It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

page: 21
72
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

I think you exaggerate, woman. You're probably just cranky because you're on your period.




Or is it manopause




What is Manopause? 5 Facts Every Man Should Know
www.globalhealingcenter.com...



Or is it a man period?



Cosmo Investigates: Do Guys Have Periods?
www.cosmopolitan.com...



What about persons that are asexual? Are they the only persons not influenced by hormones?

Sorry, of topic. I will point at my own hypocrisy.....




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: M4ngo

so what caused the massive gash torn in south face of WTC 7......??

Why did the FDNY on scene report the massive gash, that the building was unstable and debris falling off it ...??

sites.google.com...

Again what damaged WTC 7 south face.....?

Black magic, space beams, mini nukes.....??






Why did firemen that were physically on the ground outside nearby that day—report hearing explosions at WTC7 before it globally collapsed into itself?


Hypothetical diesel fuel fires on the 7th, 8th, and 9th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7.
• The generators on the 8th and 9th floors were supplied by two 12,000 gallon tanks.

• Nearly all the fuel in these tanks was recovered after the building collapse.

• At most, 1000 gal of fuel was unaccounted from these tanks, which was equivalent to about 5 percent of the office combustibles on a single floor. 

• The day tanks did not contain enough fuel to be a significant contributor.



Hypothetical pool fires on the 5th and 6th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC 7.
• These worst-case scenarios could not be sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to heat a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness; or

• Such fires would have produced large amounts of smoke from the exhaust louvers; no such smoke discharge was observed; or 

• The gas temperatures would have exceeded the boiling point of the coolant for all 9 diesel generators in < 3 h, leading to engine failure.



The day tank on Floor 5 supplying two emergency generators on that floor did not contain enough fuel for a fire that could threaten Column 79.
The contained fuel was only equivalent to a few percent of the combustible furnishings on a tenant floor.

• It is unlikely that the tanks would have been re-supplied because of multiple safeguards in the fuel delivery system. 

• None of the day tanks were located near Column 79.


A diesel fuel spray fire on Floor 5 would have been less damaging than a pool fire.

• A spray fire would have resulted from a small leak in the fuel supply piping, so the fuel escape rate would have been far less than a pool fire scenarios. 

• Even if the spray had directly hit Column 79, it would have heated only a small area of the steel.

• Calculations showed that even if the entire column were immersed in a flame as hot as 1400 C, it would have taken 6 h to heat the column to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness.


• Do you not see a problem here? NIST themselves even tells us that there is not enough evidence to support the fire hypothesis with:


Hypothetical diesel fuel fires on the 7th, 8th, and 9th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7



Hypothetical pool fires on the 5th and 6th floors did not contribute to the collapse of WTC 7



The day tank on Floor 5 supplying two emergency generators on that floor did not contain enough fuel for a fire that could threaten Column 79



A diesel fuel spray fire on Floor 5 would have been less damaging than a pool fire


• Which is the reason behind NIST even having the explosives hypothesis, which actually is the only realistic scenario.


Scenarios of a hypothetical blast event that could have occurred in WTC 7 on September 11, 2001, were assessed, including blast location, size, and timing.
Phase I: Identify hypothetical blast scenarios to initiate structural collapse.
A scenario with the minimum amount of required explosive was identified.
The recommended column preparation required at least 30 minutes 
(cutting and placing).
• Additional preparation time was required to prepare the column for cutting and placing charges.



Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.
• Based on visual and audio evidence and computer modeling, NIST 
concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence of a blast. 

Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at approximately half a mile.

• This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet engine, and 10 times louder than being in front of speakers at a rock concert.

• There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.


• Wasn't everyone evacuated from WTC7, and the building conveniently left unoccupied for hours before collapse? NIST tells us yes.


Building evacuation took just over an hour, about 30 min longer than the estimated minimum time for the elevators and stairs.
Occupants were able to use both elevators and stairs.

• Some of the evacuation time was due to crowding in the lobby. 

Occupants arrived in the lobby from both stairwells, elevators, and other WTC buildings, and were held in the lobby until a safe exit was identified.
The decision not to continue evaluating and fighting the fires was made hours before the building collapsed, so no emergency responders were in or near the building when the collapse occurred.



• Even based on NIST's own report of available evidence, a controlled demolition is the most plausible. And of course, it would not look like a typical controlled demolition, it didn't need to. Someone knew before hand the building's blueprints and columns and how the building would respond with a huge section missing out of Column 79. This is literally the only plausible explanation, IMO.

edit on 3-4-2017 by M4ngo because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2017 by M4ngo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

The explosion thing has been debated in numerous threads. Exsplosion sounds does not equate to explosives setting off.

