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.

 

Russian Pilot photos 9/11 as it happens

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

There is this photo of the Woolworth building with what looks like smoke comming from it.

i114.photobucket.com...


It is a photo AFTER The towers have collapsed too. Were they still firing missiles at the towers after it collapsed?


Actually, that is a still from the video. If you watch the video, it is a sun reflection off one of the many helicopters in the area. You see the reflection move across the smoke passing in front of the woolworth building.



There is this photo that shows what looks like damage to the roof of the Woolworht building.

i114.photobucket.com...


Do you have a source for that photograph? What was the name of the photographer? What date was it taken?




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is a photo AFTER The towers have collapsed too. Were they still firing missiles at the towers after it collapsed.


Guess you never heard of smoke from a missile or fire staying around after it was fired.


Actually, that is a still from the video. If you watch the video, it is a sun reflection off one of the many helicopters in the area.


Please show a source for the reflection theory.


Do you have a source for that photograph? What was the name of the photographer? What date was it taken?


Very immature of you to keep asking for sources of photos when you and others never psot sources or photos when asked.

I have psoted sources for other photos, so you should know by now that i can post sources, (unlike others). i am still waiting for people to psot sources for thier photos beofre i psot any more sources.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mad Larkin
 


Well you got me there, I am not 100 percent sure where they took the ppl on board, for all I know the goverment might have been in contact with the aliens at the time and had them transfered to a cloaked alien ship. Maybe they were used as payment for getting the aliens to help out with the attacks. The aliens then could take the people and use them for whatever purposes they need to. I am also not quite sure what your third remark was meant to say. Mass video footage leakage is not something that would be to hard for the goverment to do, also video and film transmission could have been altered by aliens in the area at the time. There are so many ways of disinformation. Oh I know the Rosie Odonnell question. She is far more credible first of all becasue of her position and her access to information because of her position and her money. Second I beleive that Rosie is also in contact with some rouge aliens that do not believe in the same thing the aliens in contact with our goverment do. I believe they are able to feed her information. Remeber she used to have a daily show and in contact with millions, what better person to make contact with if you were an alien and wanted to get out your information.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Guess you never heard of smoke from a missile or fire staying around after it was fired.


ULTIMA1,

Maybe you should review the video footage from that day. Did you see the smoke blowing away from the towers? How long after the 2nd plane hit did it collapse? You're saying the smoke around the woolworth building magically stayed there...while all of the smoke from the burning towers was blowing away?




Please show a source for the reflection theory.


The fact of the reflection will be linked shortly.



Very immature of you to keep asking for sources of photos when you and others never psot sources or photos when asked.


In other words, you dont know? You want to find the truth and share the truth....but when asked for a source, you cant provide it?

Who is to say you didnt take that picture (since it is on your website)?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
In other words, you dont know? You want to find the truth and share the truth....but when asked for a source, you cant provide it?

Who is to say you didnt take that picture (since it is on your website)?


So i see as usual you ignored the sources for photos i have posted.

Funny and immature how you will believe other photos that do not have sources but will not believe the photos i post even with sources.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So i see as usual you ignored the sources for photos i have posted.

Funny and immature how you will believe other photos that do not have sources but will not believe the photos i post even with sources.



....and yet, you dont.

All that typing to complain and whine, when all you needed to do was post your source. The date it was taken. Anything.

You would rather just argue and complain than post the truth?

Doesnt sound like you want to get the truth out at all....just gather it for your own book.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
You would rather just argue and complain than post the truth?


You are a good 1 to talk, you never post evidence and sources when asked, all you do is troll to try to start arguments.

I will post the source for the photos i posted (Just like i have before)but if you and others do not post sources we will see who the real immature trollers are.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Photo of the smoke from the Woolworth building was from a video taken around 4PM by MSNBC on 9/11.

www.gallerize.com...

At approximately 4:04 p.m., an explosion was filmed in the vacant attic of the Woolworth building (same MSNBC footage). We assume this may have been one of the bastards’ missile launchers, blown up in order to destroy this lynchpin evidence. But it got taped and we found the tapes!




[edit on 2-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Will post more sources later for the photos.

Funny how i can post sources to photos but no one else can.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Photo of the smoke from the Woolworth building was from a video taken around 4PM by MSNBC on 9/11.

www.gallerize.com...


Still not any information for the photo of the top of the woolworth building.

Also, isnt it curious that the video at the site you just linked can only be PURCHASED? shop.gallerize.com...

Another site that profits off of the 9/11 horror.

This isnt your site, is it Roger?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Ok, so you say there were Stinger missiles, Ultima. The FIM-92 Stinger only has a 3 kg. warhead. Even if one was fired, I really don't see it doing any real damage at all.

