WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site.

[Oxymoron]

[Admin: Thread extracted from: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/50257
photo has been annotated to stop the mistake from spreading.]




http://911blogger.com/topics/wtc-7-0

In preparation for the 10th year anniversary of the 9/11 murders, the 9/11 Memorial has put up an online interactive 9/11 timeline. It hasn't been up more than 24 hours as of writing this.

I have not had much time to review it, but sure enough I noticed a major fault right away!
The timeline mentions the WTC# 7 "collapse" at 5:20pm and if you click on the images available for that time, you will see 3 pictures - one of them being the one shown below.

Content from External Source

Typical Bunk then.

So the guy was there was he as 7 fell?

 

[Mick West]

Yes, that photo is of the WTC5 fires [Edit: WTC 4]. Which does not invalidate the other photos of WTC7, of course.

 

[Oxymoron]

This type of blatant, insulting antagonism/biased tirade is really unproductive....

Yes about as unproductive as keep on saying about NIST not testing for termites or unicorns which most of you love congratulating and thanking fellow debunkers for posting such hilarious lulz.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

Content from External Source

So where are the pictures?

Bombdr posts an official picture purporting to be 7 right at the time of collapse when it looks like 5 or 6. There is video of the reporter walking all around 7 20 minutes before it collapses and all you see are a few piddling little fires on a couple of floors in about 10 windows per floor. The same pictures that have embarrassed them for the last 10 years.

So the 'official commeration posts fake pictures of an inferno because the lie must go on and we all know how people are too stupid to realise it is fake propaganda.

 

[Mick West]

Yes about as unproductive as keep on saying about NIST not testing for termites or unicorns which most of you love congratulating and thanking fellow debunkers for posting such hilarious lulz.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

Content from External Source

So where are the pictures?

Bombdr posts an official picture purporting to be 7 right at the time of collapse when it looks like 5 or 6. There is video of the reporter walking all around 7 20 minutes before it collapses and all you see are a few piddling little fires on a couple of floors in about 10 windows per floor. The same pictures that have embarrassed them for the last 10 years.

So the 'official commeration posts fake pictures of an inferno because the lie must go on and we all know how people are too stupid to realise it is fake propaganda.

Quite obviously it was just a mislabeled photo. Do you really think that it was deliberate? That it would not be spotted? Are you going to make this mislabeled photo a mainstay of your arguments from here on?

 

[Oxymoron]

Quite obviously it was just a mislabeled photo. Do you really think that it was deliberate? That it would not be spotted? Are you going to make this mislabeled photo a mainstay of your arguments from here on?

Well it certainly fooled the debunkers on here, the poster being a demolition expert and an officer in the British Army who attends high level meetings. Do you think any debunkers here would have rushed in going 'BombDr, no you cannot cite that they mislabelled it'? No they say 'Thank you for a useful post'.

It is all over the web as evidence of the inferno and how stupid the conspiracy theorists are in not beleiving that 7 collapsed from raging fires. There is the visual evidence to match the verbal evidence of the high ranking fire cheifs who stated that it was a raging inferno on all floors.

 

[SR1419]

Yes about as unproductive as keep on saying about NIST not testing for termites or unicorns which most of you love congratulating and thanking fellow debunkers for posting such hilarious lulz.

So that makes it right to insult anyone who agrees with the OS?

"sheeple"- really Oxy?

 

[SR1419]

Well it certainly fooled the debunkers on here, the poster being a demolition expert and an officer in the British Army who attends high level meetings. Do you think any debunkers here would have rushed in going 'BombDr, no you cannot cite that they mislabelled it'? No they say 'Thank you for a useful post'.

Actually I WAS just about to post a correction...

 

[Mick West]

It is all over the web as evidence of the inferno and how stupid the conspiracy theorists are in not beleiving that 7 collapsed from raging fires. There is the visual evidence to match the verbal evidence of the high ranking fire cheifs who stated that it was a raging inferno on all floors.

Quite the opposite actually, everywhere I saw that photo it was just conspiracy theorists gleefully leaping upon it as evidence of a cover up.



I'm afraid that really only shows how desperate they are for anything to support their case.