One, there has been many referenced accounts the fireman knew WTC 7 was dying for lack of a better term. The firemen knew the building was structurally unsound, setup a perimeter, and cleared away from an unsafe building. Is this wrong?

Two, anything that increases in pressure when heated can burst with tremendous force and sound. Pop cans. The refrigerator systems in air conditioning units, refrigerators, and soda mechines. Compressed air systems. Water trapped in pipes. Electrical transformers. Fire extinguishers. Gas bottles that hold oxygen, liquid nitrogen, nitrogen gas, or CO2. Is that wrong?

Three, people will say a car exploded when it crashed into a tree when there was only mechanical damage. A steel column snapping under strain may sound like it exploded.

Four, a demolition's charge to create a pressure wave with enough force to cut a steel columns will create a sound wave of at least 140 dbs. A sound comparable to a shotgun blast if sound proofing like water barrels are present. The charges would be in the hundreds, set off in groups, and heard at least a quarter of a mile away.

Five, please provide sound evidence of charges setting of at WTC 7.

Six, shrapnel. If there was no sandbagging, water barrels, or tarps to capture the shrapnel, there would have been the distinct rain of demolitions shrapnel. If you want me to find it, I will. There was a sad case, I think in Scotland, where a young girl was hit and killed by debris from a improperly set up CD implosion.

Seven, demolitions shrapnel has a distinct shape. The steel columns whould have been fragmented into knife like pieces. The fragments would look like the metal was burnt and eroded into razor sharp fragments.

Eight, no evidence of explosives. That is why Richard Gage was forced to invent the false narrative of fizzle no flash demolitions?

Nine, the collapse columns were long and bent. Or snapped. There were no numerous short columns with fragmented ends burnt, nor eroded by charges setting off.


edit on 3-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last two paragraphs and fixed this and that.

edit on 3-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Added nine.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xtrozero

There is no evidence to prove any of those hijackers boarded those particular airplanes. From Day One, the Boston Globe(?) reported conflicting information about exactly which gates were used to board the aircraft. Those who have gone over tower and ground control frequencies show UA175 callsign was used by 2 different airplanes, separated in time by about 15 minutes.

So if that story cannot be proved, why should I believe? That their names were eventually put on the passenger records
does not mean they walked through the door of that aircraft. I reject that story because there is so much more about the story that stinks too.


There is 15 plus years of people looking for anything, trying to make anything out of nothing... in the end, planes were used, a lot of people on those planes died, planes are gone and so on. Its like people talk about Sandy Hook being faked with actors when all it takes is to talk to the parents of the dead children to know otherwise...

I was in the Air Force for 28 years I know a good amount of people who were there when the Pentagon was hit, they say it was a plane. 100s to testimonies say it was a plane, zero say it was a missile. Plus I would love to know what missile would do that... there would be no penetration and a much bigger hole, but we don't really have a missile to do that. Can you tell me of a missile what would create that signature?

We can debate about the "how" all day, that doesn't answer the 'why", or even the "who" that was behind it. The "how" is a dead horse everyone keeps kicking...lol




edit on 3-4-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

I don't feel bad for having reasonable doubts about the official story.



Well have fun for the rest of your life with this unanswered story... There is nothing more to be said after 15 plus years of talking about it...



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux



Exsplosion sounds does not equate to explosives setting off.


And explosion sound cannot be ruled out as not being from an explosive.


One, there has been many referenced accounts the fireman knew WTC 7 was dying for lack of a better term. The firemen knew the building was structurally unsound, setup a perimeter, and cleared away from an unsafe building. Is this wrong?


They were told to clear out—they were following orders. They did not all know it was going to collapse hours before this. They were told this. Knowing something and being told something are two completely different things.


Three, people will say a car exploded when it crashed into a tree when there was only mechanical damage. A steel column snapping under strain may sound like it exploded.


Please provide sound evidence, as in a video so I can hear it for myself, of a single (as in one) steel column snapping under strain that resembles an explosion.


Four, a demolition's charge to create a pressure wave with enough force to cut a steel columns will create a sound wave of at least 140 dbs. A sound comparable to a shotgun blast if sound proofing like water barrels are present. The charges would be in the hundreds, set off in groups, and heard at least a quarter of a mile away.


