Do you know this man????

[oblongmelon]

This was sent to me in the mail today. The camera with this film was found by a volunteer near the WTC, and they developed the film. This picture was on it.
...well I can't get the picture to work..so I'll find someone who can..OC? can you get it up?

[coleslaw]

I have seen that picture before and I am convinced that it is fake. The shadow of the man indicates that the sun is behind and slightly to the right of the photographer, yet there is no shadow of the plane cast onto the buildings below.

Unless someone can verify its authenticity, I will remain self-convinced of editing.

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by coleslaw
I have seen that picture before and I am convinced that it is fake. The shadow of the man indicates that the sun is behind and slightly to the right of the photographer, yet there is no shadow of the plane cast onto the buildings below.

Unless someone can verify its authenticity, I will remain self-convinced of editing.
actually there is a shadow from the plane.

[Nija]

uhh what picture?

Nija

[Twilight]

Nevermind, see post below.

[DoPeY5007]

Originally posted by Nija
uhh what picture?

Nija

I'm with you on this one :hmm:

[OC]

Sorry Obby - more DSL issues.
http://www.jeffharbert.com/missing.jpg

[DoPeY5007]

Originally posted by oblongmelon

actually there is a shadow from the plane.

I am not realy see'n a shadow for the plane, to many buildings... :eek:

[Twilight]

Ok let's think about this:

1. Unlikely that a camera made it down from the observation deck and was found.

2. Obby said the volunteers found it and had it developed, which could not have happened, because everything is evidence and taken in by the FBI.

3. If the FBI processed the film and released the image, it would have been on CNN and such, or held until they could ID him themselves and notify relatives.

4. The date stamp on the photo looks wrong to me. Usually they are more orange, are smaller, and the numbers are thicker.

5. Don't you think the photographer would have noticed a plane coming up on the building like that and been too distracted to take the photo?

6. Who here has been to the observation deck? Not me, but I'm guessing that the railing is more substantial than what's in the photo; my guess is that the photo wasn't even taken from the WTC.

7. Again, I haven't been to WTC, but isn't the observation deck not at the top, and the plane hit close to the top, which makes the plane too low in the photo.

8. It's an AA plane, which means it would have had to have been the first building, and in the video I've seen on CNN the sun is shining on the side of the building that was hit, so the photo is incorrect.

[BrewMaster]

Does anyone from NY know the skyline from the observation deck? Is the plane coming form the right direction?

I agree also that this camera would have been evidence and probably would not have survived the fall anyway.

[topane]

Well, since it's on the internet, it must be real. People never fake pics online. :rolleyes:

[Anck Su Namun]

Where did you find that pic? I would say it's fake, sinply because the chances of finding a camera in the rubble are miniscual. But you never know.

[fakesurfers]

that picture is soooooooooo fake :laugh:

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by Twilight
Ok let's think about this:

1. Unlikely that a camera made it down from the observation deck and was found.

What makes its so unlikely that a camera couldn't be found? People are still finding things that flew off the building for blocks around the sight. A camera which is pretty lightweight if I remember correctly would have the ability to be thrown with such velocity that it could land just about anywhere.

2. Obby said the volunteers found it and had it developed, which could not have happened, because everything is evidence and taken in by the FBI.
If you care to read-I definately stated...THIS WAS SENT TO ME IN THE MAIL TODAY. The sentence that follows it was the same that was on THE EMAIL that I recieved. so OBBY did not say-the person who originally forwarded the emails to the 14 different levels of people that got it before me 'SAID'..

3. If the FBI processed the film and released the image, it would have been on CNN and such, or held until they could ID him themselves and notify relatives.
Just because someone VOLUNTEERS doesn't make them have to be a member of the FBI. Where are you getting from that the FBI processed the film? And as far as notifying relatives..how can they notify relatives of someone they have no clue who it is?

4. The date stamp on the photo looks wrong to me. Usually they are more orange, are smaller, and the numbers are thicker.
Glad to know you are aware of the numeric system for every film developer in the nation. All processors have their own style. Some do not even USE dates on photo's at all. So please don't assume that all photo's are all alike when they are developed

5. Don't you think the photographer would have noticed a plane coming up on the building like that and been too distracted to take the photo?
Obviously you've never been to NY. Maybe thats EXACTLY why the photographer took the picture..just like all possible tourists..they take pictures of everything.