What is the basis of the missile theory anyway? I really fail to see the reason to fire a small warhead into the buidling when it wouldn't really do much.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Will post more sources later for the photos.

Funny how i can post sources to photos but no one else can.



We'll believe it when you actually manage to do so, instead of just complaining that others don't.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Ok, so you say there were Stinger missiles, Ultima. The FIM-92 Stinger only has a 3 kg. warhead. Even if one was fired, I really don't see it doing any real damage at all.

What is the basis of the missile theory anyway? I really fail to see the reason to fire a small warhead into the buidling when it wouldn't really do much.


Exactly. People are having a real logic bypass with this one.

What's going to be more effective explosive device: a two hundred ton plane laden with jet fuel (and possibly explosives) or a 3kg warhead?

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Mad Larkin]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I go with the plane and extra ooomph onboard. oh and added charges inside the building.

What does strike me though with all of this is that could there be thousands of more photos 'put there' that haven't made it onto the net ?

Could or should we try looking for them ? you know like pass word around the web about needing new pictures.... a face book campaign / bebo maybe ??

Just a thought like.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

The whole missile thing is hard to point out to people because they were used in a sneaky way.
Anyone who has watched missiles tested, blowing up buildings, could predict that, if a missile is fired diagonally into the tower, that it would blow out all the windows , along that side.
So, to make it look like a big fuel fire, instead of a missile attack, they time out a second missile to go right into the middle of the explosion plasma that comes out of the windows.
No one sees the missile because it is hundreds of feet above the ground and traveling at high speed.
As for the Woolworth bldg missile, they did the same thing, on the North wall of tower 2.
So they would have had missiles flying from that direction, but I do not think one would have originated from there.
I think any missiles used would be very sophisticated, that they would go exactly where they wanted them to go, and explode at just the right time.

This lower photo was taken directly to the north, over a half a mile away, at ground level, at Hudsen & Worth.
The black dot in the whilte cloud is part of a missile trail that goes between the towers.
It is just about level with 80th floor.
Directly below that, looks like a section of a missile dropping out of the sky.




[edit on 2-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Will post more sources later for the photos.

Funny how i can post sources to photos but no one else can.



Funny how you ignore photos and videos that do get posted or you simply shoo them away with more of your conspiracy theories.

It's also funny how you ignore when people take your photos and "sources" and rip them to shreds.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So is blowing out all the windows was the sneaky thing for the missiles theory? I'm still completely baffled as to the whole point of it all.

If they were meant to knock down the towers, then they'd have to be either really large or carry a new explosive mix. So far, all I've heard about are shoulder-fired missiles which while being able to take down aircraft and blast through tanks, would do little to nothing to the towers.

Most of these shoulder-fired missiles contain either a shaped charge for focusing the blast to defeat armor or a fragmentation warhead for destroying aircraft. Unless they modified the warhead.

Hell, an airplane had struck each tower, so I don't really see the point in adding a 3-5 kg warhead. Unless I'm missing something completely about this theory?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well, you see missile fragments. Others see Satan himself:






then there is always this beauty:




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Can i just state that for the record i do NOT believe there was a missile used, but I have met a group of people who have a very plausable reason for a small missile being used.


OK, the work group did the deed and placed the shaped cutters over vital areas, and then fled. Now, they needed to detonate these explosives - how did they do that ?

Using a small version of the EMP missiles used over bosnia in the early 1990's.

The detonation was caused by a collapse in the circuit of the cutter charges.

i.e. an emp weapon went in, exploded and cut the power to the charges. This inititaed their count down timers to the very second needed to look like an aircraft collapsed the buildings.

I know, its a bit 'out there' but these emp weapons do exist for taking out towns and power plants, so why not a miniture version for use against tanks / buildings ?

Thats their take on it any how.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


The sneaky thing is hiding the exploding secondary missiles into flame that they could have predicted, ahead of time, would have been coming out of the building.
The reason for doing this is that a few flames from a missile exploding in the middle of the building, would not have looked convincing.
To make it look like a plane full of fuel had hit, they had to add more to the show.
So, they fired missiles into those pathetic flames, that were already starting to come outside.
Instead of a normal high explosive, like would have been used for the interior, they use a different type for the exterior, that would mimic a fuel explosion.
The whole idea is to not leave something so important, like taking down two towers, to something as chancy as a jehadist piloted plane.

Nice pic to give you an idea of what happened to this building when what looked like the main force, from the impact, was concentrated into this area.
Whatever solid objects, bigger than 18 inches wide, that came out, had to come out here.
(ignore the arrows, they were already added to the photo, when I found it.)



[edit on 3-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join