Actually, according to NIST, they never mentioned they would have to be in the hundreds. Where are you coming up with this? Only the soecific sections of Column 79 would have needed to be compromised. There are videos of being inside WTC7 before it collapsed. There were alarms, sirens, radios, etc continuously going off. A shotgun blast, inside a building, with numerous extremely loud noises already continuously going off, could easily be muffled enough.


Five, please provide sound evidence of charges setting of at WTC 7.


Please provide sound evidence of how random office fires result in the global collapse of a steel frame, high rise building.


Six, shrapnel. If there was no sandbagging, water barrels, or tarps to capture the shrapnel, there would have been the distinct rain of demolitions shrapnel. If you want me to find it, I will. There was a sad case, I think in Scotland, where a young girl was hit and killed by debris from a improperly set up CD implosion.


Considering how hardly anything in the streets could be seen, constant clouds of smoke, etc., how do you think anyone would see some shrapnel? Don't forget that many windows blew out that contained zero evidence of fire. Also, NIST makes zero mention of shrapnel. Apparently they felt this was a non-issue.


Seven, demolitions shrapnel has a distinct shape. The steel columns whould have been fragmented into knife like pieces. The fragments would look like the metal was burnt and eroded into razor sharp fragments.

Too bad, even NIST couldn't comment on this in their report because:


NIST Materials: Steel from the World Trade Center Buildings
NIST obtained a large collection of samples from the World Trade Center buildings, the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2.



Eight, no evidence of explosives. That is why Richard Gage was forced to invent the false narrative of fizzle no flash demolitions?

Well, according to NIST:


Based on visual and audio evidence and computer modeling, NIST 
concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence of a blast.



Nine, the collapse columns were long and bent. Or snapped. There were no numerous short columns with fragmented ends burnt, nor eroded by charges setting off.

According to who? NIST? Again,


NIST Materials: Steel from the World Trade Center Buildings
NIST obtained a large collection of samples from the World Trade Center buildings, the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo



They were told to clear out—they were following orders. They did not all know it was going to collapse hours before this. They were told this. Knowing something and being told something are two completely different things.


FDNY knew WTC 7 was structurally compromised when noticed a large bulge forming in SW corner of building

A surveyor transit from Collapse Unit on Rescue 3 was set up and locked on the corner of the building - this was done in
early afternoon. By 200PM could see the building was creeping



but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


At 3PM the FDNY chief, Daniel Nigro, who succeeded to command on death Chief Peter Ganci made decision to clear
collapse zone around WTC 7

Took some time to get everyone clear as were units operating at 140 West (Verizon), next to WTC 7, World Financial
Center, across highway from WTC 7 and at burning remnants of WTC 6

I actually heard the orders be passed on the radio while in my firehouse in NJ

Later heard from incident commander on scene that date at a seminar........



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

You have a truly fascinating history on ATS.

It is a great pity that many other fire men, also around at the time, seem to remember things very very differently.

They even formed an organization. Not a member? Didn't think so.

P



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: firerescue

You have a truly fascinating history on ATS.

It is a great pity that many other fire men, also around at the time, seem to remember things very very differently.

They even formed an organization. Not a member? Didn't think so.

P


Whats fascinating about their history?

I see a well informed poster.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican



You know, those nasty light poles that all got knocked down by that big ole mean huge jet


Your light pole looks a lot like a mobile crane attached to a truck.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

Got proof of groups of charges powerful engough to cut steel which would resulting in a 140 db cracks heard easily up to a quarter mile away. Something that would have easily been picked up on the audio of video recordings.

And they did know WTC 7 was unsound.



www.prisonplanet.com...



How Did They Know Building 7 Was Going to Collapse
As the dozens of witness accounts below show, many people were warned in advance to evacuate the area surrounding WTC 7, because of the "imminent" collapse. Indeed, a specific "collapse zone" was set up and, consequently, there were no casualties when WTC 7 eventually fell. Furthermore, a small number of senior firefighters have claimed they could tell beforehand that this building was going to come down, even though such an event would have been totally unprecedented.

So how did they know Building 7 was going to collapse?

WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)





posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

Videos of WTC 7 with predictions it would collapse, proving mostly crowd noises, no screaming sirens, and the sound of the falling building distinctly heard with no sounds of CD implosion.

YouTube
WTC Building 7 Collapse - 23 angles
youtu.be...

CD by implosion is a distinct sound. The setting off of charges is heard over the sounds of the building collapsing.

The Most Oddly Satisfying Building Demolition Video In The World - Amazing Implosions Explosion
m.youtube.com...