6. Who here has been to the observation deck? Not me, but I'm guessing that the railing is more substantial than what's in the photo; my guess is that the photo wasn't even taken from the WTC.
It's a railing. it Is POSSIBLE You know..just like with the empire state building that the floor level of where the person is standing EXTENDS past the railing. Since I've never been to the top of the WTC I wouldn't know. And one would think that roller coasters would not be allowed on top of high story buildings but they are. and they are not fenced in.

7. Again, I haven't been to WTC, but isn't the observation deck not at the top, and the plane hit close to the top, which makes the plane too low in the photo.
Is it POSSIBLE perhaps that this is NOT the top floor? THAT perhaps there may be a floor or two above it?

8. It's an AA plane, which means it would have had to have been the first building, and in the video I've seen on CNN the sun is shining on the side of the building that was hit, so the photo is incorrect.
Actually, here is a picture of the first building that was hit-near the top, ON the side it was hit. and as you can see the sun is DEF not shining on the side that was hit but instead the right side of the building (if you were standing on the building where the man in the original picture is, which would reinforce the direction of his shadow.. Also you will notice in close proximity a helicopter. Which reinforces the fact that aircraft did fly near the buildings. And probably more than once before the buildings were hit.
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/wtc/3.html
I believe the caption of this thread is DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN..not TWILIGHTS SINGLE BULLET THEORY..do you ever think before you speak?

UPDATE. I FOUND THIS LINK AND I THINK YOU SHOULD SEE THE VIDEO OF THE OBSERVATION DECK ON THE TOP OF THE WTC.
http://topoftheworld.citysearch.com/3.html
http://topoftheworld.citysearch.com/ info about the observation deck.
and also..if you scroll down and read to the bottom..
http://www.fieldtrip.com/ny/24357379.htm

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by topane
Well, since it's on the internet, it must be real. People never fake pics online. :rolleyes:

:heh:

[Burzhui]

the planes where not in this position when they hit the buildings :)
the were slanted

[oblongmelon]

and yet...the single bullet theory continues..maybe it is a real picture. maybe not. simply put-ITS A PICTURE.

[attgig]

Ok let's think about this:

1. Unlikely that a camera made it down from the observation deck and was found.

What makes its so unlikely that a camera couldn't be found? People are still finding things that flew off the building for blocks around the sight. A camera which is pretty lightweight if I remember correctly would have the ability to be thrown with such velocity that it could land just about anywhere.
yeah, if it did land far from the building....the force with which it hit the ground would've cracked open the camera, exposing the film


2. Obby said the volunteers found it and had it developed, which could not have happened, because everything is evidence and taken in by the FBI.
If you care to read-I definately stated...THIS WAS SENT TO ME IN THE MAIL TODAY. The sentence that follows it was the same that was on THE EMAIL that I recieved. so OBBY did not say-the person who originally forwarded the emails to the 14 different levels of people that got it before me 'SAID'..
ok, mass chain e-mails....they are always real....

3. If the FBI processed the film and released the image, it would have been on CNN and such, or held until they could ID him themselves and notify relatives.
Just because someone VOLUNTEERS doesn't make them have to be a member of the FBI. Where are you getting from that the FBI processed the film? And as far as notifying relatives..how can they notify relatives of someone they have no clue who it is?
i think that anyone who volunteers, well, notifies authorities if they find something, unless they're looting.....well...


4. The date stamp on the photo looks wrong to me. Usually they are more orange, are smaller, and the numbers are thicker.
Glad to know you are aware of the numeric system for every film developer in the nation. All processors have their own style. Some do not even USE dates on photo's at all. So please don't assume that all photo's are all alike when they are developed
actually, isn't it the camera's that put the date on it, not the processors.....rite??? How can the developer know what date the picture was taken??? (could've been taken over a period of days/weeks/months....the camera's themsleves have an option of putting the date on or not....and most camera's don't look like that...I agree with twilight that they don't look like the standard font, but, hey, u never know.


5. Don't you think the photographer would have noticed a plane coming up on the building like that and been too distracted to take the photo?
Obviously you've never been to NY. Maybe thats EXACTLY why the photographer took the picture..just like all possible tourists..they take pictures of everything.
yeah, like a plane that's about to ram into them....i dunno, even NY'ers or tourists would react.....any normal/sane human being would react...


