It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The 9/11 Story in PICTURES, (esp. for media dumbed down dummies?).

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop in this huge thread :
9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I believe this is the most shocking evidence offered of deliberate tampering with Dod photographs I saw in all the last 5 years.
If accepted as solid proof, we all may thank mr Jack White for his meticulous, laborous photo studies, which will proof beyond doubt, that something is VERY wrong with heaps of official photo's offered at DoD websites, and thus there is something eerily wrong with the official 9/11 Pentagon Attack story.

Be aware there are many pages on his website, keep clicking the -next page- signs at the right bottoms of the pages.

Prepare to be astonished beyond comprehension :

I am now at page 124, and this is really shock and awe!
This man has seen the exact same anomalies as I and a few others have seen also, but he took the time and had the expertise, to put it all up in a smooth readable and viewable form.
I applaude Jack for his perfectionism.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Together with the text of page 122 :

there are some questions to be answered.
I think I have to open a separate thread to discuss this huge website's picture and explanatory text treasure trove.
There are a few things found already which need additional explanatory text or need to be corrected.
This will keep me, Howard and the rest quite busy before the time for this administration is coming. LT/

PS: the title of that thread will be :

The 9/11 Story in PICTURES, (for dummies?).

For starters, the huge -mostly empty- space in above depicted WTC 6 building after the collapses of both WTC Tower 1 and 2 is amazing.
More amazing, the fact that at the bottom of that hole, the same extraordinary high temperatures were measured by the IR pictures taking NASA airplane after 9/11, as were observed in the cellars of the collapsed other buildings.

First correction for Jack White :

Building WTC 7 also had these high temperature anomalies in its cellar, strangely enough, in the outer corners.
(See extensive postings about this by me and Wecomeinpeace in other threads, UTFSE=use the fantastic search engine -onboard- , or use Google to search pages at ATS)

(Edit: couldn't withstand the urge to change the thread title for all those americans who only read and comprehend in picture-mode, their brains molded over decades now by mind altering media moguls.) LT/

[edit on 23/6/06 by LaBTop]

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:30 AM
If sophistication is not an option, go for VOLUME.....

Good thing somebody went the extra mile and retrieved as many photos as possible for examination. too bad that probably every single official witness belongs intot he fake category, too. makes me wonder how many 'ordinary' (ie. non-conspiratorial) people actually saw what happened but simply don't speak up or don't get the publicity.

Must be thousands, right?

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:39 PM
Amazing find.

This deserves a lot of attention here on ATS.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:42 PM
Ok, here are some observations.

Most of the photoshops, even though so many of those images clearly show photoshops, seem pretty trivial, if not completely pointless. And one part of the presentation shows a civilian photograph of what appears to be the actual, physical movement of "props". Why would they do this?

This goes back to the original clips they released, or "leaked" or whatever the hell happened. Those frames had obvious and uniform brightness differences, as in edited by a computer. And, of course, they didn't show crap. They just led people to more speculation.

Then they say they're finally going to release some things now that the "20th hijacker" trial is over (and when attention is growing on what happened at the WTC and other, more relevant information). Guess what they release? The same clips, that show nothing, and that have obviously been tampered with. They're egging us on!

Regarding the WTC pictures,

I was seriously reconsidering the WTC6 dust cloud theory, as proposed in In Plane Sight, not so much because of what the author was saying but because I had never really examined that issue myself.

And I was going to post asking for more conclusive evidence, when I found some for myself, and this is it:

WTC1 is the tower with the antenna. Now notice that this is from roughly the same angle as that photo:

WTC1 is standing there (it was the last to collapse), and WTC2 is very obviously missing at this point. It would not be obscured from WTC1 at this angle for any reasonably minded person.

So this is pretty conclusive evidence that WTC2 had in fact collapsed by the time this smoke stack arose behind Building 7. It was not immediately after the WTC2 impact and therefore there is not conclusive evidence of a WTC6 explosion.

The problem of the clean, deep holes in WTC6 remains unresolved, though.

I'm curious to see what else will be added to the presentation regarding the WTC, though.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:30 PM
Bsbray, your first picture :
With both the Twin Towers is unmistakenly taken with a tele-lens from the WEST, from the opposite bank (the east bank) of the Hudson river. In an upward angle, so the photographer was able to catch also the antenna on the North Tower :

For a good orientation of all buildings in lower Manhattan, see :
NIST NCSTAR 1-8, WTC Investigation, Chapter 2, Figure 2-1. ( page 70 from 294. )

Description under it : Map showing the World Trade Center location in lower Manhattan.
(With all the light and dark blue colors in it. And the grey and white area's.)

