Well, I don't know where we might have gotten off on the wrong foot in this conversation, since the links I provided above were pretty specific, but I'm copying and reposting a slightly edited (typos, etc.) version of the relevant posts in that thread (which I linked to above). I linked to specific posts there. Not to my misinterpretation of a photo as having a child in it, which I corrected later in the thread. In addition to what I am posting below, I would add that Jack White's MO seems to be to only provide edited photos without providing the original photo or linking to it. Not a good way to establish photo analysis credentials, in my book. I want to see the originals and judge for myself. You can think what you like about Jack White's analysis, Jerry, but to my mind, he's pretty much bollocks. Take a look at this picture
) to get a better view of the "supposed guardrail" that can't be sat on according to his "evidence". Hmm, looks more like rolled out clear plastic sheeting or some such, to me, than a guardrail... this image
) appears to be where he got the guardrail idea from. Which is not to say that they didn't eventually put up a fence there
), they did...but it doesn't look to me like it was there in the early shots. I'm not the only one with a poor opinion of Jack White's analysis, apparently
For example Jack White's Photo Studies of 9/11 [ http://www.911studies.com/
] -- created long after the establishment of this website and its branding of '911 Research' -- features a slide presentation about the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, making a long series of transparently erroneous inferences from photographs. At the top of each page is a banner reading "911 Research".
I'm suspicious of his analysis. A couple of points he makes: different position of the red SUV in relationship to the bag man
. Vehicles move. So do people, including likely the bag man. The camera angle looks quite different to me, based on the background buildings (Pentagon and others).The warning sign and pole
. Significant foreshortening differences between the two camera positions. I still haven't seen any sign of the east guardrail except in the one picture. Perhaps the triage area was in a different place? Or they were all photoshopped. Look at all the places the grass would need photoshopping between legs, etc. in the picture
in question and others to eliminate the supposed guardrail
on the east side of the sidewalk that is supposed to be there. Anyway, useless waste of time without some harder data. Hi res, exifer, provenance and sources of photos, etc. Could just as easily be a 9/11 truth disinformant photoshopper as a truther.
But, I won't give up on him just yet. The south tower crash explosion analysis looks interesting.Second link
My conclusion: Jack White is a either disinformationist, or hasn't done sufficient research. Discredited in either case.
More evidence:these two
pages attempt to show that the first image below had to have been taken before the South tower collapsed rather than after. BS, as the second image taken by Bill Biggart shows. Bill's photos are probably about the least questionable pics we are likely to find, IMO. Kinda hard to fake what the Marriot hotel looked like between the two collapses
. I guess discrediting Jack White made this not a totally pointless waste of time.