 

[BombDr]

Well it certainly fooled the debunkers on here, the poster being a demolition expert and an officer in the British Army who attends high level meetings. Do you think any debunkers here would have rushed in going 'BombDr, no you cannot cite that they mislabelled it'? No they say 'Thank you for a useful post'.

It is all over the web as evidence of the inferno and how stupid the conspiracy theorists are in not beleiving that 7 collapsed from raging fires. There is the visual evidence to match the verbal evidence of the high ranking fire cheifs who stated that it was a raging inferno on all floors.

Thank you for the correction, though not really sure how my job makes me less likely to mistake a mislabelled photo. I don't recall any meetings in which we discussed WTC7 captioning, or indeed discussed WTC7 at all. In any event I am still interested in your description of fires as 'piddling', so small the FDNY decided to abandon the task and declare the building unsalvageable.

Oxy, are you a firefighter?

 

[Mick West]

Actually I WAS just about to post a correction...

Yeah, I'd noticed it did not look like WTC7, I certainly would have remembered that photo if it was. I was going to look it up before Oxy posted his correction.

The photo seems to be looking west (so that's the East face of WTC5, with the flagpoles on Church Street. WTC7 would have been behind and to the right. I wonder if this is just a crop of a larger photo.

 

[Mick West]

A wider shot, looks like it's actually WTC4, so the truthers labeled it wrong too.



Context shot with WTC7 in background, before WTC2 collapse:

 

[SR1419]

Yeah, I'd noticed it did not look like WTC7, I certainly would have remembered that photo if it was. I was going to look it up before Oxy posted his correction.

The photo seems to be looking west (so that's the East face of WTC5, with the flagpoles on Church Street. WTC7 would have been behind and to the right. I wonder if this is just a crop of a larger photo.

I think its the building in the distance of this photo:

 

[lee h oswald]

Well it certainly fooled the debunkers on here, the poster being a demolition expert and an officer in the British Army who attends high level meetings. Do you think any debunkers here would have rushed in going 'BombDr, no you cannot cite that they mislabelled it'? No they say 'Thank you for a useful post'.

It is all over the web as evidence of the inferno and how stupid the conspiracy theorists are in not beleiving that 7 collapsed from raging fires. There is the visual evidence to match the verbal evidence of the high ranking fire cheifs who stated that it was a raging inferno on all floors.

Well it certainly fooled the debunkers on here, the poster being a demolition expert and an officer in the British Army who attends high level meetings. Do you think any debunkers here would have rushed in going 'BombDr, no you cannot cite that they mislabelled it'? No they say 'Thank you for a useful post'.

Ofcourse, O. There you've just desribed why such things are done - why such 'mistakes' are made. First in line are the 'goodthinkers' (and British Army officers are among the best of those) - those who want to seize on whatever evidence to bolster their 'case'. But much more than that, many poor saps who just look at the pictures and the words and don't take part in or read discussions like this, but leave feeling, 'well, it was an inferno - I'm not surprised it fell down', and then it's a done deal, the false meme is created (or in this case sustained) - protests and subsequent outing of the 'mistake', is dismissed as the ranting of 'conspiracy theorists'. Also worth noting that knowledge of 7 even falling was at the time, and still is, not well represented in the media and therefore in the public's view. It was a story that corporate media thought unworthy of mass coverage. Wonder why?

Quite odd that 5 never totally collapsed either, after severe damage - it had to be pulled down, didn't it? In spite of the fact that the fires were rampant across the whole structure and it was totally gutted. Maybe they'd realised the folly of 'slenderbeam-longspan-made-of-jelly' steels by the time they constructed 5?

It is all over the web as evidence of the inferno and how stupid the conspiracy theorists are in not beleiving that 7 collapsed from raging fires. There is the visual evidence to match the verbal evidence of the high ranking fire cheifs who stated that it was a raging inferno on all floors.

Words and music and the whole crude deal is complete. Effective, too. Difficult to undo, but not impossible. In fact, it unravels as we speak - slowly but surely. It's easy to see if you look in between the 'conspiracy theorists'.

