what about the still photos??

[jfk]

i have seen analysis of video (september clues)
but what about the still photographs?
here's some

http://www.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/515


http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=1 (#2087)


http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=1 (#6588)


http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=505 (#2356)
 

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=13 (#6236)


http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=613 (#5185)


http://www.lubbockonline.com/gallery/under_attack_-_destruction/10.sht ml?x=181&y=147


http://www.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/1200



& RealityDown.com - High Resolution photo study

[Rowan Berkeley]

I like the demure way they deal with the question "how do I know this image is genuine?"

[chek]

The observations from the no-planers/no big boeing/missile/ hologrammers are awaited (if predictable).

[telecasterisation]

Nope, I need some clarification on this one.

These are still images sure, but we are saying they were taken exclusively with equipment designed for that purpose as opposed to grabs from video? How are these any more 'reliable' than any other static internet based images?

We have already established that we cannot physically hold E6 (reversal/transparency), C41 (colour neg) or monochromatic negs if they exist and rely on scanning to see them, and/or digital camera images.

In other words, they are all just still images regardless of what we are told are their origins. Unless we have access to first generation originals, these all mean zip.

What am I missing here?

[chek]

While you are correct in an empirical sense in that digitised photos are less than useful, what they do however demonstrate is the scale of the huge cover-up exercise to implant Yes Big Boeing images into hundreds of
ordinary citizen's photos.

Or at least to give that impression.

Oh yes, this is way, way bigger than a faked video feed into a CNN camera.

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[Disco_Destroyer]

I agree I'd expect thousands of pics, probably most taken by camera phones, unless of course they are that recent an idea (unsure 1st released camera phone )
Just imagine how many people must have been standing watching?
I remember hundreds of people standing around watching a Toy Warehouse go up in smoke in Southend

[gruts]

I think I bought my first digital camera in 2001 but definitely didn't have a camera phone until much later (but maybe that's just me)....

does anybody have the "here is new york" book?

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/book.asp

"This book contains nearly a thousand of the more than five thousand pictures that some three thousand photographers submitted to the exhibition. It has not been edited to showcase the “best” or the “strongest” images, but to give the most coherent sense of the whole. here is new york has by now amassed one of the largest photographic archives in world history devoted to a single event. But whereas after other events of this magnitude one striking picture has sometimes come to stand for, or to symbolize, what happened, the one picture which will probably come to stand for the World Trade Center tragedy will be all of these pictures. What was captured by these photographs — captured with every conceivable kind of apparatus, from Leicas and digital Nikons to homemade pinhole cameras and little plastic gizmos that schoolchildren wear on their wrists...."

[gruts]

[chek]