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.

 

WTC1 Impact, weird stuff going on.

page: 7
58
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thanks for the information on the stack effect. I've heard about something like that in smaller structures, but didn't know how it would work in a large high-rise, because of the size and the way floors are laid out.

I knew the restaraunt/observatory was on floors 106 and 107, and I remembered there was TV/cable broadcasting stuff on the top floor (for one of the local stations, if I remember), but I wasn't sure what was in between. The mystery puff of grey comes from right about there, in the region of Windows on the World and the maintenance floors. It appears before the plane is even fully consumed by the building, like within a second.

If they keep central air-conditioning and heating machines on those floors, then it might be possible that the puff of grey was a shockwave being blown through air-con vents or something like that. But how fast can a shockwave travel through a network of air ducts? The plane hit floors 90-94, I think, so it would have to be able to travel through over 10 more floors and blow out within a second.

Do you know if there are any surviving floor plan/schematics of the airconditioning system in the WTC?




posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 



I would estimate that you guys go about air conditioning pretty much identical to us, the actual air conditioning units are obviously placed outside and in most cases where possible the roof, here there will be huge fans to fan the cool air around the whole system, the ducting is sheet metal growing in size where needed ie main feeds, it is joined via drilling small holes and pop rivets with a mastic seal to keep it air tight, overall it is of a very flimsy type status.

It has like all other stuff that is hid behind the false ceilings and ceiling tiles, been designed to specifications that incorporate it into the tiles themselves, like lights, CCTV, Burglar Alarms etc etc.

I would doubt very much that it would withstand a half decent explosion, and it`s a very intricate mazy network also, if there was a suck and blow set up then the only ends of the ducting would be at the respective fans, there would be no ventilation vents as such clean air is pumped in, dirty air is sucked out, but I have to hold my hands up i`ve never seen a system for a 110 storey building before
.


Quickie before I end, the bulbous explosion appears to me to be the same colour as it`s surrounds almost like the top of the tower was a balloon type thing, it didn`t appear to emit flames, but my eyes are not very clever, if so I doubt it was anything to do with Jet fuel and the Jet impact, it would have to be something pretty powerful to make steel expand like a rubber ball.

/cheers.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


One possible explaination is dust which collected in ducts over the years
If ever seen back of a PC can see how much dust collects

The impact would have stirred up the dust - the building was whipsawed
at least 6 ft from impact before snapping back. Building actually wobbled
for 5 minutes

This is just my conjecture....



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Looks weird, just a thought here, that bubble thing could something have been fired from the opposite side?, a lot of choppers hanging around and the attention was all at the front.

$2.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I would like to address the jettisoned air through the broken windows malarkey.
Until someone can show me the myriad of glass particles spraying forth into the low level morning sun light reflecting what should be a rainbow of tiny fireflies. I say it is malarkey



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I sorta subscribe to the A3 scenario.
The aircraft looks good enough at a quick glance, if the cosmetics are correct, to be mistaken for a commercial craft.
That baby could launch a missile, smart bomb or a precise unmanned crash and fit almost any of the 911 criteria. A missile launch or smart bomb and a fly over are also possible.
This is why I post the content below.
Check out the Ratheon dudes that were supposed to be on the planes.
I haven't seen the documentray has anyone?


New Documentary - 100% Proof - No Plane Hit Pentagon
By: plunger Tuesday June 16, 2009 5:26 am

A brand new Documentary irrefutably proves that a missile, fired from a jet, hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - the latter fleeing the area after the attack. The attack jet was an A-3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's fleet, flown by a crack, US fighter pilot, disguised as an American Airlines Passenger jet. The A-3 is designed to land on aircraft carriers, and eyewitnesses on this video recount that they saw a very low-flying aircraft flying very slowly, wings wobbling, then banking right on final attack approach to the Pentagon - then throttling-up and bugging out of the area (simultaneous with the explosion) after firing the missile. Karen Kwiatkowski and others instantly on the scene confirmed the aroma of cordite (high explosives).

Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, watched its stock take off after the 911 attacks. Purchases of call options contracts on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on September 10, 2001. Americans (too many) do not know that Raytheon executives were killed on 9-11, or at least wound up permanently missing, which may be a more accurate way of saying it. It is who wound up missing that is most interesting.


Raytheon and 9/11

2001-09-11 Stanley Hall Raytheon Director of Electronic warfare program management. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 77, the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon but did not.

2001-09-11 Peter Gay Raytheon VP of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.