6. Who here has been to the observation deck? Not me, but I'm guessing that the railing is more substantial than what's in the photo; my guess is that the photo wasn't even taken from the WTC.
It's a railing. it Is POSSIBLE You know..just like with the empire state building that the floor level of where the person is standing EXTENDS past the railing. Since I've never been to the top of the WTC I wouldn't know. And one would think that roller coasters would not be allowed on top of high story buildings but they are. and they are not fenced in.
Empire state building, doesn't that have a fence around the whole thing, about 10 feet high???? (just from my memories and thinking of sleepless in seattle :) and yeah, I never went to the top of wtc

[oblongmelon]

Actually-the camera could have withstood smashing on impact depending on what kind of debris it was carried with-or landed on. Once again, no one said the picture was REAL.As far as mass emails...whatever..some contain real info that is forwarded..some is just crap in general.
As far as people finding things and reporting them. Some people would steal the shoes off your feet if they think it's something they want desperately enough-CBS news had people on TV the other night gathering vials of dust and ashes from the ground, from directly after the hits happened. So imagine what a camera would do for someone who wanted a piece of the action.
Yes you are right about the camera putting the date on..but also practiced is developers adding the dates on pictures of the date of developement. Some add none at all. Since most cameras that DO insert the date are not on a regulatory kind of standards that I am aware of-it's safe to say that there can be many different types of fonts.
and yes-the empire statebuilding does have a fence around it..but it also has a floor that extends out past where the actual 'rail' thingy is..if you take a look at the video that I found of the WTC observation tower-you'll see that they not only don't have a fence around the rail, but what looks like a second rail is actually on a lower level and sticking out from the building at a slight \ angle..kind of like a catch fence down below..Anyway...just like the picture of SATAN in the flames..everyone is going to have their own opinion..I have no knowledge of whether or not the picture is real or fake, It was simply posted as it was interesting to see...and quite honestly I've spent enought time arguing this point. Think what you will, believe it or not. I could care less at this point. Not everything you think is fake IS, just as everything you think is REAL is..it can go either way. So please...flame away.waste your entire day flaming as a matter of fact...I'm done with this post. I have to head off to work.

[oblongmelon]

.

[Jpeace121]

From snopes.com

Link (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/crash.htm)

Origins: A grim sense of humor and digital photo manipulation skills can produce some interesting results these days:

This picture is suspect beyond credibility because September 11 was warm and sunny, not the type of day on which a tourist would have been decked out in a winter coat and hat. As well, the airliner in this picture is approaching from the north and would therefore have been the one which hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, but the north tower did not have an outdoor observation deck -- the south tower included an indoor observation deck on the 107th floor and an outdoor deck above the 110th floor, but the north tower housed Windows on the World, an indoor restaurant with a magnificent view of the city. In any case, the operating hours in September for the World Trade Center observatories were 9:30 A.M. to 9:30 P.M., meaning they opened too late for a tourist to have been present on one before the first plane hit at 8:49 A.M.

Other points to ponder include whether a camera would have survived the crash, fire, and fall intact, and whether the airplane depicted shouldn't appear larger and blurrier. (The shadows in the picture also seem to indicate a sun in the southeast, but the reflections on the plane look as though they were made by a sun in the southwest.)

[Jihforce]

Man, who made this image? Talk about crappy photoshop skills. The lighting on the plane is off. Notice there's no reflection of the building on the plane? Besides, the angle is kind of off.
Whoever did this, don't quit your day job.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Jihforce
Man, who made this image? Talk about crappy photoshop skills. The lighting on the plane is off. Notice there's no reflection of the building on the plane? Besides, the angle is kind of off.
Whoever did this, don't quit your day job.

i dint think it was very crappy. yeah, it was probably fake, but a lot of the "xxx therefore it MUST be fake" arguments are a bit more confidently stated than is warranted. and i'm too lazy and inept at this kind of thing to analyze it myself, imma just sit back and assume it's a fake until i hear proof that it is real... i think it's likely enough faked that the burden of proof is on the "it's real" argument. my two cents.

[Butch]

It looks like the view is facing North from the WTC. The planes struck from the South.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by welfareloser

i dint think it was very crappy. yeah, it was probably fake, but a lot of the "xxx therefore it MUST be fake" arguments are a bit more confidently stated than is warranted.


I work with photoshop on a daily basis (its my job) and its kind of easy for me to spot fake photos. The fact the image is so grainy tells you something as well. The biggest things that throws it off its the lighting of the plane (too bright) and the date display. I have yet to see a camera that displays such huge dates on the lower right hand corner.
Also, as Butch says, the planes struck from the south. The plane in this pic is coming from the northwest. If it indeed was the south, you should be seeing the ocean or jersey, not middle manhattan (I see the empire state building there).
Also, I didn't know the observation deck was open before 9am.
My two cents. :P

[Twilight]

You need to calm down. I wasn't flaming. I was presenting my thoughts on the photo; afterall, I'm a photojournalist, and I do know a thing or two about photo manipulation.



