Military photos of the Twin Towers

To John Lear

Is it the time of the month for you or what?

These pictures once again incited me to action... I was a "drone" of this government for a time, but no more!
Look for a future thread (when the time is near) from this poster entitled "2AR" (2nd American Revolution).
If there isn't enough disgust in you, coupled with the knowledge you've already gained from other sources and threads, you are no patriot!
These pictures redoubled my resolve to stand up against the NWO and the "shadow government" and be a true patriot.
Thank you!

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
help us out...

Originally posted by RussianScientists
You can see that some of the photos were taken by the Cessna airplane, some were taken by the helicopter in one of the Cessna airplane photos, and of course there was at least one taken by the EC-3 plane.

Could you please document with links and pictures what an "EC-3 plane" is?

We'd appreciate it... Really... We would. :up;

Semantics... You know what he means, monkey boy.

Originally posted by muddyhoop
To John Lear

Is it the time of the month for you or what?

If by "time of the month", you mean "monthly 'is John Lear a disinfo agent' topic", then you'd be correct. >_>

As far as the pictures go, I cannot view them because it says something about "shockwave" and I'm currently on 28.8k. I will flag the topic, though, and when I get my DSL back on the 18th, I will view them on my other, 100x faster and better computer (that one can't use dial-up because I lost the disk to install the dial-up card thing and only have the ethernet card disk).

Originally posted by Griff

Great video. I see superficial damage to the facade. I see smoke but not forced smoke.

May just be the angle from this image link

but whilst their is obviously structorial damage and some evidence of a fire i'm not sure it was enough to bring down the building?

Nice pics! Great find.
On the 7th picture in, first recovery shot,
there is a drilling rig. Wonder what they
were looking for.

reply to post by hikix


If you have the Macromedia Flash plugin installed you should be able to print the page in PDF format. It would make pages of each of the photos.

Seeing those pictures... it's real hard to keep my bottom lip from shaking

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by spacedoubt
ok..It doesn't make sense that the wind is moving left to right, as is the smoke.
And there doesn't seem to be source for the smoke, other than number 7..

One thing to remember that the collapse of even one tower could have altered the air flow through the area by the simple vertue of not being there anymore. Just food for thought

I agree Fred.
I watched a documentary, not too long ago about Niagara Falls.
Seems that they were having a problem with the huge amount of mist which had changed direction, and began settling in and around the Hotel areas.
Blocking the view of the falls themselves. Windtunnel testing showed that a couple of new buildings, had altered the prevailing airflow, causing vortices that swept the mist back at the buildngs, instaed of away.
So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some of the smoke around WTC-7..was affected similarly.

In picture 38 you can clearly see that the roof of WTC-7 was not hit by the falling debris of the twin towers, in all the videos about the collapse of WTC-7 you see the penthouse collapsing first - how can that be?!

Originally posted by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
The photos of the pyroclastic flow are quite compelling. It's received a little attention, but I think that is something that could be even further examined.

Given the volume of dust we're talking, that would take explosives to do that. There isn't enough energy from a free-fall collapse to do that, and spread it out over such a large area. The concrete would break into large chunks, not pulverize.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Given the volume of dust we're talking, that would take explosives to do that. There isn't enough energy from a free-fall collapse to do that, and spread it out over such a large area. The concrete would break into large chunks, not pulverize.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Why not? This building is hundreds of feet tall, meaning the concrete at the bottom, at the point of collapse, is crumbling while under the pressure of the entire building above it falling down. Not to mention there was a lot of smoke in the building from the huge fire inside that was suddenly released when the building collapsed. Not to mention as large chunks of material fall to the ground from hundreds of feet up, they're going to burst and break up into many pieces with a lot of dust, because of the forces involved (having just fell). Especially when the second building fell, it fell and blew out all the material sitting there from the first one.

A lot of smoke does not *prove* the existence of explosives. Even if there were no explanation for the smoke, explosives would not be the proven possibility, merely one explanation for the phenomenon.

Proof would come in the form of government documents detailing the plan/use of said explosives (which don't exist, whether or not explosives were used), or evidence of the actual explosives in the wreckage, which could take many forms (I'm not an engineer, I would not know what this would look like nor will I pretend to, but I can at least imagine it might have something to do with the type of damage of some pieces at the bottom of the wreckage or something).

watch this:

911blogger.com...

Originally posted by Chris_2008
watch this:

911blogger.com...

Well, I watched the entire video, and unfortunately it doesn't mean much unless a bunch of experts around the world see it and speak out about it's factuality. It was much more well put together, thought out, and seemingly scientific than loose change, but it doesn't mean it's any more factual.

This building is hundreds of feet tall, meaning the concrete at the bottom, at the point of collapse, is crumbling while under the pressure of the entire building above it falling down.

It collapsed from the top; the base of the building was relatively intact until it was collapsed upon from above.

I don't dispute that some dust would be created, only not in those quantities without external factors.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by Chris_2008


Interesting. To bad the helicopters shown were too busy to save those poor souls shown being consumed by smoke and fire......wonder exactly what they were doing?

Looks like no fire below the impact points, exactly as I would surmise, what with physics stating momentum carries all the fuel out of the building.

Like when you slam on your brakes in car, and everything gets thrown forward..... the 35 tons of fuel almost entirely "left the building", but it does "leave" the question of exactly what was burning so hot?

reply to post by hikix


No, I do not think it is possible the towers would have collapsed symmetrically by fire into their own footprint, even if you could explain to me the source of the fire, as all the fuel either was ejected on impact by momentum, or consumed in the huge fireball we all witness on video.

If it was possible, we could all just toss the science of controlled demolition, and simply ignite the top 20% of building with kerosene, certain in your science it will collapse exactly the same way.

But it won't, and didn't.

Now, if you had stated it fell over from impact point....but it didn't, and you can't.

reply to post by johnlear


hahahaha John, always enjoy your replies. See anything else that stands out in these photos as odd? I'd like to hear about it.

I'm just wondering why we weren't trying to rescue those folks crowded near impact point....helicopters videotaped everywhere around the towers that morning, flying hither and yon, back and forth, yet none could grab and save the living...sad day for America.

reply to post by jpm1602


Try Ace Baker's "Hunt The Rubble" website and see if you can find the missing 4400 steel encased concrete floor pans. I can't, maybe you'l have better luck searching.

I agree, vaporised is the precise word to use.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


And who is making these "claims" about the "masses", MM, besides you?

I know a strawman being erected before my eyes, sorry for my lack of gullibility, or fear of ridicule by the non-specific accusers among us.

Have a nice day.