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.

 

Photo of WTC1 shortly after impact that bears some significance.

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Yeah I have to agree with CC, if you pause that video he/she posted at 40 second mark you can already see the column of smoke formed and floating off to the left.

Makes sense though, b/c like you said, it would have been amazing not seeing hundreds of photos and videos with a smoke cloud like that had it been coming from anywhere near the WTC complex.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Yes, the whole inside of that building was hollowed out post-collapse, which is rather odd, but where did you show that there was a hole blown out PRE-collapse? Building 7 is there, but it went down later that day. Where is evidence of this hole blown in bdlg 6 pre-collapse, I'm not seeing that..?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Well that is an interesting Photo. The mushroom cloud looks like an ordinance explosion. And that pillar of smoke beside it? No clue... maybe a foundation explosion... maybe it was six being hallowed out...

But what strikes me is the shape of that upper cloud.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by waypastvne

OmegaPoint said...



and you open your "evidence" up to potential debunking and ridicule


You said....


I don't know why you feel it's necessary, and you open your "evidence" up to potential debunking and ridicule, which can claim by extension that all the rest of the 9/11 truther claims are equally absurd.



BINGO


Points to debate....

1. Picture one showing WTC1.

2. Picture two showing WTC2 collapse.

3. Comment regarding MSM.

4. Pictures of WTC6 pre collapse showing hole.

5. What caused the crater.

You successfully counter argued none of the above, you posted a link to a video that proved nothing, as the OP would say Seventh 1 Debunkers 0.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Seventh
 


Yes, the whole inside of that building was hollowed out post-collapse, which is rather odd, but where did you show that there was a hole blown out PRE-collapse? Building 7 is there, but it went down later that day. Where is evidence of this hole blown in bdlg 6 pre-collapse, I'm not seeing that..?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]


This...




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


It is not hard to understand where the thread is going though it does seem to be preaching to the choir. The Trade Towers were not he first time the gov has done such to the American people;

1. USS Maine


Jan 1898 - USS Maine- In January 1898, the USS Maine exploded while docked at the Havana Harbor. 260 American soldiers died, and the Spanish was too blame...or so it seemed. While newspapers wrote the ship had interfered with a mine, the explosion actually came from within the ship, being a staged performance.


2.

The Port Chicago disaster

On the night of 17th July 1944, two transport vessels loading ammunition at the Port Chicago (California) naval base on the Sacramento River were suddenly engulfed in a gigantic explosion. The incredible blast wrecked the naval base and heavily damaged the small town of Port Chicago, located 1.5 miles away. Some 320 American naval personnel were killed instantly. The two ships and the large loading pier were totally annihilated. Several hundred people were injured, and millions of dollars in property damage was caused by the huge blast. Windows were shattered in towns 20 miles away, and the glare of the explosion could be seen in San Francisco, some 35 miles away. It was the worst home-front disaster of World War II. Officially, the world's first atomic test explosion occurred on 16th July 1945 at Alamogordo, New Mexico; but the Port Chicago blast may well have been the world's first atomic detonation, whether accidental or not.

The Explosion

Just before 10:20 p.m., a massive explosion occurred at the pier. To some observers it appeared that two explosions, only a few seconds apart, occurred: a first and smaller blast was felt; this was followed quickly by a cataclysmic explosion as the E. A. Bryan went off like one gigantic bomb, sending a column of fire and smoke more than 12,000 feet into the night sky.

Everyone on the pier and aboard the two ships was killed instantly: some 320 men, 200 of whom were black enlisted men. Very few intact bodies were recovered. Another 390 military and civilian personnel were injured, including 226 black enlisted men. This single, stunning disaster accounted for almost one-fifth of all black naval casualties during the whole of World War II. Property damage, military and civilian, was estimated at more than US$12 million.

The E. A. Bryan was literally blown to bits. Very little of its wreckage was ever found. The Quinalt Victory was lifted clear out of the water by the blast, turned around and broken into pieces. The largest piece of the Quinalt Victory which remained after the explosion was a 65-foot section of the keel, its propeller attached, which protruded from the bay at low tide, 1,000 feet from its original position.

