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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ah, ok. See, those really short 1-2 line posts of yours are really unclear as to your intention.

So you and I at least agree on one thing here. If there was radiation picked up, why is it being attributed to DU? There are plenty of other things in the final debris that would give off slight amounts of radiation.




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

I made this video last night, to try to illustrate my point about extra explosions being added to what happened as a result of the initial plane impact.
It is difficult to see in a normal video, but I have broken down most of the tower 2 videos, into individual frames.
What I consistently find is the expected things from the crash, progressing along, and suddenly another explosion comes along and disrupts the original thing.
The secondary explosion, then, supersedes the primary explosion.
OK, this video is from less than two seconds of real time.
I slowed it down to just over a minute.
I cropped it down to the interesting part.
It is the same corner that was the original discussion topic.
Something appears to come out of this corner of tower 2, right after the impact.
I have struggled for a long time (months) because there are two separate, distinct trails that almost, but not quite, are simultaneous.
In this video, you can see what I am talking about(I hope).
The first thing you see is a black tube. (Tubes like this can be found everywhere, in these videos. They are indicative of pressure differentials. The tubes are created when gasses escape from a higher pressure to a lower pressure area.)
Then you see a flame that is from the fuel that had blown out of the North facing windows.
Then, something else comes out of nowhere, with a crazy yellow trumpet.
These things are aways associated with military weapons grade explosions.
That weapons grade explosion overtakes the normal, reactive explosions from the crashing plane.
That one does not come from inside the building, but is being bounced off the building.







[edit on 4-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
There is a video proving your missile smoke theory wrong.


I see no information along with the video that states the missile smoke theory is wrong.

I still do not see any sources for the photos others have posted.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Why do you need information with the video, since it clearly shows the smoke trail coming from the building going to the ground.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Here are a few video frames to further illustrate my point.

This is a missile trail from the one that exploded just before reaching the North East corner of tower 2.
It becomes visible after sucking up white smoke, coming out of the blown out windows of the North wall.

This is a frame from a video taken from the top of a building at Worth & Broadway and shown on FOX.
It shows the west end of the trail that is in the first of these three frame shots.

This is from that same fox video and shows the East end of that same trail.
If you watch these two videos you see that they are the same trail.
What this does is show how that thing happening at the corner of tower 2 is more complicated than it might first appear.
It is further complicated by the fact that another missile (probably two or three) is bounced off the East wall.

Here is where you can find the videos that I made these screen captures from:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 4-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I decided I should post a photo to back up my statement of there being missiles exploding on the East face of tower 2.
I imagine that the reason for doing this is to make all that "burning" going on as long as possible.
They must have calculated how long it would take to burn up so much jet fuel.
Once they blew one bomb, that did not last long enough, plus, the fire is drifting up wards because of the draft created by the heat produced.
So, a second missile was shot into the mess, above where the first one was.
Let's take a look at this photo and see if we can see evidence of this happening.

Here is the crner, from another angle.
Is this stuff office furniture, or bomb parts?


[edit on 4-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I just downloaded a better quality version of the Fairbanks video.
I have to retract one of my previous claims about what can be seen in it.
The alternating black and white dot above the building, in the cloud, is a piece of metal, probably part of the outside skin of the plane.

If you want a 100 MB version you can download it from megaupload.
www.megaupload.com...
great opportunity to get something a lot better than what is on youtube.
Same video, just higher quality. DIVX format. Nine and a half minutes long. You can see the youtube version at www.youtube.com... to see what you are about to invest time in. Luckily, I have high speed cable and can download it in two minutes. If you have slow connection, might want to check the youtube version. I would encourage everyone to study this stuff and not be fooled by people who want to convince you it is all fake. It is real. It really happened. Look for yourself. Do you see jet fuel, or something else.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So you and I at least agree on one thing here. If there was radiation picked up, why is it being attributed to DU? .


Actually the big question is why is it being attributed to DU from the planes when those planes do not carry DU? You would think since it only takes about 30 seconds to find this information out that EPA and others would have been smart enough to find it out before stating it.

Basically now we know why the EPA asked NASA to overfly the WTC with the AVIRS.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
It all seems pretty far fetched to me. The missile theory, the hologram theory especially, the CGI theory. That white plume couldn't possibly have been burning office furniture or a piece of pipe from the building or the plane could it?