That's why the roof dome of WFC 2 can be seen at the far bottom left side, and the triangular roof and the steps in the facade of the highest 3 floors of WFC 1 at the bottom right side of that picture.
If you draw the left and right boundary lines of sight of the above picture in the above map, you'll see that the left upper line will originate from the top of the black triangle with "Hudson River" in it, and just strifes the top of the black circle with the white arrow and a big N in it.
The right lower line will strife the -n- from Hudson River and the top of the -W- from WFC 1.
That defines the upper and lower lines of sight in that first picture of yours where both towers still stand.

Your second picture :
The part of a CNN video with all the wide-angle tele-lens screen shots with the text : -voice of tom clancy author-, in that video, broadcasted on 9/11, must be easy to find in many of the huge video databases online.
The most important task : find a time stamp in it, indicating it was shot at or just around 9:04 A.M. on 9/11. Or find a sequence of shots following shortly after the plane impact of the South Tower, with that dust cloud over WTC 6 in them.

It's however a bit more complicated to pinpoint the position of the CNN camera man.
Because there is also such a triangular shaped rooftop to be seen to the right bottom of that Tower shot.

That's why you made the easy to make error again to think that the CNN screenshot was taken from nearly the same viewpoint, and thus only one tower, the North Tower with the antenna, was still standing.

It was not !
It was taken obviously, ( if you study meticulously his WTC ORIENTATION pages 114, 115 and 116, as mr White already adviced in bold, fat characters in page 114 and 115) :

FROM the NORTH, nearly parallel to an imaginary line which follows all of West St. in the NIST map above.

And that's why the North Tower is overlapping nearly all of the visible outlines of the South Tower in that CNN screenshot.
Just print the NIST map, turn it upside down and place a plastic ruler just parallel to the left of the whole length of West St., but so, that you cover the Northwest corner of the North Tower ( WTC 1 ) and also the Southeast corner of the South Tower ( WTC 2 ) in one straight line.
From the "north" end of the ruler, you wouldn't be able to see the South Tower, it will be fully covered by the outlines of the North Tower.

What you see to the RIGHT of the North Tower in the CNN screenshot, is falling down smoke and cement dust from the just impacted floors of the South Tower, and also to the right, the NORTH side of WFC 3 with its triangular roof.
And a bit more to the right, in the darkness of that screenshot, the outlines of the DOME of WFC 2.
Under the white text : -South Tower-.
Behind that you see the rooftopline of one of the Hudson Riverside buildings.
To the left you see some very telltaling landmarks in SOUTH Manhattan, especially the 2 spikey towers.
See for that the wide angle photograph at the bottom of page 114, observe them at the right side of the twin towers :

Have a good look at mr White's bottom right picture on page 116, where you see the plane coming from the SOUTH, and also see the triangular roof of WFC 3 in the right bottom.
You clearly see the right side of the South Tower standing parallel to the right side of the North Tower.
This was one of the CNN positions they held all day, to stream video coverage of the WTC events ALL over the world.

Then look carefully at the sequence of screenshots from CNN at the left of page 116, and you see clearly that the white cloud to the left is rising, and the dark smoke at the right doesn't change position, nor changes in form. And don't we all remember the mushroom cloud accompanying the collapse of both towers? Covering half Manhattan in a few seconds. We don't see it here, while we see here 6 screenshots from top to bottom, depicting a few seconds, since the white WTC 6 cloud to the left of the tower is clearly expanding upwards in all those 6 shots.

Mr. White is fully right.

I was fooled also by that same CNN screenshot, after I posted several times about the explosions at WTC 6.
I have to go back and see who put me on the wrong leg that time. Clever guy!
But the doubt kept smoldering, untill I saw mr White's masterpiece. Thanks to him, a lot of anomalies in the Scenario of 9/11 have been shown to the broader public now.

That CNN screenshot, with that white DUST CLOUD originating from WTC 6 in it, was taken at or just around 9:04 A.M. on 9/11/2001, and not when the South Tower collapsed.

NOW proceed and read and see mr White's page 117 and 117a, then 118 and especially 119, then the rest.

Then you will believe in the fact of a totally separate HUGE WTC 6 EXPLOSION.
No doubt about that.
This is one of the major mistakes of the Scenario on 9/11, and the Media-moguls and the Administration did their utterly best to wipe it under the table.
Up till now. This is even bigger than WTC 7, which was a major Scenario breakdown also.

I always had some dark suspicion, that the camera positions the Media held on 9/11, had a special meaning, they were far too far away from the real thing. They could have made much better and clearer footage by moving closer in. They didn't.
They were definitely in on the Scenario. CNN had spooks in their editting room. Several weeks already.

PS: Informational page :

[edit on 24/6/06 by LaBTop]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 03:43 PM
Welcome back, LabTop. Good to see you again.

But I must ask, what are you doing? No one who has put any serious, or even mild time into researching 9/11 does not know the WTC6 50-story explosion is rubbish, be it an unintentional mistake or deliberate disinfo.

Here, look at this snippet from 911 eyewitness:

You can clearly see the origin of the dust plume is the collapse of WTC2. There is no question. You won't find any footage of this plume before the collaspe of WTC2 because it simply doesn't exist.

WTC2 visible just to the right of WTC1. (Red arrow unrelated)

WTC2 collapses, plume appears

WTC2 is gone, plume rises further

[edit on 2006-6-24 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:40 PM
you are right this time. And thus Bsbray was too.
You just beat me at posting this :

Bsbray, I just remembered that I recently saw other footage of the collapse of the South Tower on Google Video beta :

Have a look at the footage from 01:38/02:49 to 01:50/02:49.
You will see there the North Tower, and behind it to the left, the South Tower is collapsing. You see this same shaped white dustcloud rising at the left of WTC 7, after most of the South Tower is collapsed out of sight.
The only eery thing : I do not see any darker smoke to the right of the North Tower, as in the 6 CNN screenshots from mr White.
The problem here is perhaps the shooting angle from both camera's.
And the Google shots are much clearer and sharper, because much closer to the towers.
Can you help me solve this dilemma?
Is it the same white cloud seen in the mr White CNN screenshots?

Damned, it cost me most of the day to write and rewrite that long post, and recheck it from all angles I had in posession till now.

Then I remembered this google video, and already started wondering myself.
The camera angle of your footage, Wcip, is nearly exactly the same as from the CNN footage. That one was just shot from a higher point, yours looks like it's shot from a boat or a peer.

O, ReaLY thought I had found a new proof of conspiracy. Life can be hard.

Whatever, sorry for the disturbance, let's concentrate on the rest of mr White's photographic studies, there still is a lot of his other stuff to discuss.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:10 PM
Found this page from terrorize.denmark also :
Demolition of WTC-2 - The plume.

And this too :
Demolition of WTC-2 - Fairbanks.

Anybody knows what the fella says there in Danish?

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:01 PM
I was late. This post isn't relevant anymore.

But here's a pretty image I made in MS Paint (!!!), for I have no pro skillz like WCIP. sadface ;(

[edit on 24-6-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:01 PM

The first text lines in the page in Danish translated to English are machine-translated :

"" First portrait is from above-mentioned videosekvens that contains some noticeable comments. The other thing portrait is due to a CNN cuttings that that no have been here possible that provide. They equal portraits can be after ses to CNN the version has built a couple of the speculation pedestrian at , that it is WTC -6 that proves sprunget to the air , however here at the editorial office infuses vi more explicit to the theory , that it is WTC -4 there's the victim. The point by the pictures parent is known equal occasion mentioned to that være immediate to extension from design plot against WTC -2. This aren't true. The pictures IS from the first demolering from WTC -2. ""

Your guess is as good as mine, hehhe.

However, we can put any doubt about those CNN screenshots aside.
I saw this video:
and I'll be damned, I saw that one already a long time ago.

That is clearly WTC 2, the South Tower, collapsing and spewing up that huge white cloud at the WTC 6 position.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:14 PM
You beat me on a millisecond with that post, bsbray!

But did you see that insane heli pilot come flying out of the very dense smoke on top of that tower, in the first 3 seconds of that video :
What the hell was he doing there?

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:30 PM
Your guess is as good as mine.

Same thing happened for WTC1, I think, in 9/11 Eyewitness. Helicopter after helicopter flew over, one by one, until the last one approached and then the tower fell. What they were doing, I have no idea, but it definitely comes across as a little odd.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:29 AM
I'd actually like to address the Pentagon portion of that photo site, as I have long been an advocate of an actual 757 hitting the Pentagon (living locally, and having been on the crew to erect the drape in front of the Pentagon before reconstruction, though not an eyewitness to events that day). The photo analysis of the Pentagon photos has made me consider that I may in fact be wrong in my previous asumptions. Now, having been at the site a few days prior to 9/11, I can say with certainty that the lightpoles had been in fact knocked down (some were still laying on the ground), and that a 70' wide portion of the Pentagon had in fact collapsed, with significant damage to the lower levels on either side of the collapse point. I saw this firsthand.

I do still dispute the "ground effect" argument, knowing that I have personally crashed an airplane into the side of a low-standing structure in Microsoft Flight Simulator (which is often called the most realistic flight simulator out there, and does take into account such things as ground effect), and also understanding advanced flight control systems that are present in all commercial (and moreso in military) jets, which are more than capable of compensating for "ground effect" through a "reshaping" of the wings, using the flaps needed for basic control. With an old style cable control system, flying a plane, at high speed, into the side of a 5 story building would be very difficult, if not impossible, simply due to the strength needed to fight the controls. Yet with modern hydraulically assisted, computer controlled flight systems, the same task is relatively easy. (My personal sources come from friends that are aviation engineers for commercial aircraft, and amateur pilots, who believe they could have made the same flight with a Cessna.)

All of that said, however, the discrepancies in the photos of damage at the crash site do hold enough possibility to accept that it was possibly (if not likely) a smaller, Military style passenger/armed jet that made the impact. Most of the "smoking gun" evidence at the crash site (such as cable spools, construction trailers, etc), with the exception of the light poles, were removed by the time I got there to erect the drape (if they had ever existed in the first place). Also, having worked special events for a good 7 years, and knowing EXACTLY what a generator trailer looks like (very common at large special events, where house power isn't adequate, or when an event is set in a location with no local power, such as the Mall in DC). The supposed construction trailer, even without the descriptions, was definitely a generator trailer. If the gentleman who claimed to be inside the trailer searching for an electrician was actually in the trailer, he would have been in one of two very cramped access spaces, either in the front or rear of the trailer. Even if the wing of the plane hit the front if the trailer and caused it to explode, he could have survived, due to built in firewalls, required by OSHA in such generator trailers (assuming he was in the back of the trailer).

While it is physically possible for a 757 to completely disappear into the Pentagon (based solely on the structural integrity of a 757 vs. the reinforced walls of the Pentagon), while leaving no debris outside, it does seem more likely that a smaller plane, armed with explosives, could have made the hole (especially if it's a military plane, and likely also equipped with some form of lightweight armor)

The size of the turbine spindle found is what I consider to be the greatest smoking gun in these photographs. I have seen a 757 exterior up close (while boarding one from the tarmac at San Diego Airport), and know firsthand that the engines suspended under the wings have a rough input nacelle size of 8' in diameter. The bullet-shaped spindle in the center is almost as large as my head. The photos of the recovered engine from the Pentagon just don't jive with that. A 757 has only two engines, one under each wing, and both are the same size - about 8' in diameter. The spindle recovered is for a turbojet engine half that size. There is no possible way that it came from a 757.

Either the photo is a horribly bad photoshop, or a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

The lack of lawn scarring is possible, and not outside of common logic. Most eyewitness accounts, even though they cannot agree on the model of aircraft, do state that the aircraft came in with the landing gear up, and apparently revved its engines at final approach.

The engine revving could mean one of two things. First, it could have been exactly that, trying to get maximum speed for impact, or could have signified missle launches from the plane in question (assuming it was military in nature), adding to the overall volume and sound of the approaching aircraft (especially that many air to ground missiles these days use a modified type of jet engine, versus a rocket powered engine which is more costly and less controllable (ever notice the air intakes in the bottom of a Tomohawk missile?).

While the evidence provided in the photo analysis is compelling, I still don't believe it 100%, but I am now willing to disregard my previous theories that it was in fact a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Your guess is as good as mine.

Same thing happened for WTC1, I think, in 9/11 Eyewitness. Helicopter after helicopter flew over, one by one, until the last one approached and then the tower fell. What they were doing, I have no idea, but it definitely comes across as a little odd.

Living in a major city myself (Baltimore, MD), I don't find anything odd about helicopters constantly flying over a crime site, regardless of how large or small. Every local news source, and local police, has several helicopters at their disposal, and even a simple three block foot-based police chase will often get a helicopter in the air. Even several years ago, when we had a major train accident in the Charles Street Train Tunnel, complete with massive hazmat fires burning out of control in an enclosed space, threatening to explode and take out half of Raven's Stadium, and caused evacuation of every bit of Baltimore within 3 miles, and closing off the city to outside traffic (you may have heard about it in National News), there were still a slew of helicopters flying over the site (both police and press), photographing the South end of the tunnel, where smoke continued to pour out of for two days. (As a side note, the South end of the tunnel is about a mile from where I live now, though the event happened about six months before I moved in here.) Helicopters are nothing new to a major event in a major city. Even with all of the conspiracy therory I believe about 9/11, I really doubt that the helicopters had anything to do with it.

