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.

 

Military photos of the Twin Towers

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by IWatchYou
 


I agree, he is being intentionally argumentative and derogatory towards those he disagrees with, without offering alternative opinion or facts.

Childish, actually. Makes me wonder how old MM could be......perhaps he is being given a "time out" in his room, and mom forgot to take his computer away.




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Amelie
 


Astute analogy.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I see no fires under the 70th or so floors, would you be kind enough to state which number photos show evidence of the contrary? Nor did the firemen on the 79th floor radioing there were "small scattered fires" they could easily extinguish. Perhaps they don't know what you know. I'll be grateful for the assistance locating these fires you allege you see.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I also can't fathom how the towers didnt fall with a slant at least, like a tree, and after viewing the top down shot of the effected area, this YouTube video came to mind. - "Silverstein spills the beans"


In summation, 3 buildings fell on that day...

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Zenem]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


You are correct, terrorists will go to extreme lengths to obtain their goals.

For instance, PNAC and their desired "New Pearl Harbor" leaps to mind.

The PNAC who's members populated top decision-making positions of the Pentagon and White House on 9/11/01.

Ever read Paul O'Neil's (Bush's Treasury Secretary, left position of Alcoa CEO to take it) autobiography, where he states planning the invasion of Iraq commenced in January, 2001? Interesting read, also stated on "60 Minutes" interview found easily on web.

Unfortunately, their "wish came true" in less than 18 months.......which points a finger in what direction?

Caves in Afghanistan?

Ever read Defense Secretary Robert Gates autobiography? Where he states he was the one (He was CIA then) that convinced bin-Laden to form a "multi-national Islamic Force" from all the Saudi and UAE fighters streaming into Afghanistan to fight Russian occupation? Funded and given anti-aircraft weapons by US? And where did the 19 hijackers come from, again?

pop quiz: What is the label MSM has attached to Gate's "multi-national Islamic force"? If you said "Al-Qeada", pick your prize. That means "The Base", and refers to the CIA dataBASE of their Islamic Force, btw.

Good, informative reading for those that really wish to know what actually came down on 9/11/01.

Or, just demand Sibel Edmonds is unmuzzled by our government, and all will be clear.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Chris_2008
 


I was again shocked, when I see these very sharp images, especially image 3 of someone falling to his death, and image 4 of people in absolute panic in the burning tower.

I wander, if you see image 6, what is exact the moment of the attack on the second tower then they must have pictures of what really hit the tower to.

[edit on 16/9/07 by spacevisitor]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
In one of the photos you can see a blurred rotor blade...some of these photos were taken from a helo.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Childish indeed...


Originally posted by alupang
I agree, he is being intentionally argumentative and derogatory towards those he disagrees with, without offering alternative opinion or facts.

Childish, actually. Makes me wonder how old MM could be......perhaps he is being given a "time out" in his room, and mom forgot to take his computer away.


You are correct, I don't have an alternative opinion, merely the harsh light of truth... The photo has been intentionally mislabeled. The very title of this thread hinges on that fraudulent act and despite that revelation there are those that continue to ignore said fact, and continue to reference the image incorrectly. There can only be one of two reasons for this: One their cognitive abilities do allow for them to understand that the photo is mislabeled and is being used to further an agenda; or two, that they are knowingly embracing the fraudulent caption in order to further an agenda. I believe it is the second of the two, and I'm more than a little amused that those doing so are complicit in the very type of deception that they accuse the government of.

I would now ask you the same questions since you seem to be interested in contributing substantive material, Why was the photo mislabeled? What is trying to be inferred by the incorrect caption? Who profits?

As for your sophomoric vitriol directed at me, I would suggest viewing my profile if you are curious about my age. As for a time out, I do occasionally take them, but they are always of my own volition.


[edit on 17/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
to underscored MM's point

a question for Lear and all those who follow him :

what precisely is an EC-3 recon plane ?

Lear claims that :


A quick google search would have displayed
many entries and pictures of the Military EC-3 (Boeing 707) reconnaissance and the photo of the WTC and the circumstances under which it was photographed


where are these entries and pictures ????????????????



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape




a question for Lear and all those who follow him :

what precisely is an EC-3 recon plane ?