2001-09-11 Kenneth Waldie Raytheon Senior Quality Control for Electronic Systems. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.

2001-09-11 David Kovalcin Raytheon Senior Mechanical Engineer for Electronic Systems. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.

2001-09-11 Herbert Homer Raytheon Corporate Executive working with the Department of Defense. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on United airlines Flight 175, the one that supposedly hit the South World Trade Tower II.

These are not only the type of people but they are the people that would be assigned to UAV type projects involving Mode 4 and Mode 5 upgrades. Why would they be in Boston and those planes coming from that direction and from north of Manhattan Island?

That 16 foot tunnel through three rings of the Pentagon is only made by a directional blast weapon. Rumsfeld has even slipped up and mentioned the missile that hit the Pentagon.

Some have seen the Pentagon parking lot camera video and the white trail of smoke. Jets do now leave white trails of smoke at sea level, but Thiokol powered AGMs do, at all altitudes.

When you see the security camera footage at the Pentagon, note that it does not include a plane, but does include a low-level white contrail, precisely what would be expected from the exhaust of a Thiokol solid-fuel rocket motor - fired from a very low level.

FAA Chief, Norm Mineta, testified under oath before the 9/11 Commission that he personally witnessed Dick Cheney in the bunker beneath the White House on 9/11 directing the events as the plane approached the Pentagon for at least the final 50 miles of its flight. Despite frantic calls from his subordinates to do something, Cheney allowed the plane to approach the world's most highly fortified building, uncontested. Following Mineta's testimony, he was fired.

The cab driver who claimed to have had his cab struck by a light post, allegedly sheered-off by the approaching jet-liner, admits on camera that his wife works for the FBI, and the entire incident was staged to create a cover story for what ACTUALLY occurred at the Pentagon on 9/11. No jet hit any light posts on 9/11. That was all staged the night prior.

The Inside Job is in fact, proven.

Attacking the messenger without actually watching the film is unacceptable. Watch this film and share it with everyone you know. The coverup is as vast as the conspiracy. Everyone in Congress knows the truth. ALL OF THEM.

Spotlight


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well, part of the problem is you might need to get more resolute video. Because I went and dug up a decent original of the first impact clip, and captured a screen of what you are talking about. You can clearly see here those are some kind of boxes mounted on the building. Definitely not explosions, imo. And you can see the same thing in the corner of the other building too.



So I want my star and flag back!
lol, j/k, keep em. You get an A for effort, my friend.


[edit on Sat Aug 29th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



That what we se in the right top corner of each building might be those cleaning devices where they let ppl down in that basket to do some cleaning or might be some directional antenna.





posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



I sorta subscribe to the A3 scenario.


Oh, gawd!

That A-3 baloney has been refuted dozens of times!!
Sheesh!!

Do you really wanna hang your hat on a "theory" about an old 1950s-era BOMBER (not a missile carrying/firing airplane)???

It's be easier to modify a REAL B757 with a missile, than to rely on some 50-year old piece of junk!

There are plenty of parked B757s in the various boneyards around the world, you can easily look up the history of old jets...look especially at where some old Eastern Airlines B757s went...Eastern was first US Carrier to fly them, early 1980s.

Besides....the A-3 story keeps changing, even the "9/11 hoaxers" can't get it right! They use the Raytheon 'angle' to suggest the airplane was remote-controlled and was actually what hit the Pentagon, NOT a missile.

But, keep believing garbage from the Internet, because if its ON the Internet, it MUST be true, right?

Anyway, now how about back to the WTC1?? The whole premise of the OP here has been debunked, so we're desperate to talk about ALL 9/11 angles again?

AND so it goes...Occham's Razor, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), every reasonable person that understands there is NOTHING to see here, just like the "Moon Landing Hoax" nutcases have nothing to their delusions.

Was it the fictional character Don Quixote who was famous for 'tilting at windmills' because he believed they were monsters attacking the villages?

Hate to break it to all of you devout "investigators" typing your poor fingers into nubs, and squinting at computer monitors all day...you AIN'T gonna be the next Woodward and Berstein, breaking wide open some VAST conspiracy. They are not going to make a movie about your exploits, starring Redford and Hoffman. Ain't gonna happen, kiddos.

But, if you enjoy your rich fantasies so much, then revel in them. Embrace them. Spurn reality. It's your lives to waste.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
If you watch the original 1983 film from the Port Authority you will understand why so many claims are foolish, an example is the bottom lobby glass being blown out by the impact, the towers were in effect three separate buildings, one on top of the other, each was nearly air tight from the next.

Here are the three parts of the film.



and



and




[edit on 3-9-2009 by prof-rabbit]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


First of all you show no proof that the A3 information is false. Just refuted.

An A3 military aircraft would be way more easy to retro fit and use. A commercial retrofit would raise eyebrows way high and would be harder to cover up.
A 757 couldn't do the maneuver needed to do the pentagon.
A missile discharged just prior to impact of the tower by the A3,
a missile loaded with say phosphorous and napalm or newer high tech incendiary and explosive devices----- could explain molten steel better than the OS BS.
I would rather err in an attempt to save the village than keep my head up my can and do nothing but get in the way of those that care.
I refute you as a person without compassion for thousands of dead Americans and their families. Not only here at home but for every body bag that reaches these shores from the Corporate campaigns you indorse.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



A 757 couldn't do the maneuver needed to do the pentagon.


We are supposed to be discussing the WTC1. But, your statement there is incorrect.


A missile discharged just prior to impact of the tower by the A3,
a missile loaded with say phosphorous and napalm or newer high tech incendiary and explosive devices----- could explain molten steel better than the OS BS.


Oh...so NOW the claim has shifted, the A-3 was used on WTC1?? OK, well we have the Naudet brothers' film...and then we have all of the other footage of United 175....the damage outlines, the parts, the passengers' and crews' DNA, all from American 11 and United 175....but, you say a 50-year old former Navy jet originally designed as a bomber....that NEVER had the capacity to fire a missile, was modified to fire a missile?

Some proof, please.

Now, as to this rant, it boggles my mind as to where it comes from:



I refute you as a person without compassion for thousands of dead Americans and their families.


Huh??
??

Where on Gilligan's Island did you come up with THAT particular coconut?
All I can say is.....WoW!!


Oh, but it gets better......


Not only here at home but for every body bag that reaches these shores from the Corporate campaigns you indorse.



Well, the only possible emotion I can allow myself to express here in the Forum is....Gobsmacked.

The "Corporate campaigns"?? That I "indorse"??? What, you think I'm George W. Bush or "Dick" Cheney? Look to THEM for any "endorsements", fella!

THEY failed, on THEIR watch, and then they started to spin and spin with positive GLEE because this horrible event...THAT THEY WERE WARNED about, not only in PDBs, but by various foreign intelligence services, gave them the opportunity to push forward an agenda well-planned already.

They (especially "Dick"...such an appropriate name..."Dick"...) feigned outrage publically, whilst simultaneously thinking "OK, now it's gonna be easier to sell the Iraqi invasion we wanted....we'll just downplay the Saudi Arabian connection, and plant the seeds that those raghead suicidal terrorists were Iraqi, Fox "News" will help us, they do everything we tell them to."

OH....and not only that, but it gave them carte blanche to implement the First Draconian steps to dismantle our freedoms, in the name of that ridiculous "Homeland Security" load of BS.

You want a "conspiracy"???

You don't have to imagine these Rube Goldberg-like complex scenarios of missiles, holograms, "planted evidence", pre-set explosives, ALL of those things that can be shown to be more science fiction than science fact. It's far more simple.

The Bush Administration is responsible....not for actually DOING the attacks on 9/11, but whether through incompetence or deliberate inaction, allowing it to happen.

IF it was indeed that malicious, that they suspected and did nothing, with intent to allow...THEN they are perfectly happy to have all of you "Truthers" flail around chasing alternative "theories" until the cows come home, because it draws attention away from THEM, since the ideas are getting more crackpot crazy every day.

IF they are guilty, as I've outlined above --- and I want to emphasize I have no way of knowing, just guessing --- then they are laughing at all of you. (Well, except for "Dick". I think all he can manage is an evil snicker....)
_____________________________________________

Here. YOU brought up the A-3, did you research the actual airplane?


The Douglas A-3 Skywarrior was a strategic bomber built for the United States Navy and among the longest serving carrier-based jet aircraft. It entered service in the mid-1950s and was retired in 1991.

en.wikipedia.org...

Read all about it. LOOK at the pictures.

Or, believe the baloney on those junk websites that make crap up, your choice.





[edit on 3 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Seventh
 





9). It is deemed and proved that roof top rescues were prohibited for no other apparent reason than dead men tell no tales.

