To: Efraty
Re: Reuters: Is this not a THIRD?
The ?third-doctored picture was by the same notorious "photographer"
and has the same distinctive smoke pattern. Does it not?
5 posted on
08/07/2006 9:30:13 AM PDT by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: Diogenesis
Methinks you are jesting.
Isn't that the perp (Adnan Hajj) in the photo himself?
8 posted on
08/07/2006 9:31:23 AM PDT by
tom h
To: Diogenesis
Looks viable to me, i.e. not doctored.
The "cloning" in the first withdrawn photo is friggin' obvious to anyone who has actually doctored a photo that way. This photo's smoke looks properly natural.
(Could be wrong; that's just from a glance at a shrunk image.)
To: Diogenesis
The talk is that this one is indeed a fake as well, but the smoke is not the big clue. (IMO it is indeed suspcicious that black oil-fire smoke is pouring out of a lower apartment room hours at all, never mind that it's still pouring out apparently hours after the place has been devastated.)
Perspective is the *cough* smoking gun in this photo. Here you can't see anything but the porch for anything that's just four stories up. You'd have to be pretty close to the building to get that kind of perspective. Is this guy twenty feet in front of the Leaning Tower of Lebanon? This one's a composite of two separate shots.
23 posted on
08/07/2006 10:25:11 AM PDT by
jiggyboy
(Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
To: Diogenesis
Actually that photo might be staged. Look to the right of them man walking down and you can see flames that are to the right and to the front of the building.
Questions.
1. If those flames were caused by bombing, why are they in the outside rubble and not in the building?
2. If those flames are visible and accessible, why isn't there an effort to put them out?
3. If those flames are clearly visible, why is some guy in clean clothes walking from them?
Potential scenario: The man we are seeing helped set a fire and placed something on it that creates lots of smoke. The photographer takes several pictures but the smoke is so temporary, the best one is only seconds after it was lit.
28 posted on
08/07/2006 10:55:30 AM PDT by
Raycpa
To: Diogenesis
The third-doctored picture was by the same notorious "photographer" and has the same distinctive smoke pattern. Does it not? No, it does not.
29 posted on
08/07/2006 10:56:52 AM PDT by
HitmanLV
("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
To: Diogenesis
Staged?
32 posted on
08/07/2006 11:20:13 AM PDT by
Raycpa
To: Diogenesis
To: Diogenesis; Efraty
I'm not sure if this is real or not, but I just saw this one Reuters. Proported to be the last photo taken before Flight 11 hit the Twin Towers. Amazing if real, but again, I'm not sure.
41 posted on
08/07/2006 2:27:25 PM PDT by
presidio9
(“The term ‘civilians’ does not exist in Islamic religious law.”)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson