oct 23 2006, 11:26 PM
Post #1


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



There is a site called Study of 9/11, with its own forum. The administrator has put up a photographic analysis of WTC 7 which is just plain wrong. Should I bother shredding it? What do you think? Ostensibly, this site questions the official story, but it may be designed to be discredited by "myth debunkers". In point of fact, his analysis was deemed so excellent by that particular "myth debunker" that he referenced the god awful analysis, making his first ever borrow from a CT site. Or, maybe the debunker had to create that site after I mentioned just how ridiculous that photo was during my analysis of his page?

[laugh]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 24 2006, 12:19 AM
Post #2


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Just in case you didn't get the joke, here are some pics:

Which point of view circle in the first one do you think would be more likely to contain the contents of the lower portion of the second one? If you answer "the one on the left", you agree with "Winston Smith". If you pick the one on the right, you agree with me. So, did "Winston Smith" publish his great analysis elsewhere, before this, so that the "9/11 myth debunker" was able to find it and borrow it over a month ago? Google doesn't show me any evidence to support that. Of course, with a nickname like "Winston Smith" (from Orwell's 1984), who knows what to think? After all, Freedom is Slavery. If you look at the last diagram (courtesy of "Winston") you'll even see that we concur, in theory at least, in the analysis of roughly the position of the camera and field of view in the second pic.
Edit: update- this thead is no longer very relevant, since Winston has updated his page, but the former analysis photo which all the fuss was about is linked below as image archive, if you really want to check it out...





image archive



This post has been edited by waterdancer: Nov 1 2006, 04:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bsbray
post Oct 24 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 166



Hi waterdancer,

I came across this page from a search and thought I'd respond. I'm not WinstonSmith but I'm bsbray from Studyof.

QUOTE
Ostensibly, this site questions the official story, but it may be designed to be discredited by "myth debunkers". In point of fact, his analysis was deemed so excellent by that particular "myth debunker" that he referenced the god awful analysis, making his first ever borrow from a CT site.


This was before the article was posted on Studyof (which was just the other day). The dude from Debunking911 had been following a similar discussion on the AboveTopSecret.com forums, though he isn't a member there so far as I'm aware.

Also, I was in contact with the guy from Debunking911 earlier, which is partly to blame for what he's posted on his website. We kept in contact until I started pointing out that, by his own counting of the visible columns, the NIST diagram could not possibly be accurate. That's when he stop responding to me via email, and shortly afterwards his web page was changed to pseudo-respond. Shortly after that, WCIP on ATS posted the same thing publicly, and now it's on Studyof as an article.

The reason for his involvement to begin with (the guy from Debunking911) is because Steve Spak apparently sent him the image in question exclusively, and WCIP went through them to get permission to post it on ATS. Now for Studyof, I at least could care less, because of our fair use policy: we are not profiting, and are promoting research, so therefore any copyrights do not apply. Unfortunately, Mr. Spak has never sent any equivalent version of the photo he sent to Debunking911 without the little ad text removed.


If you disagree with the article itself, that's fine, but the reason this ties into Debunking911 is ultimately because they (or he/she) had the original image, and discussions evolved based around that image, from that site.

Take care. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 24 2006, 10:34 PM
Post #4


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Cool, thanks for clarifying that. Any chance you could give a link to the above top secret stuff?

Update- edit. NM, I think I found it here

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 24 2006, 10:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 24 2006, 11:18 PM
Post #5


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Hmm, I wonder where this picture got found at...

Much easier to see the angle, etc. than the spak debunking 9/11, even though it is cropped at the bottom. Now, if we could just see the whole picture in hi res., huh? Very obviously the same image cropped differently, based on the positions of the two firefighters (and head of one) which can be seen in both of them. Yep, that sure looks like a humongous hole in the southwest corner of WTC 7, there, doesn't it? I sure wish "Winston" had included this version in his Study of 9/11 analysis for completenesses sake. whistle.gif
Now, let's see what does this more (or less) completer picture remind me of? Oh, yeah, the image taken from across the river in Joisey.



This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 24 2006, 11:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 12:22 AM
Post #6


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



But, hey, let's add to our understanding some more, shall we? More pics coming up. Courtesy of our man, Steve Spak (and some photographers as well in following posts for good measure; first up to bat is Stevie). You see, Stevie boy took a lot of pictures which show WTC 7 smoking like a chimney. He took pictures from positions where he could have shown us a less obstructed view of the southwest corner of WTC 7. Did he take a picture showing us a less obstructed view of the damage (and/or lack of smoke) on the lower portion of WTC 7? I dunno, but I sure haven't seen it if he did. I would even buy one from him if it showed what I was looking for... <_< How do I know Steve took all of these? (and the ones in the next two posts as well). 9/11 pictures.com tells me.