There was at least one 12-ton diesel locomotive operating on the pier at the time of the explosion. Not a single piece of the locomotive car was ever identified: the locomotive simply vanished. In the river stream, several small boats half a mile distant from the pier reported being hit by a 30-foot wall of water.


These are just two events and people speculate that 9/11 was an inside job, ya think!!! I hope no one still believes that a Rider rental truck stuffed with fertilizer really did all that damage in Oklahoma.

edited to correct a spelling error.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by pstrron]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
7th, I'm really puzzled on that first one, the smoke cloud that is coming from the ground.

Where did you get this photo from(site or who took credit for it)? I have never seen it before (which amazes me), never seen the smoke cloud on any videos either.

When I first saw it I thought photoshop lol, if it's real it's one heck of a find. Thats a pretty thick smoke cloud that is generating a lot of smoke, if it was taken only 15 secs(which it does appear so b/c the impact cloud hasn't even rose up and out of view) after impact it has already reached the height of the smoke cloud generated by the impact which is almost unbelievable to say the least.

Did it come with any other background information? Would like to read about.


Also, the last photo with the apparent pre collapse explosion damage at street level, is it possible you could provide some more perspective to it. Like a above view showing position of camera.

Thanks


Firstly - I cannot remember where those two photos came from bud sorry, one thing is for sure both are 100% authentic, I do however have a link for a video which shows the same smoke pattern as picture one, round about the 30 second mark.....

www.youtube.com...

Also as far as above views etc are concerned I cannot help you there either, bearing in mind what is coming their way I should imagine that cameraman is about to gtfo there... sharpish, I will however check my favourite haunts out and see what I can find for you
.

/cheers.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Well that is an interesting Photo. The mushroom cloud looks like an ordinance explosion. And that pillar of smoke beside it? No clue... maybe a foundation explosion... maybe it was six being hallowed out...

But what strikes me is the shape of that upper cloud.


Every week there seems to be more videos/pictures released showing different and new stuff, why after 8 years are people releasing this content (most of it anonymously) now?.

On a completely different note I feel honoured you are using one of my threads in your signature... Thanks
.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Yardy
 


Saved me a job, could not have put it better myself.. cheers
.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Originally posted by pstrron



It is not hard to understand where the thread is going though it does seem to be preaching to the choir. The Trade Towers were not he first time the gov has done such to the American people;



These are just two events and people speculate that 9/11 was an inside job, ya think!!! I hope no one still believes that a Rider rental truck stuffed with fertilizer really did all that damage in Oklahoma.

edited to correct a spelling error.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by pstrron]


Well I thought it was a very simplistic thread, that proved once again their explanations are based on lies, and with you 100% on the Oklahoma bombings, I do believe that high ranking employees etcetera were not in the office that day, probably at the dermatologist`s with Lucky Larry
.

/cheers.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 


Maybe would like to do some real research

Explosion at Port Chicago was caused by careless handling of munitions
while loading

People familar with events recall Navy loading officers taking bets on
who could load most ammunition during shift. One of the procedures
was to slide bombs down planks to the bottom of the hold. Explosion
was traced to aircraft depth charges loaded with new explosive TORPEX
which was more sensative than usual TNT

Over 4000 tons (equivalent to small nuclear weapon) went up in the
Quinalt Victory anf EA Bryant




Since April 1944 when Captain Kinne assumed command of Port Chicago, the loading officers had been pushing the enlisted men to load the explosive cargoes very quickly; ten tons per hatch per hour[10] had been set as the desired level by Captain Nelson Goss, Commander Mare Island Naval Shipyard, whose jurisdiction included Port Chicago Naval Magazine.[13] Most loading officers considered this goal too high.[10] On a prominent chalkboard Kinne tallied each crew's average tonnage per hour.[12] The junior officers placed bets with each other in support of their own 100-man crews (called "divisions" at Port Chicago) and coaxed their crews to load more than the others. The enlisted men were aware of the unsanctioned nature of the bets and knew to slow down to a more reasonable pace whenever a senior officer appeared.[14] The average rate achieved at Port Chicago in the months leading up to July 1944 was 8.2 tons per hatch per hour; commercial stevedores at Mare Island performed only slightly better at 8.7 tons per hatch per hour.[10]





The Liberty ship SS E. A. Bryan docked at the inboard, landward side of Port Chicago's single 1,500-foot (460 m) pier at 8:15 a.m. on July 13, 1944.

At 10 a.m. that same day,[26] seamen from the ordnance battalion began loading the ship with munitions. After four days of around-the-clock loading, about 4,600 tons (4,173 metric tons)[26] of explosives had been stored in its holds. The ship was about 40% full by the evening of July 17.




A boxcar delivery containing a new airborne anti-submarine depth charge bomb design, the Mark 47 armed with 252 pounds (110 kg) of torpex, was being loaded into No. 2 hold. The torpex charges were more sensitive than TNT to external shock and container dents.[28] On the pier, resting on three parallel rail spurs, were sixteen rail cars holding about 430 tons (390 metric tons) of explosives.[26] In all, the munitions on the pier and in the ship contained the equivalent of approximately 2,000 tons of TNT.[26]





At 10:18 p.m., witnesses reported hearing a noise described as "a metallic sound and rending timbers, such as made by a falling boom."[26] Immediately afterward, an explosion occurred on the pier and a fire started. Five,[16] six,[30] or seven[31] seconds later, a more powerful explosion took place as the majority of the ordnance within and near the SS E. A. Bryan detonated in a huge fireball some 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I'm still kind of confused by this whole thread. Its like trying to read a book full of run-on sentences.

I'm far from a debunker, but people spewing blatant wrong information is as bad as a bold faced lie.

As per your "topics of debate"

1. Picture one showing WTC1.

The picture is from the impact of the North Tower, watch the video you can see the smoke form.

2. Picture two showing WTC2 collapse.

I have no idea what this picture shows, and like you can only speculate. It is either debris falling, debris being ejected due to pressure changes inside the building or a "squib". I'd say all are plausible ideas.

3. Comment regarding MSM.

I must have missed that one.

4. Pictures of WTC6 pre collapse showing hole.

I see some smoke and a building with some damage. I don't see a hole. And even if there is a hole, when the planes hit the buildings a wheel and an engine were not the only parts spewed out. There was tons of debris littered from the initial impacts and explosions. Any of which could have hit the surrounding buildings.

5. What caused the crater.

I guess you are expecting one giant piece of debris to be in the middle of the hole. If you look, and you might want to use more than just ONE picture to base your arguement on, but if you look at the other photos of said crater you can see a plethora of debris in the crater.

I'm sure at heart we both think generally the same thing. I do however think you have flawed logic. I have tons of pictures and videos and a whole set of high res photos I grabbed from the FEMA website that not more than a handful of people have. I'll look in those and see if there are any that clearly show the crater and the debris inside.

Omega point, I recognize your name from another site. Nice to see familiar "face".



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

4. Pictures of WTC6 pre collapse showing hole.

I see some smoke and a building with some damage. I don't see a hole. And even if there is a hole, when the planes hit the buildings a wheel and an engine were not the only parts spewed out. There was tons of debris littered from the initial impacts and explosions. Any of which could have hit the surrounding buildings.



No. The bulk of WTC1 protected WTC6 from debris from Flight 175, and besides the trajectory of Flight 175 was away from WTC6 and over WTC5.

No debris from Flight 11 was seen to spill backwards onto WTC6 from WTC1.

Moussouai Trial Exhibit WTC Diagram Showing Aircraft Paths



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I can see that being true. It would be hard for debris cause by 175 to cause damage to building 6, but not impossible and not something I couldn't say is plausible.

As far as flight 11, heres a pic I grabbed from one of the videos I have, you can clearly see debris falling back and down to where wtc6 is.





posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

I, would love, to talk, to the guy, looking strait, at the building blowing up, to see, what, he heard huh.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 
Just step back, and look at the forest through the trees.

Go back and read what they said happended .Then look at the photos.

