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.

 

Declassified 9/11 Photos

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
photos number 12 15 18 and 20

Sorry about miscounting it before - those 4 photos are similar in one respect.

What is that? How are they similar and should they show what they do? What is out of place with those photos?




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Can someone repost the pictures on ATS? I can's seem to view the pictures from that website.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


Are we talking the long aerail shot of the whole seen? Or the two guys holding onto a beam?

I'll go with the long skyscraper shot. I am doing my best but cannot see what you're referring to. I'm a Brit so maybe local knowledge is required. I'm grasping at straws here- the only thing I see that looks a little odd is what appears to be four seperate sources of smoke. But I put that down to one tower collapsing causing white smoke blown out at the botten and an illusion of another smoke stack when it hits the ground.

I'd like to see what you are seeing so please tell.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Fine, since no one has gotten the hints and see what I do, which I saw immediately and knew the photos were doctored.

You see TWO Buildings in all those photos correct?

Now, Should there still be TWO buildings in those?

Don't those photos show the DUST FROM A FALLEN BUILDING AROUND THE BASE?

If a building had ALREADY FALLEN - WHY IS THERE TWO IN THE PICTURES?

You can see dust on the ground too from a FALLEN BUILDING - But the Pictures SHOWS TWO BUILDINGS!!

EDIT - looked like two buildings to me - corner shot - looked more closely - saw one only.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by questioningall]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


try this site

www.flickr.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Does everyone see it now? You can see how the whole area has dust from the first building - yet they show TWO buildings in the pictures - which could not be - because that dust was only everywhere, ONCE THE FIRST TOWER COLLAPSED!

Please tell me - you see what I am trying to explain.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


Nah sorry, I've done my best but I simply cannot see what you are referring to. I only see one building, and a massive column of smoke where the other building should be. I believe the smoke pattern is consistent with either the building still being there or it not being there.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


I see the dark cloud on the left of the tower and it does appear there is a building there. But it may be the smoke/cloud playing tricks on us.

Interesting nonetheless.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sharps
 


Using the count not including the opening frame with the words - in photos 12 15 18 20

[edit] My count of 12 is the 2nd picture after the 2 guys with that big steel beam


If you look you will see what I mean - there should not be two buildings in those photos. The huge amount of dust there was only after The first tower collapsed.

I have tried to get the photo to be able to put in the thread, but it won't let me.





[edit on 25-9-2009 by questioningall]

[edit on 25-9-2009 by questioningall]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


I've looked, and looked again. At first I saw two buildings with the dust cloud after You mentioned it, but I looked more closely, and I believe it is only one tower standing, but with a darker shaded side. It makes it look like two, but I donno..........no paint expert, or photo shop expert

S&F



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
OKAY = My Bad - I have relooked at the photos - it looked like 2 buildings but they are corner shots of the building - OOOPPss - I think I should go and edit all my other postings.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


Actually I'm glad You were critical. It's always good to keep a sharp eye out for fakes. It took me a couple minutes.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


What in the world are you ever talking about? There is only one building in all those shots, and all this dust is happening clearly after the South Tower fell (first).

I don't know either why these photos would be classified in the first place, and I would really need more confirmation of that to believe it.

I am wondering about this photo though, slide 23:



I don't recall there being such a big gaping hole in the upper corner like that of WTC1...



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I notices there are a lot of photos at different angles but not one single photo of WTC 7 of the side the government claimed the other tower fell on it. I have yet to see this alleged gash in WTC 7 I don’t believe there was any.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Best pictures of WTC 7 are from fire photograher Steve Spak

Even in these shots south face of building is obscured with smoke from
numerous fires inside (so much for claim that there were no large fires)

Video was shot from west side near Verizon building because of the
enormous volume of smoke

www.911myths.com...

Refer to videos 6,7,8

Photographer pans up to top and can large gouges in west face near the
top



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


A large gash and a lot of smoke doesn't neccessarily equate to structural damage and large fires. But you know that already.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Right

So gash extending 10 floors does not mean struture is damaged - ie new coat of paint?

Debris smashing into building causing elevators to be thrown from their
shafts does not mean structural damage?

So building with fires on dozen floors is not damaged?

upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
So gash extending 10 floors does not mean struture is damaged - ie new coat of paint?


Obviously you don't know the difference between "structure is damaged" and "structural damage". The first is a general term meaning the structure has been damaged in some way (i.e. a large gash down the front that didn't severe a single column). The second is a term meaning the structure has been compromised in some way (i.e a column has been severed). Get it now?


Debris smashing into building causing elevators to be thrown from their shafts does not mean structural damage?


How do you know this? I was under the impression that the building was evacuated before WTC 1 slammed into it? Please site where you learned this information. Thanks.


So building with fires on dozen floors is not damaged?


You are the one who said "large fires". Not damage. Please show these "large fires" and we'll talk.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join