Debunking "spoof" WTC pre-crash picture
Rainbow Chaser
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debunking "spoof" WTC pre-crash picture
Hi
Several non-aviation friends of mine have separately received the pic of a guy purportedly standing on the WTC viewing deck with an aircraft (pres AA) approaching the building. This "spoof" pic is doing the rounds of the internet and ..I would be grateful if someone could give me chapter and verse of why it is a spoof (apart from the obvious one of "duh, like a camera would survive")...thanks
Several non-aviation friends of mine have separately received the pic of a guy purportedly standing on the WTC viewing deck with an aircraft (pres AA) approaching the building. This "spoof" pic is doing the rounds of the internet and ..I would be grateful if someone could give me chapter and verse of why it is a spoof (apart from the obvious one of "duh, like a camera would survive")...thanks
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, well, they do say that the A/c is approaching from the North, so, if genuine, it would have to have been the one that impacted the North Tower WTC1 .......which doesn't have an outside observation deck.
Snapshot! What do you think? Tourist's snappy type camera loaded with 100 ISO bloggscolor film and shutter of, ooooh 1/125th sec @ F.11?
F.11 for the depth of field to get both NY skyline, A/c AND Mr. Bloggs in focus? Ah yes, but then, how fast is that A/c moving? 300kts? Wouldn't be as sharp as that at 1/125th would it (you can see the individual cockpit window frames....and they ain't blurred) ?
If I was the snapper and saw that coming for me, I wouldn't be asking him to smile, I'd be legging-it !
Snapshot! What do you think? Tourist's snappy type camera loaded with 100 ISO bloggscolor film and shutter of, ooooh 1/125th sec @ F.11?
F.11 for the depth of field to get both NY skyline, A/c AND Mr. Bloggs in focus? Ah yes, but then, how fast is that A/c moving? 300kts? Wouldn't be as sharp as that at 1/125th would it (you can see the individual cockpit window frames....and they ain't blurred) ?
If I was the snapper and saw that coming for me, I wouldn't be asking him to smile, I'd be legging-it !
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the clincher is.....
The aircraft shown is a Boeing 757 bearing American Airline markings, but Flight 11, the only American flight to crash into the World Trade Center, was a 767.
The aircraft shown is a Boeing 757 bearing American Airline markings, but Flight 11, the only American flight to crash into the World Trade Center, was a 767.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated, the shadows are wrong.
Re 757/767 http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=184323 http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=148440
first photo = 757, second = 767. If you compare the position of the red stripe on the nose, it is much lower on the 767, showing the fake photo as a 757 http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=184974
(third photo shows N334AA which was AA11)
[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: Mycroft ]
Re 757/767 http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=184323 http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=148440
first photo = 757, second = 767. If you compare the position of the red stripe on the nose, it is much lower on the 767, showing the fake photo as a 757 http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=184974
(third photo shows N334AA which was AA11)
[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: Mycroft ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a 767 to me - the fuselage is too fat and the engines too far outboard for a 757. Which is immaterial anyway as it was quickly disected technically on one of the photo groups (dropped off my ISP - try a google search).
The analysis was that it's a composite of 3 or 4 separate images - the skyline, the airplane and the 'tourist' (the railing may be another image or part of the same one as the figure). Magnified using photo software apparently shows clear artifacts (the distortions left by software) between the elements.
But let us suspend credibility for a moment, assume it is genuine and somehow escaped from the disaster. Whoever had it had one of the most incredible photos ever taken. So it would presumably be easy to choose between:
a) giving it to the authorities,
b) selling it to Time or whoever for a small fortune, or
c) posting it for free on the web !
BTW. There's another one making the rounds - the 'Angel' photo, in which a large bird (a heron by consensus) flying past the ruins is touted as being a guardian angel or the angel of death. Does look remarkably like an angel I must admit.
[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]
The analysis was that it's a composite of 3 or 4 separate images - the skyline, the airplane and the 'tourist' (the railing may be another image or part of the same one as the figure). Magnified using photo software apparently shows clear artifacts (the distortions left by software) between the elements.
But let us suspend credibility for a moment, assume it is genuine and somehow escaped from the disaster. Whoever had it had one of the most incredible photos ever taken. So it would presumably be easy to choose between:
a) giving it to the authorities,
b) selling it to Time or whoever for a small fortune, or
c) posting it for free on the web !
BTW. There's another one making the rounds - the 'Angel' photo, in which a large bird (a heron by consensus) flying past the ruins is touted as being a guardian angel or the angel of death. Does look remarkably like an angel I must admit.
[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of the font used for the date time stamp - magnify the picture in extremis (say 800 times) and all the picture shows up as lots of sqare blobs(pixels) At this magnification even straight lines have jagged edges - all except the date time stamp. This is a clear indication that the item was superimposed electronically, and was not part of a photograph that was scanned.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Out of this world...............
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You ask a very good question TAT.
It's so that even sadder gits can debate whether this could possibly be real and then debate whether the detractors are really government agents determined to hide the truth.
I write this from my secure bunker at the JFK centre for paranormal research and debunking, where, with the assistance of my colleague, Elvis A. Presley, we monitor these things.
Must rush though, got a Chemtrail flight to get completed now!
It's so that even sadder gits can debate whether this could possibly be real and then debate whether the detractors are really government agents determined to hide the truth.
I write this from my secure bunker at the JFK centre for paranormal research and debunking, where, with the assistance of my colleague, Elvis A. Presley, we monitor these things.
Must rush though, got a Chemtrail flight to get completed now!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: downtown dustbowl
Age: 47
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. shadows do not match. there is no shadow on the right wing.
2. the a/c was on a 15-20 degree bank at time of impact. this a/c is straight and level.
3. if you see a plane hurtling towards you i don't think you would be snapping pics.
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: av8r76 ]
2. the a/c was on a 15-20 degree bank at time of impact. this a/c is straight and level.
3. if you see a plane hurtling towards you i don't think you would be snapping pics.
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: av8r76 ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N. Ireland U.K.
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DUHHHHH - why does nobody think of the rather extremely obvious in such matters. Anyone in the tower above the crash point had next to NO chance of survival, let alone their camera. If anyone had taken ANY sort of photos let alone something like this, where they would have been most likely to have disappeared FAST if they saw that in the viewfinder, the film/camera would have melted in the ensuing heat regardless. Or perhaps this was the same person who 'rode down the cascading debris to land on the ground with next to no injuries?????'.
Think, people think - those who put such pictures together (and snopes have shown how) are relishing all this discussion about how excellent they apparently are at deceiving us all!
TR
Think, people think - those who put such pictures together (and snopes have shown how) are relishing all this discussion about how excellent they apparently are at deceiving us all!
TR
Paxing All Over The World
A glance says that this is wrong. The light on the ac is wildly different to the prevailing light. That is before you go on to say that the two aircraft that crashed were both banking at the time of (what we should call) 'final' approach.
It is certainly NOT the public gallery of the WTC, as the guard rails completely enclosed the walkway, to prevent folks leaping of being pushed/falling off.
It is certainly NOT the public gallery of the WTC, as the guard rails completely enclosed the walkway, to prevent folks leaping of being pushed/falling off.