1. Unlikely that a camera made it down from the observation deck and was found.

What makes its so unlikely that a camera couldn't be found? People are still finding things that flew off the building for blocks around the sight. A camera which is pretty lightweight if I remember correctly would have the ability to be thrown with such velocity that it could land just about anywhere.

While I haven't been to the site myself, I've heard from a number of photographers who have been at the site (heard from them through a photojournalism listserv, where they are talking about accessing the site for media purposes), and the area is fairly well roped off. Everything that is found is evidence, and the authorities are aware of how far the debris are scattered. I don't think people are running off with too much stuff.



2. Obby said the volunteers found it and had it developed, which could not have happened, because everything is evidence and taken in by the FBI.

If you care to read-I definately stated...THIS WAS SENT TO ME IN THE MAIL TODAY. The sentence that follows it was the same that was on THE EMAIL that I recieved. so OBBY did not say-the person who originally forwarded the emails to the 14 different levels of people that got it before me 'SAID'..
You are the person who relayed the information. I wasn't trying to imply that "Obby said and obby has verified..."



3. If the FBI processed the film and released the image, it would have been on CNN and such, or held until they could ID him themselves and notify relatives.

Just because someone VOLUNTEERS doesn't make them have to be a member of the FBI. Where are you getting from that the FBI processed the film? And as far as notifying relatives..how can they notify relatives of someone they have no clue who it is?
If the volunteers found the evidence, I would assume they'd have to turn it over to the FBI/authorities, and they would then develop the film. FBI can notify relatives because there are lists of who is missing and relatives have provided photographs of the missing. There are very few cases where the authorities will release a photo of someone who they assume dead. What would even be the purpose of them releasing the photo? They haven't found the person, just a photo of the person.



4. The date stamp on the photo looks wrong to me. Usually they are more orange, are smaller, and the numbers are thicker.

Glad to know you are aware of the numeric system for every film developer in the nation. All processors have their own style. Some do not even USE dates on photo's at all. So please don't assume that all photo's are all alike when they are developed
"All processors have their own style" - It's the camera that puts the date on the negative, not the developer/processor. The camera exposes a tiny portion of the film via an internal LED with the correct date setting. It shows up in the prints because the film was overexposed in this tiny portion, with the date. The processor cannot add a date because the developing machines cannot sense where one photo starts and ends on a piece of film as it's being developed. Some processors will print the date that the prints were made on the back of the prints, but I have never seen a processor itself that can make any kind of date print on the front of a print.



5. Don't you think the photographer would have noticed a plane coming up on the building like that and been too distracted to take the photo?

Obviously you've never been to NY. Maybe thats EXACTLY why the photographer took the picture..just like all possible tourists..they take pictures of everything.
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been to NYC. How can you make the assumption that I haven't been to NYC? Furthermore, if you saw a jumbo jet heading directly for the building you were standing on, I think the last thing you'd be thinking about is taking that photo. I'm a news photojournalist, trained to keep taking photos no matter what happens, and I venture to say that if this happened to me I may not have snapped the image. There would be an instant panic and instinct to run, even though it's not going to do any good.



6. Who here has been to the observation deck? Not me, but I'm guessing that the railing is more substantial than what's in the photo; my guess is that the photo wasn't even taken from the WTC.

It's a railing. it Is POSSIBLE You know..just like with the empire state building that the floor level of where the person is standing EXTENDS past the railing. Since I've never been to the top of the WTC I wouldn't know. And one would think that roller coasters would not be allowed on top of high story buildings but they are. and they are not fenced in.
Anything is possible. I'm not saying I'm right and this is the only possibly solution - that's why I said "I'm guessing..." Roller coasters on top of high story buildings? What are you talking about?



7. Again, I haven't been to WTC, but isn't the observation deck not at the top, and the plane hit close to the top, which makes the plane too low in the photo.

Is it POSSIBLE perhaps that this is NOT the top floor? THAT perhaps there may be a floor or two above it?
What is your arguement? I don't even understand what you're saying.



8. It's an AA plane, which means it would have had to have been the first building, and in the video I've seen on CNN the sun is shining on the side of the building that was hit, so the photo is incorrect.

I believe the caption of this thread is DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN..not TWILIGHTS SINGLE BULLET THEORY..do you ever think before you speak?
Yes, I put a lot of thought into what I said. Why am I not allowed, in your mind, to debate what could or could not have happened? Should I be taking everything you say, or get in a random email, as the truth? I don't understand why you're so defensive!! I didn't say *I* was right, or that you were wrong, I just presented my take on things.

[Burzhui]

Oh yea by the way you see the date and stuff, if any of you know how cameras with digital date imprint work, the small area around the date will be destorted just a little bit because of the access light, here it's not distorted... therefore it's another way to see that it's fake

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Jihforce


I work with photoshop on a daily basis (its my job) and its kind of easy for me to spot fake photos. The fact the image is so grainy tells you something as well. The biggest things that throws it off its the lighting of the plane (too bright) and the date display. I have yet to see a camera that displays such huge dates on the lower right hand corner.
Also, as Butch says, the planes struck from the south. The plane in this pic is coming from the northwest. If it indeed was the south, you should be seeing the ocean or jersey, not middle manhattan (I see the empire state building there).
Also, I didn't know the observation deck was open before 9am.
My two cents. :P

i dunno about it seeming too grainy (could be the scan) or too bright - a plane is highly reflective, and a far away smoggy city isn't gonna look as shiny as a close up plane - i'll take your word for it, just saying it doesn't look obvious to me. and if you know for sure what direction the planes were going and what direction that pic shows, that's pretty concrete.

oh, and i have seen a camera that had a date stamp exactly like that one. it was a long time ago, in europe, one of my friends' dad's camera...

[Markel]

Originally posted by Twilight
Roller coasters on top of high story buildings? What are you talking about?
Perhaps the Stratosphere in Las Vegas?

[welfareloser]

twilight and obby, at the risk of pissing you both off...

twilight made some good points, and also overstated some points. obby picked at all the points, good and bad. then the flamefest starts... nobody's wrong, we're all making guesses based on experience, it's impossible to win with these points that hinge on "most likely" and "nearly impossible" type of evidence... just sayin, imo, flamefests are best reserved for extreme cases of dumbassery, to be used sparingly, not every time someone you don't like opens their mouth...

*group hug* :)

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by oblongmelon

6. Who here has been to the observation deck? Not me, but I'm guessing that the railing is more substantial than what's in the photo; my guess is that the photo wasn't even taken from the WTC.
It's a railing. it Is POSSIBLE You know..just like with the empire state building that the floor level of where the person is standing EXTENDS past the railing. Since I've never been to the top of the WTC I wouldn't know. And one would think that roller coasters would not be allowed on top of high story buildings but they are. and they are not fenced in.


Just wanted say that the top of the WTC has tall white fences at the edge that extend maybe about 5-6 feet high. So technically you should be able to see the fence if you took a picture at the roof. I went in May of 2000 so I would say that's pretty recent.



7. Again, I haven't been to WTC, but isn't the observation deck not at the top, and the plane hit close to the top, which makes the plane too low in the photo.
Is it POSSIBLE perhaps that this is NOT the top floor? THAT perhaps there may be a floor or two above it?


The floor below the roof is an indoor observation deck. It extends out a little bit more than the actual building so that you can stare down to the streets through this platform that is up against the glass. There are stores and restaurants there. Not to mention a virtual helicopter ride. :) The WTC doesn't have an outdoor floor expect the roof, from what I recall anyway.
Just thought I'd clarify that.

[The Happy Squirrel]

um yeah can prove the picture is fake

considering the plane is a northwest plane
and not a united or delta

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by The Happy Squirrel
um yeah can prove the picture is fake

considering the plane is a northwest plane
and not a united or delta

:heh: i was wondering if it was from the right airline earlier, but fogot to ask if anyone knew...

[Markel]

Originally posted by The Happy Squirrel
um yeah can prove the picture is fake

considering the plane is a northwest plane
and not a united or delta
HUH? Since when did Delta come into this? The whole Sept. 11 incidents involved United and American jets. The picture certainly looks like an American (unpainted shiny-bodied) jet with the stripes they use.

[welfareloser]

even things ppl have stated as fact, they don't really knows for sure... so far ppl have stated "for certain" that the plane came from this or that direction, that it was this or that airline, etc.

it's probly fake. 'nuff said. sorry, i just don't want to see this turn into a fight, too.

