2 photos of same part of WTC7 show different things...
 

I believe the picture on the left was from the NIST and the picture on the right was taken by some amateur photographer guy who was in New York on 9/11 taking pictures of the buildings. The NIST photo obviously shows the damage towards the bottom floors of building 7, while the photo on the right does not show the same damage, not even close.

So which one is the photochop? You decide...

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/b...r123/b1bz1.jpg

you're asking if the part of the pic that shows 6-7 floors curving upwards is real?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are wondering why the photo on the left side looks a bit weird, it is because it was supposedly taken from this original photo:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

it cant be taken from the second photo... additionally, the shadows are different on both.

I thought the same exact thing at first. But after examining the two, it does look like the same image. Look at where that dark black plume of smoke is in both pictures, among other things...

Franck will like this thread

there is no way to change the perspective.. its a 2d image... not a 3d model. not only that, the shadows on the first show the sun light hitting near the damage and don't on the second.

"among other things"

:error

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh I bet...

It's a wraparound of the same pic man. Look at the building in front of the damaged WTC7 in both pictures. You can see the same exact geometrical shapes of the building in the same place, they just looked a little stretched out in the top photo due to straightening the angle...

i'm with pp on this i dont think they are the same

sorry... i was looking at it wrong. i thought it was seperate images from different perspectives and wasn't really paying attention.

Look, it is clearly the same pic, the one in the side-by-side comparison just looks distorted because it has been altered to compare it with the other picture...

http://www.igotsluts.com/wtc.gif

ok... so you showed that pic, you're arguing they are the same and saying in teh thread title that they show different things... whats different between them?

Dude, look at the original photo in my first post. It is a side-by-side comparison of a NIST photo (which shows all the structural damage) and a photo taken by an independent photographer (which shows the same part of the building with no structural damage). Hello?

The only reason I posted that 3rd photo is to show you where the left-side of the side-by-side comparison was taken from originally...

i was just asking what you were talking about. thats all. trying to argue that its all a conspiracy is absurd... but we all have to amuse ourselves with something.

all you have is two pics. the timeline of events isn't a matter of question 1) first building was hit... debris flew everywhere - 2) second building was hit, debris flew everywhere 3) first building collapsed showering the area with more substantial debris... 4) the second collapsed doing more of the same. the pic with more damage could have been taken after the first or second building collapsed (as all the dust on the atrium would suggest) but god forbid... don't ask any logical questions first.

a bunch of interweb lunatics have uncovered another important flaw in the massive conspiracy that involved countless 10's of 1000's of people because seriously.. what government official planning a conspiracy like this in broad daylight, in a city of 10,000,000 people would have really thought anyone would take some pics?

Ok there ya go, now we have a discussion. :thumbsup That is the point I was thinking of earlier, how do we know exactly the time that the 2 photos were taken? But both photos seem to show significant damage in the windows due to fire or whatever else, so one would assume that in both pics the towers had already collapsed, therefore the damage should be done in both pics? Maybe, maybe not... what do you think...

Also, I don't think much debri hit WTC7 just from when the planes hit, I think the majority of the debri hit WTC7 once the whole towers actually collapsed...

That is nothing... Better question is does this looks like a site where an airplane has crashed just hours before???

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2006-04/22909460.jpg

interesting..................

Here's a bump for the daytime folks...

you make zero sense. thats like posting a pic of a sunrise and sunset and then suggesting that because they are different... someone is faking something.

what you "think" is totally irrelevant to what did in fact happen. if you wanted to "know" you could just go look up the official and witness accounts and figure it out for yourself without looking silly on gfy.

Yes idiot. If you did some research instead of hoping for conspiracies you'd find that more planes that crashed into ground basically dissapeared. Nothing new here.

Fucking idiots. All of you.

Does this?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/11/plane....site.large.jpg

Owned...

is this still going on?

Well go get it analysed if it is such a bother to you

Donnie, dont you feel very fucking stupid now and realize that all your conspiracy theories (i bet you have plenty) could be all because of lack of knowledge?

That plane crashed into swamp land. The pieces were embedded in the mud.

The head guy at the 9-11 crash site stated that he'd never seen a plane disappear like that before.

That's like comparing the 9-11 crash on land to one that has crashed in the ocean rofl.