You were flat wrong in yes, they knew building seven was going to collapse.
Strike one.

You were misleading in that the majority of background noises in WTC 7 building collapse videos are crowd noises. The sound of collapse is distinctly heard once the building begins to fall. If there was explosives setting off, they would be heard over the sound of collapse. Strike two.

Please quote a firefighter that is quoted as saying they heard charges setting off?


You have proven unreliable......
edit on 3-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumbles



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: M4ngo

Where did I ever say see shrapnel? You are unreliable.

My example was the distinction of blast shrapnel. The next part of my example was on shrapnel containment. If the blasts are not contained by sandbags, heavy rubber tarps, or water barrels, shrapnel is ejected from the building with killing force. The shrapnel would be laying in the street, damaging car windows and adjacent buildings. Even embedded in building walls and parts of cars. Shredding anything plastic, glass, fabric, or flesh.

Want to start citing evidence of an over pressure event generated by detonation of charges?
edit on 3-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Added shredded

edit on 3-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Clarified I was after the distinct physical properties of shrapnel.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
On 3-23-2017, the FBI published to their vault archive 27 photos of scenes from around the Pentagon on or right after 9/11/2001. These include airplane debris, photos from inside, photos of FBI team members at the site, and other photos of that fateful day here:

vault.fbi.gov...

Going through them, it struck me as kind of odd that they went to the trouble of blacking out any faces that were large enough to possibly identify, such as in these two pictures:




Now it's kind of interesting that usually, investigators always have their faces blacked out in pictures, right? (Cough)

And then also something else that is weird is they published what appears to be the same exact picture twice, under different titles. Look at 9-11 Pentagon FBI 6 and then the following picture, 9-11 Pentagon FBI Team. They appear to be the exact same picture, or extremely close. Why?

And then there is this pic of the apparent airplane fragment that severed and landed so perfectly to reveal an AA serial number, so nicely in the grass.
How convenient.


Oh but wait. Is that a light pole I see directly in front of that tiny little hole, before the side of the building collapsed. You know, those nasty light poles that all got knocked down by that big ole mean huge jet on the way in. Oh, ok. Yeah.


But hey, don't mind me. Just browse around through these photos and see what else you might find.


In your haste to post and try act like a hero, but where you actually end up coming off as a potato, you think you've found something..a light pole.

Too bad for you that it's actually a crane.
Zoom in if you're too blind to see it in normal focus.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

He is referring to Firefighters 4911 truth, founded by a Seattle area firefighter and populated by firefighters who were nowhere near the WTC that day. Again, you present a bunch of BS, but reasonable sounding, people will accept the BS as reality.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Why is there no holes or at least marks where the two 7,000lbs (3,181kgs) titanium engines hit the building?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Why is there no holes or at least marks where the two 7,000lbs (3,181kgs) titanium engines hit the building?


Could you show on a photo where you think the holes or marks should be?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Why is there no holes or at least marks where the two 7,000lbs (3,181kgs) titanium engines hit the building?


The entrance hole of flight 77 was at least 70 feet wide and in places two stories tall. The remaining entrance hole into the pentagon was at least one story tall. One wing dipped and hit the ground on the way into the pentagon. The destruction of the columns in the first ring struck was at least 70 feet wide. I would say the engines were instrumental in helping the entrance hole maintain a minimum height of 10 feet tall. But being external, the first impact and first encountered rows of columns help to obliterate the engines. The frames of the landing gearr protected by being tucked into the fuselage gave them survivability to punch out the last hole.

The question is? How would a 16,000 pound missile 3 feet in diameter punch out a 70 foot mide entrance hole, take out columns in a path 70 feet wide, and knock out wall after wall with smaller and smaller holes. Pushing the debris in the path of travel?

If the missile exploded, the blast radius would grow in radius and lessen in shock wave.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You do realize that the majority of the engine is NOT titanium right? Or do you not know that?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

Simply pointing out that the combination of things that happened that day resulted in the final collapse. One or the other by itself would have resulted in a different outcome.

The engineers envisioned something like the Empire State Building crash, where a plane going slow looking for the runway hit the building. Not that someone would have slammed a plane into it at a high rate of speed. Different events, different impacts.


both would have caused fires.

the logic in the assertion you raise is severely lacking.

these buildings were built to withstand plane collisions, *with fuel.* this is partially why the steel was thicker on the bottom half of the building than the top half.

believing otherwise is unrealistic.




top topics



 
72
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join