[eSDee]

Yes I do know that man. His name is Glen and he delivers Pizza in San Diego. He was fine last night when he brought me a deep dish vegetarian pie,so in conclusion the picture is a fake. Thread dead.

[Markel]

Originally posted by EsDeeLoco Yes I do know that man. His name is Glen and he delivers Pizza in San Diego. He was fine last night when he brought me a deep dish vegetarian pie,so in conclusion the picture is a fake. Thread dead.
Thanks for clearing this up.

[mojo]

Originally posted by EsDeeLoco
Yes I do know that man. His name is Glen and he delivers Pizza in San Diego. He was fine last night when he brought me a deep dish vegetarian pie,so in conclusion the picture is a fake. Thread dead.

esdee is eating vegetarian? :eek: isn't that a sign of apocalypse?


in other news...imma say that it's prolly fake. but the thing about "how could a camera make it down intact"....i know this one: it had the padding of a whole person's body. this is grim, i know..but if they can find intact body parts, then who is to say that they can't find an intact camera from within one of those parts or even thrown free?

as for the rest of the deal, imma keep my mouth shut cuz i just dont know for sure.

[Tuvi]

Originally posted by EsDeeLoco
Yes I do know that man. His name is Glen and he delivers Pizza in San Diego. He was fine last night when he brought me a deep dish vegetarian pie,so in conclusion the picture is a fake. Thread dead. wow, the gf is even changing your eating habits too!

[eSDee]

Originally posted by m0j0
esdee is eating vegetarian? isn't that a sign of apocalypse

Originally posted by Tuvi
wow, the gf is even changing your eating habits too!

Hey I always used to eat veggie pizzas even before I had a vegetarian girlfriend. No way is any woman ever gonna change me! I am EsDee, hear me roar!

/me hopes they don't see me in my new Tommy Hilfiger gear :sad:

[Jpeace121]

Wow, did this thread ever get crazy. And people wonder why overclocked left. Maybe everyone should just take a day off from the forums and go outside and get some fresh air (if you can find any).

[Mike_N_Ike]

I personally think that pic is fake for a lot of reasons already posted. A five year old could have done that in photoshop.

My roommate altered it a little bit further if anyone's interested.
click here and scroll down (http://www.xsentrik.com/xforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180)

[The Happy Squirrel]

um ya thats what meant american not delta

but either way its still a fake

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Mike_N_Ike
I personally think that pic is fake for a lot of reasons already posted. A five year old could have done that in photoshop.

My roommate altered it a little bit further if anyone's interested.
click here and scroll down (http://www.xsentrik.com/xforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180)

pshaw. obvious fake. taht model of flying saucer doesn't even HAVE a tractor beam. duh. you're all stupid if you believe that. and i know you all thought it was real and i was the only one who knew it was fake so nyeah nyeah nyeah...

[Kenas]

Originally posted by Butch
It looks like the view is facing North from the WTC. The planes struck from the South.

Actually north tower was hit from the north, but this is fake, first, it was god damn hot that day, I got burnt. And second of all this is the north tower, there was no observation deck on the north tower.

[ChrisMG187]

Who cares? It's not like you can't tell it's fake. Give it a rest. Jeez.

[El Scorcho]

The obby/twilight saga continues...


:heh:

[El Scorcho]

Originally posted by oblongmelon
..OC? can you get it up?

yeah oc... CAN you get it up? :heh:

[El Scorcho]

Originally posted by Jpeace121
From snopes.com

Link (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/crash.htm)

Origins: A grim sense of humor and digital photo manipulation skills can produce some interesting results these days:

This picture is suspect beyond credibility because September 11 was warm and sunny, not the type of day on which a tourist would have been decked out in a winter coat and hat. As well, the airliner in this picture is approaching from the north and would therefore have been the one which hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, but the north tower did not have an outdoor observation deck -- the south tower included an indoor observation deck on the 107th floor and an outdoor deck above the 110th floor, but the north tower housed Windows on the World, an indoor restaurant with a magnificent view of the city. In any case, the operating hours in September for the World Trade Center observatories were 9:30 A.M. to 9:30 P.M., meaning they opened too late for a tourist to have been present on one before the first plane hit at 8:49 A.M.

Other points to ponder include whether a camera would have survived the crash, fire, and fall intact, and whether the airplane depicted shouldn't appear larger and blurrier. (The shadows in the picture also seem to indicate a sun in the southeast, but the reflections on the plane look as though they were made by a sun in the southwest.)

game...set...match