10). Would it not be the case also - If a country has no qualms about killing it`s own then killing those whom could tell the truth, were killed with the aid of something (gas etc) as soon as the Jets hit.


More sick theories from a sick whacko

The FDNY helicopters circled the roof and attempted to land to check
conditions. Roof of North Tower is covered with antenna from everything
from broadcast stations to microwave and cellphonein addition to HVAC
equipment. Heat and smoke prevented helicopters from approaching building to land. Doors to roof were locked to keep daredevils and suicides
away.

You are saying that helicopters were not to land in order to insure
that everyone died?


You then contend that the survivors were gassed!

Sick stuff from one sicko...





What is sick here is your lack of chopper rescue capabilities.
Why were there no Coast Guard choppers? Why were there no National Guard choppers.
They could lower cages from Sky Cranes or Chinooks.
Hueys can put one skid down on the edge of a building and load passengers. If the egress passages were locked---- that someone that made that decision and any one that defends them should be dropped from a chopper of their choice on to the spire of the Empire State or the Chrysler building.
As for the gas why not. They did every other thing they could to produce the most cowardly act of the new century and the last.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Here is the deal. I posted the A3 internet info. It has alot of names and history. If you deny it ----post somrthing that proves it incorrect.
Not just your opinion and REFUTES.
Were those Raytheon guys on those aircraft or not?
The tactical bullput and I are old friends. You couldn't snow me in Buffalo
N.Y.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 





What is sick here is your lack of chopper rescue capabilities.
Why were there no Coast Guard choppers? Why were there no National Guard choppers.
They could lower cages from Sky Cranes or Chinooks.
Hueys can put one skid down on the edge of a building and load passengers. If the egress passages were locked---- that someone that made that decision and any one that defends them should be dropped from a chopper of their choice on to the spire of the Empire State or the Chrysler building.
As for the gas why not. They did every other thing they could to produce the most cowardly act of the new century and the last.


Pretty easy to mouth off and make all sort of stupid statements

Reality is a lot more difficult.....

NYPD helicopters attempted to land on the roof but were driven off by heavy smoke from fires below. Thermal columns generated by the fires
would have disrupted lift from rotor blades making control difficult if not impossible



At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were toland on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD helicopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated that the severity of the heat from the jet fuel­laden fire in the North Tower would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter. At 9:51, an aviation unit warned units of large pieces of debris hanging fromthe building. Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse.





Giuliani said he raised the possibility of a rooftop helicopter landing at the scene with Chief of Department Peter Ganci - who died in the collapse of the south tower.
Ganci told the mayor that intense fire and smoke made an air rescue too risky and would have jeopardized the lives of the police pilots.


Roofs on WTC towers were full of obstructions, HVAC equipment,
antennas, especially the North Tower with its 300 ft TV/radio tower.

www.flickr.com...



The door to the roof was locked and could only by opened by security
control in the South Tower - NYPD officers circling in helicopters could
spot no body on roor to rescue

Still would have had to get people up stairways to roof - stairways which would be full of smoke. That is assuming were passable and not blocked with debris



Port Authority officials confirmed a report in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that the doors leading to the roofs of both towers were locked for security reasons with Fire Department approval.

PA spokesman Allen Morrison defended the lockdown, saying access was tightly restricted to keep vandals away from the sensitive communication equipment on the roof.

Atop the Trade Center were antennas for television and radio stations, cellular phone systems, police communications, Port Authority facilities and Federal Aviation Administration navigational equipment.

"There was ample reason to protect access to all that equipment, even aside from preventing the possibility of potential suicides or daredevils," Morrison said.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I would like to make a point here as good stuff is getting lost via the crap, make a point by all means, but if there is irrefutable proof against your opinion, just leave it thanks
.

I`ll give an example of what I mean, let`s take rooftop rescues, are we rescue pilots with appropriate equipment and vast experience?, well in the nutshell we are not, so we have a shot at what we estimate is a reason why or why not, that`s all good, but when you have a veteran Air rescue pilot stating this - it`s case closed.......



Tough Challenge

On Sept. 11, a rescue from the north tower would have been difficult but possible, Mr. Semendinger and other veteran helicopter-rescue pilots say. The first building hit by a hijacked plane, at 8:48 a.m., the north tower was the second to collapse, one hour and 45 minutes later. Records of calls to 911 operators, first reported by the New York Daily News, show that people on the top floors were seeking help at least until 10:12 a.m., one hour and 24 minutes after the strike. With fire raging on the floors below them, they had no hope of walking down to safety.