Cheers

 

[Mick West]

Ofcourse, O. There you've just desribed why such things are done - why such 'mistakes' are made. First in line are the 'goodthinkers' (and British Army officers are among the best of those) - those who want to seize on whatever evidence to bolster their 'case'. But much more than that, many poor saps who just look at the pictures and the words and don't take part in or read discussions like this, but leave feeling, 'well, it was an inferno - I'm not surprised it fell down', and then it's a done deal, the false meme is created (or in this case sustained) - protests and subsequent outing of the 'mistake', is dismissed as the ranting of 'conspiracy theorists'.

Eh? I love to find mistakes. That's what debunking is all about. This was an incorrectly labeled photo, a mistake, hence it's being discussed.

The false meme here is that it's being used by "debunkers", what all I could find in reference to it were the CT sites, who incorrectly labeled it was WTC5 when it's WTC4.

 

[Mick West]

I think its the building in the distance of this photo:

No, that's WTC5. See above, this is WTC4. 4,5, and 6 all had the same basic design.

 

[SR1419]

those who want to seize on whatever evidence to bolster their 'case'. But much more than that, many poor saps who just look at the pictures and the words and don't take part in or read discussions like this, but leave feeling, 'well, it was an inferno - I'm not surprised it fell down', and then it's a done deal, the false meme is created (or in this case sustained) - protests and subsequent outing of the 'mistake', is dismissed as the ranting of 'conspiracy theorists'.

cuts both way R-

Many poor saps who look at all the pretty "alternative" websites and and leave feeling - 'well, since its never happened before it can't possibly be the case now'...they see "eyewitnesses" talking of "bombs" and declare definitive "proof" while protests and subsequent outing of mistakes is dismissed as the ranting of "sheeple (who have) their brains cleaned to such a degree that they are so stupified all they want is to be left alone and watch any old sitcom on the tv and drink as much beer as possible to take the bad taste away."

 

[lee h oswald]

cuts both way R-

Many poor saps who look at all the pretty "alternative" websites and and leave feeling - 'well, since its never happened before it can't possibly be the case now'...they see "eyewitnesses" talking of "bombs" and declare definitive "proof" while protests and subsequent outing of mistakes is dismissed as the ranting of "sheeple (who have) their brains cleaned to such a degree that they are so stupified all they want is to be left alone and watch any old sitcom on the tv and drink as much beer as possible to take the bad taste away."

There are plenty poor saps all round - I wouldn't disagree with that - but you're talking about corporate media vs independent on-line media - corporate media is a waste of time if it's truth you're after. And that leaves you with picking your way through the independents. People need to learn it - but they don't. And a lot of TV is watched and a lot of beer is drunk and a lot of people just don't care. It's a culture that came from somewhere....

 

[lee h oswald]

Eh? I love to find mistakes. That's what debunking is all about.

Was it a mistake not to test for explosives?

 

[Mick West]

Was it a mistake not to test for explosives?

See discussion here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/17...-not-testing-WTC7-steel-invalidate-everything

 

[Oxymoron]

Well it is very interesting that it is still on the link and has not been taken down or re labelled.

Must just be a simple error.

How long has it been there? Only 2 years... leave it a while longer and it will be an absolute indisputable fact.

Perhaps someone should contact them and ask why they are putting up bunk?

 

[lee h oswald]

I love to find mistakes.

The false meme here is that it's being used by "debunkers

The false meme is that 7 collapsed like it did from random office fires - that's the OS. And it's quite preposterous, really. That's probably why you keep atomising threads into supposedly individual elements. In place of having a proper, developing discussion taking in all relevant aspects.

 

[lee h oswald]

See discussion here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/17...-not-testing-WTC7-steel-invalidate-everything

Much less effort - yes or no?

 

[SR1419]

Well it is very interesting that it is still on the link and has not been taken down or re labelled.

Must just be a simple error.

How long has it been there? Only 2 years... leave it a while longer and it will be an absolute indisputable fact.

Perhaps someone should contact them and ask why they are putting up bunk?

Are there any "truther" sites with errors purveyed as fact??

Why are you not equally indignant by them?

 

[Mick West]

Much less effort - yes or no?

Define mistake. With the photo identification it is objectively wrong. Not testing for explosives is a subjective assessment. I would prefer that they had, because it would be one less thing to argue about. But there was really no reason to, and subsequent tests found nothing.