Lear claims that :


A quick google search would have displayed
many entries and pictures of the Military EC-3 (Boeing 707) reconnaissance and the photo of the WTC and the circumstances under which it was photographed


where are these entries and pictures ????????????????



They are located under E-3 Boeing 707 and there are 111,000 of them.

If you are taking me to task over the accidental C, I am guilty of not carefully checking my post for accuracy. I am further guilty of not even checking whether or not any military plane took the picture.

Please accept my apologies Ignoant_Ape for the inadvertant "C" and for not checking the items MM suggested.

Thanks for the post and your thoughtful input.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
After looking threw most of the pics, my question is how did a jet hitting so high up on the tower cause enough structural damage to cause it to collapse? The fires even look out and under control. I can remember to this day watching this happen at school and thinking controlled demolition, but not daring say a word about that because I'd be outcast in a hurry.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
You said "our side"..that bugs me a little bit my friend.
we're on the same side..looking for the truth!


I ment our side as in looking for truth and not the government spoon fed crap. Sorry for the confusion. It was just an easier way of saying it. I didn't mean we are on oppossing "sides" at all.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Is it just me? Or is their a fascinatingly lack of debris field post collapse.


It depends on which photo you're looking at. There's no real debris left at Ground Zero at all now, but that's not really evidence for it all being vaporized, either. It was rapidly shipped out after 9/11.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
Its a flash doc so i cant grab any of the pictures but check out the picture of the tower that was hit first. The picture basically shows maybe the 50th floor up, and you can see right where the plane sliced through. The picture kind of looks like a lit cigarette standing up.

Ok, now think logically.... is it at all possible that the weight of that maybe 1/5th of the whole tower collapsed and caused the whole building to collapse!?!
Heck no it doesnt. That has been an argument of mine forever. Can ANYONE build a real structure of anykind, even from balsa wood, chop off the top 1/5th of it, drop it on the rest and make it collapse to the ground? Im sure someone will say the lower floors were weakened by some bs, I say prove it. Doesnt appear to be fire below the impact and we know the fire chief got up to the impact area and I doubt he walked through blazing fire to get there.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

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..

The Madrid fire burned many times larger than 7 and suffered severe structural damage but didnt fall. Try again. If you cant show one example of any other building behaving the same way as WTC7 then YOU have the outrageous conspiracy theory.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by shug7272]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by shug7272]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Whether it's an EC-3 or E-3C they don't use the AWACS to take pictures. They are kept far from anywhere they could possibly require pictures of, and they have better platforms to take pictures with. There was an ER-2 that was taking pictures over NYC after 9/11, but the E-3s aren't even equipped with cameras. They're equipped with a lot of electronics gear and can intercept signals, but they don't have optical equipment to take pics like a U-2 or even an RC-135 can.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Originally posted by Zaphod58




Whether it's an EC-3 or E-3C they don't use the AWACS to take pictures. They are kept far from anywhere they could possibly require pictures of, and they have better platforms to take pictures with. There was an ER-2 that was taking pictures over NYC after 9/11, but the E-3s aren't even equipped with cameras. They're equipped with a lot of electronics gear and can intercept signals, but they don't have optical equipment to take pics like a U-2 or even an RC-135 can.



Thanks for your post Zaphod. We have already determined that it was a Cessna Citation.

But thanks for the post and information.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 



Thank you for posting this pics. I couldn't get the original link to work either. I could later, after I had looked at yours, which was weird and interesting, but initially I kept reading the thread going...'lord, i wish i could see these pics!'
have a great day,
~anahna

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 17/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your post Zaphod. We have already determined that it was a Cessna Citation.

But thanks for the post and information.



Their is no such plane as a EC-3.

I believe the EC-3 on the photos is refering to the collection system not aircraft.

Their was also a NASA Twin Otter that flew over the WTC days after as a request from the EPA with a AVIRIS system to do thermal mapping and check for radiation.






[edit on 17-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by Zaphod58





Whether it's an EC-3 or E-3C they don't use the AWACS to take pictures.



Thanks for the post Zaphod but there is neither an EC-3 or an E-3C. There is an E-3 or E-3A which is the AWACS.

Thanks for the post.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join