Edited images: the proof

[reel.deal]

.

[Heiwa]

Above photo shows a progressive global collapse of a skyscraper, i.e. a rigid, intact (but weak, lightweight) top part (C) - not seen in the smoke - is, we are told, crushing down the still intact, undamaged (strong, heavy) bottom part (A) - seen just below smoke - into rubble (B) - not seen in the smoke.
Reason why top part (C) is crushing bottom part (A) into rubble (B) is that supports of top part C got damaged so that top part C can crush down what is below, i.e. bottom part A only assisted by the force of gravity. This is the famous Bazant 'crush down'!
Why big pieces of rubble (B), e.g. wall panels - followed by dust/smoke - are falling outside bottom part (A) ahead of top part (C) is not really clear. Maybe the terrorist photo shotter got smoke in the eyes?
When bottom part (A) has become 100% rubble (B) - it takes about 15 seconds - rubble (B) destroys top part (C) in a so called Bazant 'crush up'. It can never be seen due to smoke.
Actually you wonder where all the smoke and dust comes from. It should be compressed into rubble (B).
Crush down and crush up of structures/skyscrapers are normal phenomenoms occuring all the time when the top (C) gets lose according to US agency National Institute to Support Terrorism, NIST.

[nonhocapito]

Above photo shows a progressive global collapse of a skyscraper...

Heiwa, once again, you're off topic! On this thread we are NOT really discussing what the pictures represent, but rather their digital content, and the tools more apt at spotting digital modifications. You should post your considerations about the collapse in the "9/11 digital simulation" forum, not here. Sorry if I repeat myself.

Oh feck it, here! The software found them!

That's exactly what that tool is for, to spot copy-paste on areas of the picture that are not too homogeneous. It seems that the tool works (a good reason to get gimp, I guess ), as long as we take its results with a grain of salt. It is an aid for our eyes more than a digital magic trick.

I just want to add that, being in this particular case the clone stamp all on the same side and not in the main part of the content (it obviously goes from top to bottom repeating the left side three times, to enlarge the picture or to cover some content on that side), it could be explained away with the need of a lazy photo editorialist to "stretch" the picture, as I noted on this post on page one: viewtopic.php?p=2358786#p2358786. In which case this single element might not be enough to claim fakery on what the picture represent, and more cumulative clues might be needed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm talking from a forensic point of view. The picture is obviously fake.

In any case, today, 10 years later, the picture can only be found in this state, with the left side stretched by copy-paste: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl= ... 61&bih=887
No trace of an original without copy-paste on the side, if it ever existed...

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, once again, you're off topic! On this thread we are NOT really discussing what the pictures represent, but rather their digital content, and the tools more apt at spotting digital modifications. You should post your considerations about the collapse in the "9/11 digital simulation" forum, not here. Sorry if I repeat myself.

OK, OK, I understand. Anyway, the digital content of any picture, film, photo, live on TV display or similar of a 40 meters long plane colliding at speed 200 meters/second speed with a stationary tower with a steel vertical columns grid wall supported by horizontal concrete floors 3.6 meters apart is FAKE, when plane slices through wall during 0.2 seconds and nothing else happens. Why is that?
Well, first the plane should have slowed down a lot after first contact with tower wall and most of it bounced back. Second the plane and its fuel tanks would be damaged at contact with tower and sliced off pieces of the plane and its fuel would also bounce back in all directions outside the wall and the fuel would ignite outside the stricken wall during the first 0.2-0.3 seconds. Third: that the plane, intact, can slice through the wall and produce an airplane hole and stop inside the tower within 0.3 seconds to explode and produce a fire ball is just Hollywood fantasy. The animators of all 911 fake pictures, films, photos, live on TV displays or similar of WTC 2 impact just made a stupid job. Same with all photographers and witnesses of the event. All FAKE!
I am an expert of ships colliding with oil tankers! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_collision.htm . All ships colliding with oil tankers slow down and get damaged themselves at and during contact and do not disappear inside and explode there a little later. Prove me wrong and earn €1M!

[pov603]

Just saw this on Yahoo!

http://games.yahoo.com/photos/fake-mini ... 63343.html

Shows 'photos' of 'real' locations made to look 'unreal' or 'miniature toy-like'.

Are people being 'prepped' for some revelations about photos of 'you-know-what'?

[pov603]

Also came across this link:
http://www.48hourfilm.com/
Apparently the competition is to write/film a short story in two days on the dates given below:

October 28th to 30th: Kuala Lumpur
November 4th to 6th: Geneva / Ho Chi Minh City / Mumbai
November 10th to 12th: Dubai
November 11th to 13th: Berlin
November 18th to 20th: Seville

I sure that it is 'innocent' enough [I know some people here in Dubai who are going to take part as they make films for a 'living', but just wondered with the upcoming alert in the US being planned and this meteorite/comet coming close whether it is to have people 'in place' with cameras when 'something' happens.
If asked what are they doing it will be we are taking part in the '48-hour-film' competition and so will be excused for having cameras at the ready.
Anyhow, it just caught my eye and seemed unusual enough [even though it has been held before] for me to post here.

[ukrberserker]

Unless we can hire an expert from say Eastman-Kodak or Fuji, I doubt if anyone will ever be able to prove any 9/11 images false. Yes, our common sense tells us they are false. But as one poster put it," would I trie to use these images in court." I spent 15 years studying criminal justice. I don't know how to use Photoshop, or manipulate digital photos. I did take classes in color, and black and white photography years ago in the Army. Digital is 100 times easier to manipulate, because it can all be done from a laptop. My smartphone has a PicSay program that I can edit images taken by my phone's camera. The Powers That Be will always have more resources, money, and accomplices in the media. We will never prove to the Man that his pics are fake. We only need to prove it to the common man who is under control of "the Man."

[burningame]

And that, my friend, is the hard part!

[reel.deal]

.