Take it to the other thread if you want to discuss it further, or if you want to ask me the same question again.

 

[lee h oswald]

Well it is very interesting that it is still on the link and has not been taken down or re labelled.

Must just be a simple error.

How long has it been there? Only 2 years... leave it a while longer and it will be an absolute indisputable fact.

Perhaps someone should contact them and ask why they are putting up bunk?

Sounds like a job for Mick West, to me. Why don't you help clear up that bit of bunk, Mick? If you're so dedicated to it.

 

[Mick West]

Sounds like a job for Mick West, to me. Why don't you help clear up that bit of bunk, Mick? If you're so dedicated to it.

I'm on it!

 

[lee h oswald]

Are there any "truther" sites with errors purveyed as fact??

Why are you not equally indignant by them?

Are there any "truther" sites with errors purveyed as fact??

Would that make it ok, if there were?

Why are you not equally indignant by them?

How do you tell he isn't?

 

[Mick West]

Fixed!

http://timeline.national911memorial.org/#/Explore/2/Entry/562/1

 

[lee h oswald]

I'm on it!

Don't forget your cape!

 

[Mick West]

Well, nearly fixed, I think it's actually WTC4, not 5. I'll see if I can get that changed.

 

[Mick West]

The false meme is that 7 collapsed like it did from random office fires - that's the OS. And it's quite preposterous, really. That's probably why you keep atomising threads into supposedly individual elements. In place of having a proper, developing discussion taking in all relevant aspects.

And how is this photo relevant to that? It was a mistake that has since been corrected, and the only places on the internet using it for anything are truther sites trumpeting about how it's being used to suggest bigger fires. But it's not. Nobody is using it. The mistake was fixed.

 

[Oxymoron]

Well, nearly fixed, I think it's actually WTC4, not 5. I'll see if I can get that changed.

I'm lost here... what just happened?

Did you edit it yourself?

It's still misleading though.

 

[BombDr]

Ofcourse, O. There you've just desribed why such things are done - why such 'mistakes' are made. First in line are the 'goodthinkers' (and British Army officers are among the best of those) - those who want to seize on whatever evidence to bolster their 'case'. But much more than that, many poor saps who just look at the pictures and the words and don't take part in or read discussions like this, but leave feeling, 'well, it was an inferno - I'm not surprised it fell down', and then it's a done deal, the false meme is created (or in this case sustained) - protests and subsequent outing of the 'mistake', is dismissed as the ranting of 'conspiracy theorists'. Also worth noting that knowledge of 7 even falling was at the time, and still is, not well represented in the media and therefore in the public's view. It was a story that corporate media thought unworthy of mass coverage. Wonder why?

I posted a picture in error, and acknowledged the error. The picture was incorrectly labelled.

Is there a suggestion I posted it with an intention to decieve? Or are you suggeting that I found the picture and posted it because it reinforced my argument, the discussion being what constitutes 'piddling' fires?

 

[Oxymoron]

[h=2]Contact info[/h] the photo's URL:
http://timeline.national911memorial.org/#/Explore/2/Entry/562
contact info:
National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212.312.8800
Fax: 212.227.7931
For general inquiries, email: info@national911memorial.org
For press inquiries, email: press@national911memorial.org
When I called the phone number, they connected me with the voicemail of Reynaldo Vega (No idea if that's the correct spelling).

notthere56 on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 11:19am.
»

• Login to post comments
• 5 votes

[h=2]Thanks for the info[/h] It's great that bloggers here search out and provide us with contact info. This is a HUGE service.
I'm suggesting when we contact them, we "cc" the media (i.e. New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc). We need to let everyone know that we are not only on top of everything, but that we are determined to let the media know about things like this. When writing, I would avoid accusing them of fraud, since we really don't know why this happened. But IMO it as good to point out the need for accuracy, particularly when talking about #7.
Maybe we should "cc" Cass Sunstein, too.
Tom T is right, this is a good "hook" to get the media to pay attention.
And thanks, NorCal. Yes, the arches are a dead give-away that it's actually Building 5.

911Peacenik on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 11:41am.


»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes

[h=2]Archetype blog comment[/h] I clicked on "About" and then "Archetype" and commented on their blog entry. I informed them that the photo is 5 WTC.

jimwilkie on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 2:52pm.