This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 25 2006, 12:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 12:50 AM
Post #7


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Some east side fire pics by Steve Spak:



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 12:53 AM
Post #8


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



More pics of the Vesey- West St. area by Steve:






This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 25 2006, 12:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 01:19 AM
Post #9


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Okay, I'm tired of Steve. Let's look at some different pics of Vesey/West St. These were taken by Bill Biggart before he died. They show the area as and after the South tower collapsed.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 01:25 AM
Post #10


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



I don't know the photographers on all of these, so some may be Steve's as well, but somehow I would imagine that he'd be selling them if they were his, so probably not. The last picture should show pretty clearly that the smoky window on the west side of WTC 7 is more likely to be floor 19 than 22, as "Winston" would have it.





This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 25 2006, 02:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 01:31 AM
Post #11


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Well, if you've made it through all those, answer me this riddle...

What do you think of this image? Same area? Similar time of day? Building 7 visible? What do you say?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 01:42 AM
Post #12


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Okay, riddle number 2...

I took a version of the Steve Spak image below, cropped a portion, blew it up flipped and rotated it to create the second image. The purpose of this? to compare the debris field looking east on Vesey with the debris field looking west. Also, to try to see whether the column support for the WTC 7 promenade is visible standing in the background of the Spak image. See what you think.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 02:05 AM
Post #13


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



So, to wrap up my postings on this little thread for awhile, I don't know why "Winston" didn't show the first image below in his analysis. I don't know why he chose to cut a section of a portion of the Verizon building out from another picture and add it into his analysis in a place where it clearly did not match up, either in alignment or position (and it didn't even go down to ground level either, so that couldn't have been his reasoning). I don't know why he thinks that the smoke damage on the west side of WTC 7 is on the 22nd floor as opposed to the 19th floor. Looking at the second image makes me think that the 19th floor is more likely to be correct. And I don't know why this or similar analysis was deemed so excellent by a debunking site, but I can guess. Time to start over from scratch, I think, Mr. Smith. I've given you a leg up here, with my pictures provided. Redeem yourself, if you can. Also, I wouldn't be too certain of your analysis of the Post Office roof and east edge of WTC 7(as opposed to say- the first level of the Post Office roof). Here's an archive of what the analysis looks like currently (in case it changes). I still don't know whether or not I'm wasting my time in shredding faulty analysis/disinformation or not, but oh well. At the very least, it shows that you can't blindly trust everything you see on the internet, regardless of whether it happens to seem to agree with your point of view or not.



This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 25 2006, 02:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 25 2006, 02:48 AM
Post #14


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Want more? Okay, I'm a sucker for photo analysis.

Note the post no bills stamps on the blue area in the first image below. Each one is located above a pole. Using these, we can conclude that the ladders are in the same position in the first and second and third images (bearing in mind that the second and third images are really the same shot, cropped differently,-the firemen tell us this) and other images of the area taken by Spak as well. After all, once the ladders were in place, it seems unlikely that they would have been moved. In any case, looking at each picture separately using the post no bills signs and the poles below them should be able to verify whether they maintain their positioning. If the ladders are in the same place in each picture, then they can be used like the equivalent of a window sill in order to determine size and perspective on the image. Then, using the fencing on the mezzanine of WTC 6, the damaged concrete area, the blue area, the ladders, the poles below the post no bills stamps, the lamp pole etc. it should be possible to come up with a pretty good composite view of that part of WTC 6 as it looked after the North tower collapsed (no need for a blacked out area of the image there, in other words. It should be possible to determine, as well, using features on the Verizon building and WTC 6, whether the smoke damage on WTC 7 was 19th floor or 22nd floor. I'm betting 19th. But don't take my word for it. Once we establish what floor it is, it becomes easier to determine where and how extensive the damage on the south face is. Also, it becomes easier to attempt to match it to the Joisey picture damage.




This post has been edited by waterdancer: Oct 25 2006, 03:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Oct 26 2006, 01:12 AM
Post #15


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Winston seems receptive to feedback on his article and analysis, so I probably jumped the gun on the disinformation call in the title. In this 9/11 truth business, it's hard to know what to believe some times. I think I can mostly trust myself, most of the time...LOL.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2019 - 05:23 AM