can buildings grow 30%

[slaveplanet]

can pictures lie?.. why would fakes be widely distributed? ..questions, questions

mp3-

http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews050330.mp3

pics-

http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/PhotoFakingTheWTCFall.htm

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1. Thanks for posting this. More food for thought, and this kind of blew

me away. The album cover that was done before 9/11.

[Make7]

2. Composition: Putting Things in Perspective

Perspective on the comparison of these photos shown side by side here:

?click

Excerpts from http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/composition-perspective.html:

Composition: Putting Things in Perspective

Size and Distance - One Object

...the linear size of an object in an image is inversely proportional to our distance from it. In other words, if we keep our focal length the same but step back from our subject to double our distance from it, the size of our subject will shrink by fifty percent. Cut our distance to the subject by half and it will double in size (height and width, not area)...

Perspective - Two or More Objects

...Now let's add a second identical object. If we place it twice as far from the camera as our first object, we know that it will appear half the size. If instead we place it halfway between the camera and our first subject, it will look to be twice as big as the first...

...If we start with one object 10 feet away and a second identical one 20 feet away (twice as far) it will appear half the size of the first. If we now move twice as close to the first object so it is now only five feet away, it will now appear twice as big as it started out. But what happens to our second object? The distance to it will now have changed from 20 feet to only 15 feet. This new distance is only three-fourths of the original distance so the second object will appear 4/3 (the inverse of three-fourths) of its original size. Relative to the second object then, we made the first object appear bigger than it did, and we did so simply by moving closer, without changing lenses at all...

It is obvious, in the picture on the left, that the top of tower is closer relative to the building in the foreground because it is leaning towards it as it is collapsing. This change in distance will make the top of the building appear slightly larger compared to the foreground building.

One big problem with comparing these two pictures side by side is that they don't appear to be taken from the same location. Unless we know the location each photo was taken from, it will be difficult to tell how the different perspectives and angles will change the apparent sizes of the buildings in the photos.

But surely those differences can't account for a 30% change in the apparent size - can it? No, it can't. But there isn't a 30% change in size in the left photo compared to the right. If you don't believe me, get a ruler, measure it, and do the math. Tell me what you find.

-Make7

[MrSammo1]

3. Why not?

Just add lies as you like.....say them enough and they become truth!
===============================================================
In Bushworld, jets vaporize or pulverize into nothingness.
In Bushworld, F-15's don't do their job.
In Bushworld, jet wings fold.
In Bushworld, the laws of physics can change....as needed.
In Bushworld, terrorist hijackers that fly jets into building, can still be alive.
In Bushworld, Osama Bin Laden can change the size of his nose.
In Bushworld, only the FBI can understand what Osama says in videos.
In Bushworld, Osama's relatives don't need to be questioned, and can be allowed to fly out of the US when no one else can.
In Bushworld, steel structure buildings implode demolish style and fall at or faster than free fall speeds.
In Bushworld, steel has the same density as air.
In Bushworld, steel beams don't bend, but break into 24 foot lengths.
In Bushworld, steel melts at 500 degrees Fahrenheit.
In Bushworld, if anyone doesn't buy the lies surrounding 9/11, he isn't a patriot.
===============================================================

[Make7]

4. "Just add lies as you like...

...say them enough and they become truth!"
______________________________________

Sounds like fun, let me try some lies!

• "The top of that building, folks, is too big. It's way too big. It's not just a little bit big, it's awfully big. And it hasn't had time to fall a great deal in order for the perspective to change and it to appear larger, or anything, though it's substantially the same distance away, and yet, it's substantially too big. It's at least thirty percent too big." - Fintan Dunne
  
  
  • (It isn't even close to 30% larger. Measure it yourself if you don't believe me.)
    ?pic
  
  
  
• "The first impact, on the North Tower, that was smack in the middle of the tower. So, the plane was in level flight and it went smack into the middle of the tower." - Fintan Dunne
  
  
  • (Actually, the right wing was much higher than the left.)
    ?pic
  
  
  
• The buildings actually fell at, or faster, than free fall speeds:
  
  
  • The twin towers free fall speed would be 9.22 seconds. This researcher calculates it at "about 13-16 seconds" here:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/freefall.html
    
    
  • Free fall speed for WTC7 is 5.95 seconds, but here it is stated that it took 6.5 seconds:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/vertical.html

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

5. I´m all with you

here make 7.

I can´t believe that Fintan Dunne came up with this nonsense.

( Wouldn´t call it deliberate lying though. He probably believes he´s right. )

[Make7]

10. It doesn't make any sense to make up stuff like this...

...that can be so easily disproven. And I find it hard to accept that he actually believes this particular issue of those collapse photos being faked. Although you may be correct in thinking that he does. Either way though, it is more harmful than beneficial to what he is trying to accomplish.

With so many real issues that should be addressed, this is just a waste of people's time.

-Make7

[spooked911]

6. I lost respect for Fintan Dunne when he had Phil Jayhan on (the pod guy)

(of Let'sRoll911) and took his claims seriously.

I can't get the file to play-- what is the claim here, that the perspective is off?

What crap.

Why would anyone bother to fake these picture anyway? I don't get it.

[demodewd]

9. re: Phil Jaylan the "pod guy"

You aren't a podperson?

[spooked911]

7. Listening to the show now.

His arguments about the photos are totally unconvincing.

His thesis that faked photos of the tower tilting provide a good explanation for the pancake collapse model is more reasonable.

However, how would you expect to get away with faked photos? Aren't there many videos of the collapse out there that would show the photos were fake?

Now he's saying the news videos of the tower collapse may have been faked in REAL TIME.

Okaaay. Riiight.

[spooked911]

8. Actually, the whole thing is silly since if you think explosives were used

why can't the explosives have caused the top to tilt initially? Particularly if explosives were used to take out the core near where the plane hit, then one might expect some uneveness in how the top section came down since one side had a big loss of support.

Thus, there is no clear reason why the photos are faked.