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes

[h=2]Archetype reply[/h] Someone called Mike has replyed to my post on their blog. He says...
"Hi Jim, Thanks for the note. We will forward this to the 9/11 Memorial & Museum team."

jimwilkie on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 1:46pm.

Content from External Source

http://911blogger.com/topics/wtc-7-0

Well they have known about it since 2011, so if you managed to get it changed Mick I don't know how when no one else apparently could.

 

[Mick West]

I'm lost here... what just happened?

Did you edit it yourself?

It's still misleading though.

No, it was already fixed. Probably a couple of years ago when someone from 9/11 blogger contacted them:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-...tograph-wtc-7-and-claims-raging-fire#comments

[h=2]Archetype blog comment[/h]I clicked on "About" and then "Archetype" and commented on their blog entry. I informed them that the photo is 5 WTC.

jimwilkie on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 2:52pm.​

»

• Login to post comments
• 4 votes

[h=2]Archetype reply[/h]Someone called Mike has replyed to my post on their blog. He says...
"Hi Jim, Thanks for the note. We will forward this to the 9/11 Memorial & Museum team."



jimwilkie

on Sat, 02/26/2011​

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Well they have known about it since 2011, so if you managed to get it changed Mick I don't know how when no one else apparently could.

My identity revealed!!!!

I was writing them an email, went to get a screen shot, and noticed it was changed. All this time I'd been going off the 911blogger image, and assumed this was something new. No, it looks like it was something that got fixed years ago.

The original post pointing out the mistake, and the source of the image BombDr accidentally used, is:
http://norcaltruth.org/2011/02/24/i...5-photograph-as-wtc-7-and-claims-raging-fire/

 

[Oxymoron]

I posted a picture in error, and acknowledged the error. The picture was incorrectly labelled.

Is there a suggestion I posted it with an intention to decieve? Or are you suggeting that I found the picture and posted it because it reinforced my argument, the discussion being what constitutes 'piddling' fires?

I don't think anyone suggested you knowingly posted a fake pic to back up your argument. I certainly did not.

I noted you are a debunker and an officer in the British army, an explosives expert and have been on diplomatic briefings/liaisons or such like, (from your posts), and yet you still posted it as a backup for your argument that 'fires raged in 7', (which I dispute).

The point being, that if you are misled even with your background and interest, how many not so well informed people have been misled by false, (and very powerful and emotive), information even though the site was evidentially advised about the serious error as far back at least as Feb 2011.

 

[Mick West]

The point being, that if you are misled even with your background and interest, how many not so well informed people have been misled by false, (and very powerful and emotive), information even though they were evidentially advised about it as far back at least as Feb 2011.

One only has to look at AE911Truth for examples of this.

 

[Oxymoron]

My identity revealed!!!!

I was writing them an email, went to get a screen shot, and noticed it was changed. All this time I'd been going off the 911blogger image, and assumed this was something new. No, it looks like it was something that got fixed years ago.

The original post pointing out the mistake, and the source of the image BombDr accidentally used, is:
http://norcaltruth.org/2011/02/24/i...5-photograph-as-wtc-7-and-claims-raging-fire/

Why would BombDr use that link ... it clearly says it is bunk?

[h=2]Interactive 9/11 Memorial is Junk: Uses WTC# 5 Photograph as WTC# 7 and Claims Raging Fire[/h]

[COLOR=#]Rate This[/COLOR]​

Brian Romanoff Nor Cal Truth Feb 24, 2011
In preparation for the 10th year anniversary of the 9/11 murders, the 9/11 Memorial has put up an online interactive 9/11 timeline. It hasn’t been up more than 24 hours.
I have not had much time to review it, but sure enough I noticed a major fault right away!
The timeline mentions the WTC# 7 “collapse” at 5:20pm and if you click on the images available for that time, you will see 3 pictures - one of them being the one shown below.

Content from External Source

And I followed the timeline link which took me to the site and the pic was still up.

 

[Oxymoron]

One only has to look at AE911Truth for examples of this.

Can you back that up Mick?

I suggest there is a big difference between disputed facts and patently false facts. Just because you dispute something, does not make it false.