Things were in such complete and utter chaos after the planes hit, what if people were seeing and hearing things in their heightened states of hysteria? Think about it - two planes just hit the WTC and they had no idea what was happening next. They didn't know if more planes were coming, if an invasion force was coming, if planes were coming to bomb the city or what.

Lets say the missile theory is true. How do we know that the missile(s) had to have been fired by members of our military or government? Why couldn't it have been terrorists also, trying to ensure that the WTC buildings came down?

How do we know that if explosives were in fact planted that our government was responsible and not the same terrorist faction that piloted the planes?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Lets say the missile theory is true. How do we know that the missile(s) had to have been fired by members of our military or government? Why couldn't it have been terrorists also, trying to ensure that the WTC buildings came down?

How do we know that if explosives were in fact planted that our government was responsible and not the same terrorist faction that piloted the planes?


Well thats exactly why people need to do more research, file more FOIA request and pressure some of this agencies into releasing more facts about what actually hapened that day.

Just like why are they blaming radiaton on DU from the planes that the planes that were supposed to have been used do not even carry?

[edit on 5-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Just like why are they blaming radiaton on DU from the planes that the planes that were supposed to have been used do not even carry?


Do you have another source for the DU and the explanation? The first one looks like an email from a month after the event. It says it "might" be because of DU that burned "(probably)".
It also provides an alternative explanation for the Pentagon DU, though it too seems steeped in rumour:


there are rumours the walls of the Pentagon are made radiation-proof with reinforced concrete mixed with depleted uranium particles to keep the radiation out in case of a nuclear attack/accident.


Do you have an actual source or report for the presence of DU at the sites and its origin?

[edit on 5-6-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I am not sure of anything.
I am not far off from how you feel.
I am not trying to preach a gospel of missiles.
I wish there wasn't any and things are all just fine and we should give up our rights and the government will protect us.
I really wish someone who is a real expert would tell me I am wrong.
I started looking at these videos and could not explain some things and decided there must be some explanation.
So far no one is offering up explanations.
As for the objects in the last photo I posted, I looked at this in a couple of videos and decided that they are not as large as they appear.
Most of the size can be figured as flames coming off of them.


[edit on 5-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


seems to me that the plane was loaded with explosives and

and then WTC also had explosive charges in it



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you have an actual source or report for the presence of DU at the sites and its origin?


Well for 1 if you read my post i am not trying to prove the presence of DU at the sites.

I am trying to figure out why DU from the planes was blamed for the radiation when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Older planes such as the first 747s carried a large amount of DU. But Boeing stopped ussing DU and replaced it with Tungsten in newer planes.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well for 1 if you read my post i am not trying to prove the presence of DU at the sites.

I am trying to figure out why DU from the planes was blamed for the radiation when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Older planes such as the first 747s carried a large amount of DU. But Boeing stopped ussing DU and replaced it with Tungsten in newer planes.


That really is a good question. I'm kind of surprised myself that airplanes would carry DU as trim weights, considering their toxicity if the airplane crashed. I really wonder why the engineers didn't just go with tungsten since the beginning.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you have an actual source or report for the presence of DU at the sites and its origin?


Well for 1 if you read my post i am not trying to prove the presence of DU at the sites.

I am trying to figure out why DU from the planes was blamed for the radiation when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Older planes such as the first 747s carried a large amount of DU. But Boeing stopped ussing DU and replaced it with Tungsten in newer planes.


Do you have an actual source or report for the presence of DU at the sites and its origin?
If not, then DU (from the planes or otherwise) was not actually blamed for any radiation so your premise is moot.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
That really is a good question. I'm kind of surprised myself that airplanes would carry DU as trim weights, considering their toxicity if the airplane crashed. I really wonder why the engineers didn't just go with tungsten since the beginning.


Gee and i thought a pilot would have known that. Boeing replaced the Uranium with Tungsten. The 757 and 767 carry Tungsten.

So unless the hijackers put DU on the aircraft there is no way the EPA should have blamed the levels of radiation on DU from the planes.

Diagram of haz mat on older aircraft. Notice number 8 is Uranium counterweights. www.aeronautics.ru...

www.aeronautics.ru...