Whether even a few of those lives could have been saved by a roof rescue isn't clear. Climbing staircases rapidly filling with smoke could have been tough. The plane's impact might have knocked stairway doors out of alignment, making them impassible, regardless of whether they were locked. The intense smoke and forest of rooftop antennas made landing a helicopter impossible. Rescuers also could have had trouble if a crowd of workers turned into a desperate mob, competing to get off the roof.

But Mr. Semendinger says the wind that morning did leave a corner of the tower relatively clear of smoke, almost until the building collapsed. Using a hoist with folding seats, rescuers could have saved as many as a few dozen people, he estimates.


There where 2-3 helicopter rescue pilots there that day with gear and knowledge, Mr. Semendinger was one, and we know of his assessment, so unless you are the other 1-2 whom was there, this point really cannot be countered, no if`s, no buts
.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Donny - pssst: look up "refute".



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Donny - pssst: look up "refute".


I personally believe here the whole issue is....`Why were the doors not opened, as stated by a veteran rescue helicopter pilots, roof top rescues were indeed an option`.

As stated by one of the few licensed to state this down to his vastly superior knowledge of the situation professionals, unlike we mere forumites who do no more than surmise why it was/was not possible, any tower building that has a roof that is accessible, that is classed as a fire escape route - fact, if there is a central locking system there is a manual release button somewhere (in case of emergency break glass) - fact, if these were not in placements then I would imagine there are vast amount of law suits in progress for gross negligence against owners of the building ie:- Silverstein Properties.

In a cookie cutter trapped by a fire scenario you are either.. Below it, get to lowest exit and leave, or above it, get to highest point and - A). Climb down the normally cast iron stair fire escape to ground level, B). In high rise structures there are appropriate places set aside for rescue teams etc, C). If these two options are unavailable and there is a safe face of descent, then use the window cleaners cradle.

Either way - roof top fire escape safety should have been a priority, and it clearly was not, this is a very serious breach of the health and safety at work act (if America has one).

/cheers.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
I would like to address the jettisoned air through the broken windows malarkey.
Until someone can show me the myriad of glass particles spraying forth into the low level morning sun light reflecting what should be a rainbow of tiny fireflies. I say it is malarkey


Are those windows not designed to withstand hurricanes?, and correct me if i`m right 80% of the building collapsed and ejected outside of it`s structure, so where did the kinetic force come from to make this happen, anyway NIST have stated no pancake collapse thus no air pressure squibs, oh dear, what caused them then
.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


But how can a squib "eject" from one little window, without knocking out the windows next to them?
How can a detonation from a squib even hold its shape from the core to the window in a jet like that? Considering how the floors were arranged, its kinda hard to believe a squib would create a jet of air.
Also on further review, why does the "squib" increase in speed over time?Why does it appear to INCREASE in speed, rather than the usual quick initial velocity and slowdown? Thats not how explosives work Seventh.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Seventh
 


But how can a squib "eject" from one little window, without knocking out the windows next to them?
How can a detonation from a squib even hold its shape from the core to the window in a jet like that? Considering how the floors were arranged, its kinda hard to believe a squib would create a jet of air.
Also on further review, why does the "squib" increase in speed over time?Why does it appear to INCREASE in speed, rather than the usual quick initial velocity and slowdown? Thats not how explosives work Seventh.


Just a quick reply here General (sorry for that, got so much to do, so little time atm), my knowledge of cutting charges is very limited, I do know however is that the charge does increase in momentum like a funnel shape for a wedge being driven home like affect, I think this is to disperse the now liquefied metal quickly and to send the now severed part on it`s way.

The trusses were joined to the steel laced intersections under the aluminium Facade this is all part of what the windows were part of, these also had to be severed, once I have sorted all this work out I will post a lot more detailed description, got a lot of good fresh gear here and trying to authentic it all before posting, copying and transferring from power point to jpeg, so I can embed images which most have to be resized and cropped etc etc
.

Just one example of the new photos and stuff I have acquired, it was stated that a small fence bordered the footpath around the Pentagon, looking at the picture I could clearly see the fence around the parking area (obvious reasons), but I couldn`t see it after this, can you imagine how much googling is needed just to find out this one point of a picture with 10-15 discussion points, I have over 650 pictures to sift through thankfully a lot of them point to the normal stuff.

/cheers




top topics



 
58
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join