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

Oxymoron

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
[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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, that photo is of the WTC5 fires [Edit: WTC 4]. Which does not invalidate the other photos of WTC7, of course.
 
SR1419 said:
This type of blatant, insulting antagonism/biased tirade is really unproductive....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mick said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

"sheeple"- really Oxy?
 
Oxymoron said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Actually I WAS just about to post a correction...
 
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
SR1419 said:
Actually I WAS just about to post a correction...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:

 
Last edited:
Mick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

wtc7_incendi2-20130618-213444.jpg
 
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
lee h oswald said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lee h oswald said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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."
 
SR1419 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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....
 
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?
 
Mick said:
I love to find mistakes.

The false meme here is that it's being used by "debunkers
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oxymoron said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Why are you not equally indignant by them?
 
lee h oswald said:
Much less effort - yes or no?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oxymoron said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
lee h oswald said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lee h oswald said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
[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.
 
Oxymoron said:
I'm lost here... what just happened?

Did you edit it yourself?

It's still misleading though.
Click to expand...

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
 
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/
 
BombDr said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oxymoron said:
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.
Click to expand...

One only has to look at AE911Truth for examples of this.
 
Mick said:
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/
Click to expand...


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.:confused:
 
Mick said:
One only has to look at AE911Truth for examples of this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jedo
Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11
Replies
0
Views
5K
Jedo
Jedo
Mick West
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire
2
Replies
43
Views
60K
Mick West
Mick West
deirdre
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Oroville Dam Spillway Thread: Quick Links
Replies
2
Views
30K
deirdre
deirdre
Alchemist
  • Locked
The Most Outrageous 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Replies
8
Views
12K
HappyMonday
HappyMonday
MikeC
Make money from your old contrail photo!
Replies
7
Views
4K
Cairenn
Cairenn

Latest posts

Back
Top