On October 4, 1992, a Boeing 747 cargo aircraft crashed in the Bijlmer suburb of Amsterdam. The aircraft was carrying 75 tons of kerosene and more than 10 tons of various chemicals, including flammable liquids and gases. The Boeing 747 was also carrying a ballast load consisting of up to 1500 kg of depleted uranium contained in its tailcone in addition to DU ballast in its tail rudder and the wings, according to Paul Loewenstein, technical director and vice-president of the Nuclear Metals, Inc., the supplier of DU to Boeing. It has been confirmed by Boeing that the first 550 Boeing 747 aircraft constructed use depleted uranium as ballast. However, according to the Boeing, the aircraft that crashed in Amsterdam was carrying less than 400 kg of DU, as some of the standard DU ballast was replaced with tungsten.

Dr. Loewenstein mentions that "large pieces of uranium oxidize rapidly in a long-lasting fire whenever they are heated in the air to a temperature of about 500 C". A report by the Amsterdam-based Laka Foundation, Documentation and Research Center on Nuclear Energy, informs: "The great danger from this chemical reaction is that the escaping cloud of dust with thousands of microparticles of uranium oxide can be inhaled or swallowed by bystanders. The American physicist Robert L. Parker wrote in Nature , in a worst-case scenario involving the crash of a Boeing 747, that about 250,000 people would run health risks (or near-poisoning) as a result of inhalation or swallowing of uranium oxide particles. Parker's conclusion assumed the presence of 450 kilos of DU in a Boeing 747. He says: "Extended tests by the American Navy and NASA showed that the temperature of the fireball in a plane crash can reach 1200 C. Such temperatures are high enough to cause very rapid oxidation of depleted uranium."

A lengthy period of research and investigation following the 1992 clash of the Boeing 747 in Amsterdam produced various reports confirming serious health risks posed by depleted uranium. "The most interesting one in this particular case is probably the report "Health risks during exposure of uranium", made by radiation expert Leonard A. Hennen from the Dutch Ministry of Defense... The author is very thorough about the radiotoxic nature of DU in the human body. The findings of Hennen strongly contradicts the findings in the final DU report of Zuidoost. He said that the people at a possible crash site are running risks. In his report (chapter 5, p.9) he proposes the taking of urine samples and "in vivo" measurements when there is suspicion of internal contamination of the DU."




[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you have an actual source or report for the presence of DU at the sites and its origin?


I will try to make this as simple as i can since you seem to have a hard time understanding.

Why would the EPA state that the levels of raditaion at the sites were caused by DU when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU?

Where did the radliation come from if it was not from DU?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not once did I claim that I was a pilot. Weedwhacker is the resident pilot expert. Please get this straight.

I'm an engineer and I haven't personally worked on the 747-200s that used DU as trim weights. My work environment now envolves designs that try to eliminate as much of the hazardous waste as possible.

Here I am agreeing with you that it is odd that anyone (if they did) attributed any radioactivity to DU and you still take it as an attack. I did my own research and now know that DU was used in upwards of 1,400 kg as trim weights, so I never did disagree that DU was not used in aircraft. It's just a practice that I didn't know.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Here I am agreeing with you that it is odd that anyone (if they did) attributed any radioactivity to DU and you still take it as an attack. I did my own research and now know that DU was used in upwards of 1,400 kg as trim weights, so I never did disagree that DU was not used in aircraft. It's just a practice that I didn't know.


Well i was under the impression you were a pilot when we were talking about the landing gear.

Well i believe its 1 reason the EPA asked NASA to overfly the site with the AVRIS.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i was under the impression you were a pilot when we were talking about the landing gear.

Well i believe its 1 reason the EPA asked NASA to overfly the site with the AVRIS.



Being an engineer does require me to know quite a lot about the "hows" and "whys" of aircraft. I'm kind of a hybrid between the pilots who know how to use the aircraft and the mechanics who know how to fix it.

Anyway, a user posted about barium and stontium being possibly due to a nuclear detonation of a secret reactor core. I think this is slightly out there, but the buildings do house a lot of items that use both elements in them.

Primarily fluorescent lighting and color TV tubes, which I'm sure there were a lot of inside the building. Barium is also used in bricks, paint, rat poison, etc.. Maybe it's this radiation they're picking up from the dust that got blown up in the air after the collapse?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join