Ground Zero photos released by exiled FEMA agent Kurt Sonnenfeld- 675 MB, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 74 times

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 04:23 AM by open_eyeballs

reply to post by Paroxysm

WOW

That is some seriously thick steel...

The only thing I can think of to cut through that thick of steel is a plasma cutter, but it would be on egnarly plasma cutter...

Did the workers have anything that could cut through that thick of steel so early after the collapse took place?

The picture is what 1 day?..2 days after the collapses?

Can anyone confirm when this particular picture whas taken?

It would be very challenging if indeed it was taken shortly after the collapses, and it coul db eproven that no workers had the capability to cut through that thick of metal..

Does anyone have information of the demolishing equipment to tear down what was left/

that would be a very helpful clue...

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 04:35 AM by alienesque

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by Paroxysm

WOW

That is some seriously thick steel...

The only thing I can think of to cut through that thick of steel is a plasma cutter, but it would be on egnarly plasma cutter...

Did the workers have anything that could cut through that thick of steel so early after the collapse took place?

yes they did...i believe soemthings seriously not right with the official version of events on that day..but i have seen photos of workers cutting the beams with some odd looking machine..ill try to find something.

here you go:

www.motorsportsartist.com...

its sad when people claiming to be looking for the truth seem to stop looking when they find something thats fits their view of things...i believed the angled cut marks where evidence of a planned demolition until i saw these photos...

what i obviously dont know is how many can be cut in such a short amount of time...

[edit on 17-8-2009 by alienesque]

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 05:10 AM by Marrr

reply to post by open_eyeballs

An oxygen/acetelyne torch would cut that steel. I agree that the photo of multiple beams were cut by the workers.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 05:21 AM by Asherah

S & F, thank you for sharing this.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 05:26 AM by Cylon

Originally posted by Paroxysm

Wow, interesting photo!
If those beams were also cut by workers why would they cut them so high and at such an angle?

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 05:44 AM by Karlhungis

reply to post by Cylon

Well, the angle would probably be to control where the beams fall. The height of the cut could be because debris has been cleared below it, making it higher than it was when they cut it.

Just throwing that out there.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:01 AM by Eden

There are 552 photos within three subfolders in the zip file. One subfolder is labeled FEMA photos (which are the best ones in my humble opinion) the others are Miscellaneous which contains various angles of the fires before the collapse and Sonnefeld is of the photographer with various people celebrities and workers at ground zero.

I hope I did this right

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Eden]

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:08 AM by Asktheanimals

That turbine is nowhere near big enough for a boeing 767. Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me. Great find! s&f.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:12 AM by ExperiencedGhost

That angle of the columns is used to do a controlled demolition but this has been said sins years I guess.
I had 15 points that made a normal collapse unbelievable, and many can be prooved as true.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:18 AM by Eden

More Kurt Sonnenfeld photographs
*edit - did not realize that some of the photos get resized once posted in the thread* How does one link to the album to where they can browse through the pictures?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Eden]

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:50 AM by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Wasn't the juiciest part of this mans evidence supposed to be his photos of the empty vaults? Showing that they must have known of the attack before it happened or they would never have been able to empty them? I remember seeing a brief media interview with him and that was what they were touching on. The only other interesting photos were the pools of molten metal, but those have been floating around for quite some time.

Yeah man, you're on it. Star for you. That's what I was hoping too- pictures of the vaults. But I don't see them in any of the 3 folders.

Also, anyone seen that all the exif data on Sonnenfeld's pics appears to have been removed or modified? I would guess that was done so no hard proof exists that they came from him. I couldn't find a single one that had the original date of around 9/13/01- but I did not look at every single one.

All in all, there is nothing super interesting here imo, and that photo posted of the cut angle beams has been around for quite some time.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:08 AM by octaviameister

Thank you very much for this post! I would like to see these photos, however, my download time is several hours, as this zip file is huge.

Is there anywhere on line where all these photos are already published?

Thanks again!

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:33 AM by McGinty

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
...Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me...

I've just watched the molten metal on Youtube. Can someone tell me why this proves demolition?

It seems to me that there was enough heat, for enough time, in that tower for metal to melt.

Could it not have been metal other than the tower's supporting structure (such as the aircraft, or floor supports) that are running down a diagonally collapsed floor?

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:44 AM by Advancedboy

If this is a known photographer who has posted photos of 9/11, it is irrelevant as an evidence. The government hitman have already edited the photos or the photographer . So I even won`t bother watching or downloading them.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:47 AM by YankeeDefender

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
That turbine is nowhere near big enough for a boeing 767. Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me. Great find! s&f.

OK, first of all, it is annoying then people jump in with no research!

Second of all, lets look at the specs for a Boeing 767-200ER:

Boeing 767-200ER Technical Specs

Notice that it has 2 listed, a Pratt & Whitney engine and a General Electric CF6-80C2. I have actually been working on these engines ever since I was 17 years old. I know for a fact that is the combustor section of the 80C2 engine. The turbine (depending which you were actually refering to, High Pressure or Low Pressure fits on to the front and back of that module, respectively.)

Here is a picture of a full complete GE CF6-80C2 core module which contains that combustor module: (try and look beyond the external piping at one of the fuel nozzles, they are the same as in the picture above and only 80C2's use that configuration of nozzles, AND this is a recent picture so the fuel manifold has been changed since 2001)

If that picture isn't working here is the link:

CF6-80C2 Engine Core Module

So that is basically all I can say. I am tired of people not thinking before they speak!

YankeeDefender

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:51 AM by conar

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
...Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me...

I've just watched the molten metal on Youtube. Can someone tell me why this proves demolition?

It seems to me that there was enough heat, for enough time, in that tower for metal to melt.

Could it not have been metal other than the tower's supporting structure (such as the aircraft, or floor supports) that are running down a diagonally collapsed floor?

~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel

Jet fuel:
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:52 AM by solidshot

reply to post by Paroxysm

On your image here

there is no sign of any construction crew yet the beam I've marked behind the fire crews clearly shows it has been cut at an angle, from what little i know, dem's crews usually place explosives at an angle to bring the building down within it's own footprint? and considering there are no construction crews in sight to have cut that beam, the site looks to hot have been worked on anyway? (there were reports of the fireman's boots melting on the site iirc?) is there an other realistic reason why that beam would have been cut?

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 07:57 AM by Concept X

Excellent post OP, going to download them now S+F.

P.S I hate people using wikipedia as references, its not accurate. Yet it is used for proof all over ATS on every subject.

Little rant over :p, looking forward to taking a look through these images.

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 08:04 AM by Paroxysm

Originally posted by solidshot
reply to post by Paroxysm

On your image here

there is no sign of any construction crew yet the beam I've marked behind the fire crews clearly shows it has been cut at an angle, from what little i know, dem's crews usually place explosives at an angle to bring the building down within it's own footprint? and considering there are no construction crews in sight to have cut that beam, the site looks to hot have been worked on anyway? (there were reports of the fireman's boots melting on the site iirc?) is there an other realistic reason why that beam would have been cut?

Yes there were reports of firemen's boots melting while walking the site. Probably due to the extreme heat of the molten metal below:

reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 08:22 AM by Paroxysm

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by Paroxysm

here you go:

www.motorsportsartist.com...

Well if motorsportsartist.com blog said it, then it must be the truth...

Did you notice the huge amount of 'sulfidised residue' on that massive beam?

Oxygen torches to not leave behind large amounts of sulfur residue, nor do they create HUGE amounts of molten metal.

Did you notice the lack of 'sulfidised residue' here: