WTC aerial photo, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 20-12-2005 @ 12:15 AM by HowardRoark

pics.soohrt.org...

It's a big picture, with lots of detail. Dated 9.12.01*

Look closely and you can spot the John J. Harvey

*That's what it says on the site that hosts the picture. Based on the amount of activity on site and the word completed on the adjacent buildings (nets and sidewalk canopies), I suspect that it was a couple of days later at least.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 01:49 AM by ekul08

Awesome. Thanks for posting Howard. I do have to agree that it looks a bit later than 9/12, though I find the ammount of smoke/haze over Ground Zero quite interesting.

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 10:39 AM by manta

To me that picture shows just how neatly it fell into its own footprint. It also seems later than 9/12. i would have expected their to be alot more smoke and fire, didnt the fires burn for days?

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 10:49 AM by HowardRoark

Originally posted by manta
To me that picture shows just how neatly it fell into its own footprint.

Are you implying that they “fell into their own footprints” because were intentionally demolished?

If you claim that that photo shows that the buildings fell into their own footprints, then how do you account for the damage to all of the adjacent buildings?

According to bsbray, the buildings did not fall into their own footprints, and that fact is proof that they were intentionally demolished.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Most of the materials was being ejected outwards, as evidence by where most of it landed (outside of the footprints - one huge chunk even ejected around 600 feet away - with the center of gravity within the footprints).

edit:

The last part of my first post in this thread should read:

*That's what it says on the site that hosts the picture. Based on the amount of activity on site and the work completed on the adjacent buildings (nets and sidewalk canopies), I suspect that it was a couple of days later, at least.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 11:34 AM by Nygdan

You can even see that there is already a "We Will Never Forget" banner on one of the buildings, and also impromtpu flags hung everywhere. Definitly well after the event. I wonder why they put 9/12 ?

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 11:52 AM by HowardRoark

It wasn’t too much later , though. The back hoe mounted grapples have barely dented the debris piles up along the edges, and they are still assembling the huge boom crane.

The Harvey was only on-site through Friday, so it had to have been within those three days. www.fireboat.org...

Maybe it was Wednesday. {shrug} A lot of people pitched in and worked around the clock at the site. They were highly motivated to respond.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 03:46 PM by manta

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Are you implying that they “fell into their own footprints” because were intentionally demolished?

If you claim that that photo shows that the buildings fell into their own footprints, then how do you account for the damage to all of the adjacent buildings?

[edit on 20-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

It would be totaly impossible to bring down a building that size without it causing substantial damage to the surrounding building, but if that building just somehow fell straight down all by itself without leaning to one side and destroying a much larger area, then it is totaly and utterly amazing. What exactly are the chances of those 2 towers falling down as neatly as they did without atleast a little help.

I mean, atleast one of the towers was hit in the corners mising all the main supports, and to me (using common sense, and not pretending to have any sort of background in these kind of matters) this would suggest that that corner is going to have sustained far greater damage than the central core. Meaning that when they fell they would take the path of least resistance. I understand that even though the fires were not hot enough to actualy melt the steel they were easily hot enough to substantially reduce the strength of the steel, and were not for the almost perfect collapse i would agree the building just fell of their own accord.

From looking at that photograph i would say that those building pretty much fell in their own footprints. If your gonna bring down buildings that size they are going to spread a little, but if they fell of their own accord i am of the opinion that their would have been even more damage to the other buildings and the collapses would have been less than vertical.

reply posted on 20-12-2005 @ 04:23 PM by bsbray11

Looks like you're trying to make it seem as if certain arguments contradict themselves again, when they really don't.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
According to bsbray, the buildings did not fall into their own footprints, and that fact is proof that they were intentionally demolished.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Most of the materials was being ejected outwards, as evidence by where most of it landed (outside of the footprints - one huge chunk even ejected around 600 feet away - with the center of gravity within the footprints).

Here's what accords to me:

Yes, most of the materials were ejected outwards.

But, you'll find the center of gravity within the footprints.

Sorry that to come stick another potato in your exhaust. The materials were being ejected evenly in all directions: the buildings did not lopside.

And btw, I didn't cite this as "proof" of demolition. Certainly to any reasonable person it is a very clear indication of demolition, taking into consideration chaos theory and the fact that all manner of things could go wrong to severely lopside those buildings, and yet didn't, three times in a row, with very massive buildings.

But I know all too well that for certain hard-heads, it's going to take more than just reason, if it's even possible to change their minds. The new thing seems to be to demand mathematical calculations, as much of a double-standard as that is, seeing as how no one from the official side has ever offered so much. And those guys are the ones holding all the critical info, including the blueprints. But I suppose I should be grateful that it's gotten to the point where people have to resort to double-standards and ask for mathematical proof. Guess that means we're starting to make too much sense.

But even if we are finally able to piece things together and offer mathematical proof of additional sources of energy because of the amount of momentum required, etc., I can already predict the response from you guys, Roark: go clinging to "experts," like the *very* credible Mr. Eager, who can't even his theories straight before they're debunked by the government's own hand-outs. But where it goes from there should be really interesting.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by bsbray11]