Hell, even the event, about September of last year (I can't remember the exact date) where my little Ford Ranger Pickup was demolished by a drunk driver (fortunately it happened just outside of my work, and there were a LOT of witnessess) had a police helicopter in the air to track the suspect, who crashed his SUV three blocks away, and gave police a four block foot chase. The event never even made the news.

That said, helicopters covering an event in a major city are nothing new, especially not for something as huge as the demolition of the WTC towers (even Baltimore had every helicopter available in the sky on 9/11, and nothing even happened here). Don't put too much stock in the helicopters.

Charles Street Tunnel Fire, Image 1

Full Story about Charles Street Tunnel fire. It should be noted that the authors of this article call it the "Howard Street Tunnel", as the majority of the tunnel does run under Howard Street, but the official Baltimore City name is the Charles Street Tunnel, as the entrance is directly under where Charles Street used to run, before clearinng for the Stadium lots.

[EDIT: spelling and added URLs]

[edit on 6/25/2006 by obsidian468]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:38 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop

Then you will believe in the fact of a totally separate HUGE WTC 6 EXPLOSION.
No doubt about that.
This is one of the major mistakes of the Scenario on 9/11, and the Media-moguls and the Administration did their utterly best to wipe it under the table.
Up till now. This is even bigger than WTC 7, which was a major Scenario breakdown also.

I once saw a fabricated video, of tower #2 falling down, coiciding with the #6 cloud... the top just went straight down, no tilt or anything, of course, the top would have swung out of view by falling over, in this video it didn't... problem is, can you blame the fabrications on a single source? no you can't so it all boils down to 'can't trust pics on the internet' smart, eh? of course, the lack of acknowledgement on the 'officials' and media's part are tell-tale signs of a cover up, but the majority is just not willing to listen.

Takes time till people finally admit there's an elephant in the living room....

PS: something i haven't posted yet, due to lack of evidence.. the first video of the pentagon hit on 9-11 showed a huge cloud of smoke and dust well underway at what must have been 9:07-9:15 am, originating from inside the rings. my point is that the official timeline contradicts what i saw that day. has anyone else had the same experience?

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 07:03 AM
Oh dear.

I really can't believe that Jack White's so called photo analysis is still being taken remotely seriously. Some of the analysis on the Pentagon photo site is simply laughahble it's so bad. I am honestly amazed that anyone has got as far as page 80 odd without giving up in disgust.

Jack White also has previous. He's analysed both the JFK assasination and Apollo and been demonstrated to have got both horribly wrong as well as modified photographs himself in order to help "prove" a point which doesn't actually hold water.

Unfortunately, this sort of wild nonsense detracts from valid questions.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:01 AM
Beat me to it.

Jack White photo analysis has been shown to be lacking at best. i.e we never landed on the moon..Oswalds picture holding the rifle is fake etc.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:12 AM
gets worse and worse...good posting

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:46 AM
it would be good if someone could provide evidence on Jack White i am a newbie to the whole photo analysis scene and i dont know much about him.

i feel until i know who he really is it is difficult to take in his theories....which is a shame as good probing into 9/11 in the way he has `allegedly` done is going to be the only way the TRUTH comes out ,



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Vushta
Beat me to it.

Jack White photo analysis has been shown to be lacking at best. i.e we never landed on the moon..Oswalds picture holding the rifle is fake etc.

Look, if he said that (dunno, he probably did) he was overstepping his bounds, because all he, as a phot analyst can really do without risking a black eye is to determine wether a photo is fake or not. In no way can one infer that 'we' haven't been to the moon (for the record i haven't) from a few forged photos. sure, most of these moon pics are forgeries, but i didn't need mr. white to point that out. why did they do it who did it, etc is speculation, and which is more correct is anybody's guess.

That said:

The pentagon photos speak for themselves, imho, some show trees looking remarkably green withn the smoke and suspiciously transparent, then it's completely scorched... and so on.

The only convincing defense, imho, is arguing along the lines, that these fakes were done by someone else (on the evil internet...), neither the media, nor the government.

<<   2  3 >>

log in