Someone sent me this the other day claiming that its a picture of a lady peering out of the wreckage of the WTC. Looks like part of the wreckage to me. I crossposted this on snopes…but noone is sure.
the link is here…
Any other links for the pic? Can’t see it, says bandwidth is maxxed out.
Is this it?
Looks like part of the outer wall to me.
I’d be money that’s a Photoshop creation, assuming it’s not merely a remarkable illusion. It’s definitely not a person, since no one on any of those floors would have survived and there would have been no access to them from any floors that did have survivors.
yup thats it…sorry about linking it to my homestead site. Bandwith will reset the 8th of the month
It looks like there’s another gal one floor up, directly above the red rectangle. Likely both are just pieces of bent metal reflecting the light.
If that’s a woman, she’s at least 12 feet/4 meters tall.
Nah, it ain’t Photoshop. Why the hell would anyone Photoshop something like that? It’s clearly a part of the structure, which happens to somehow resemble a woman (if you really try to think about it.) The line formed by “the woman” and the rest of the structure, starting from the top-right corner of the red box, is pretty much perfect. It’s like that “devil-in-the-smoke” WTC picture. Our eyes want to see patterns where there are none.
That devil-in-the-smoke picture was pretty impressive.
I can see how that might look like a human, but it looks to me like the lighter-colored spot on top (the part that looks like a face) is actually a flame. The rest is the same color as the outer wall pieces, and is probably just a bent piece of the same material.
It was and it wasn’t. I wasn’t too impressed, but the photographer who took it got a lot of crap for it. The picture was in a sequence of several comparatively unremarkable photos sent in by freelancer Mark Phillips to the AP. As far as I heard the story, AP didn’t notice anything special about the photo and put it on the wire. The next day, readers of newspapers which ran the photo started seeing the “devil” in the smoke, and wrote in asking whether this photo was digitally manipulated or not. AP’s policy, of course, is NOT to manipulate any news photograph.
AP defended Phillips, but certain organizations, including the Poynter Institute (a media watchdog group) seemed to have the notion that this photograph had been digitally manipulated. Not only that, but Phillips would receive hundreds upon hundreds of crazy emails in the aftermath, some of which threatened him and his family, others which praised him as some sort of prophet.
At any rate, his reputation was certainly sullied a bit, and I have no doubt that the photograph itself is genuine.
Obviously, you don’t read enough Snopes. The Web is saturated with Photoshopped images of all sorts. People do it for the same reason that others write viruses: because they can and it gives them a feeling of being (in)famous).
What’s funny is that I distinctly remember seeing somewhere a photo of a woman in a pink suit standing in the gaping hole left by the airplane and looking out. It was an image shot with sufficent clarity that I thought that someone who knew her would reconize her. I remember wondering at the time if she survived, and wondering how she survived being on a destroyed floor.
I wish I could remember where the hell I saw it. There have been so many compilations of WTC photos that I can’t recall.
It depends. Which tower is depicted in this photo? One of the three stairwells in the North Tower remained undamaged from top to bottom. Four people from above the levels of impact were able to escape down those stairs.
But I agree, the “woman” (why specifically a woman?) is just a twisted piece of the outer wall.
You sort of missed my point. Of course I constantly read Snopes. Problem is, with this sort of stuff, you still have two kinds of people. One group to whom the message never gets through and still believe everything they see and read on the Internet, and another group who thinks everything is bullshit and Photoshopped.
What I meant by “Why would anybody Photoshop this” is that, if it were a Photoshopped image, there’s nothing obvious about it. It’s not even pretending not-to-be-obvious. It’s so unobvious that if one were to create a Photoshop image for the satisfaction of having it sent around the world, then you have to draw a freaking rectangle around it and tell people what it is.
That’s not the key to a good Photoshop image. The devil pictures are borderline Photoshop images (even though they are real) because you don’t need to really lead the viewer to see what you want him to see.
This, if it were Photoshopped, would be totally a waste of time on the Photoshopper’s part, since it doesn’t even look like what it’s purporting to look like. That’s what I meant by the question. To what purpose would somebody Photoshop a vague-looking figure which may or may not resemble a woman and most people would not notice unless specifically told to look in a certain location for a certain image?
It’s either:
a) flame
b) Elvis
c) bigfoot
d) a loch ness monster
e) Osama hiding in the last place anyone would look for him
From the entry attitude of the plane based on the angle of the hole, it’s the first tower to be struck, which I believe was the South tower.
Hey, there’s a giant squirrel directly above the woman, in the V-shaped area between the unbroken wall and the twisted bit. 
What I find disturbing about this image is that some people seem to be so obsessed as to look with a microscope to every pixel of every picture taken in 9/11 looking for some conspiracy theory fodder, controversial image and/or I-don´t-know-what-else-they-may-be-looking-for.