You will then see it clear as day.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 

Watch, any of the videos,of the second impact,and you can clearly see,
other explosions, going off in building 1, right as the plane hits,building 2.

Watch any of the videos, and dont pay attention to what they want you too, The plane, watch everthing going on around it.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


That was of course the "Official Story" in a similar case to 9/11. However there were eye witness accounts and a film of the event taken by the USN.


Eyewitnesses reported "an enormous blinding incandescent." The Navy reported "the first flash was brilliant white," such as is now known to be characteristic of nuclear explosions which achieve several tens of millions of degrees Centigrade in milliseconds. Conventional explosives reach a maximum of 5,000°ree;C and do not give off a white flash except when mixed with magnesium. There was no magnesium on the list of explosives loaded onto the Bryan. The white flash occurs with atomic bombs of five kilotons and greater.

The Port Chicago disaster gave rise to a Wilson condensation cloud like those at Bikini -- now known to be characteristic of atomic bombs detonated in vapor-laden atmospheres.

The seismic records show a very rapid detonation not characteristic of conventional explosions but the signature of atomic explosions. There was a typical nuclear fire ball.

The Film
The Navy has a film record of the disaster at its Concord Naval Weapons Station. After being challenged, the Navy claimed this was a Hollywood simulation of a miniature explosion. The film shows a typical nuclear explosion, which would have been hard to simulate. According the Navy, the film was created to support their argument to the US Congress sometime in the 1960s that the remains of the town of Port Chicago be purchased by the Navy and incorporated into the Concord Naval Weapons Station as a buffer zone in the event of another large explosion.

Significantly, the Navy did not claim the film was a re-creation until after it was suggested that the film could be the record of a nuclear detonation.

(Even the seismic signature is that of a nuclear device and not that of conventional explosives)

As with the Port Chicago incident being filmed so were the Trade Towers. How convenient of them to just happen to be filming at the exact time of impact of both planes. Of course the second impact being filmed due to news coverage.

People want to believe that two planes and some jet A caused the towers to collapse within there own foot print and in total free fall. Why? Because they can't handle the truth, it was an inside job. This is a clear case of controlled demolition but people want to deny it.

Its not the first time the gov has done so and it won't be the last. The sad part of it is, we can talk about it until the cows come home and it will not change a thing.

The gov is not going to come clean about it nor will they not do it again. Just be thankful they haven't allowed a low yield nuclear device to be detonated in one of our cities yet [Port Chicago was a test]. But don't be surprised if they do and then blame it on Iran.

9/11=Al Qaeda=Afghanistan=Hussein=WMD=Iraq=OIL

9/11=Military Industrial Complex=Investors=$$$

Follow the money!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Originally posted by ThaLoccster




I'm still kind of confused by this whole thread. Its like trying to read a book full of run-on sentences.


I will see if I can make it easier to understand than it is......

Picture one clearly shows smoke which is reddish as it gets near ground level, the video does not show the source of the smoke at ground level.




I'm far from a debunker, but people spewing blatant wrong information is as bad as a bold faced lie.


I really am getting sick of tired of statements like this, and it will be treated as it deserves.




The picture is from the impact of the North Tower, watch the video you can see the smoke form.


The video does not show ground level, but feel free to explain how smoke can spiral and travel downwards and show evidence of flames at the base.




I have no idea what this picture shows, and like you can only speculate. It is either debris falling, debris being ejected due to pressure changes inside the building or a "squib". I'd say all are plausible ideas.


This is picture two....



HINT: The red rectangle.




I must have missed that one.


Obviously.




I see some smoke and a building with some damage. I don't see a hole. And even if there is a hole, when the planes hit the buildings a wheel and an engine were not the only parts spewed out. There was tons of debris littered from the initial impacts and explosions. Any of which could have hit the surrounding buildings.


There is an enlarged picture of the hole next to the picture showing the hole, where is your source of tons of debris hitting WTC6 and decimating 10 storeys?, the hole was there pre collapse as proved by the pictures.




I guess you are expecting one giant piece of debris to be in the middle of the hole. If you look, and you might want to use more than just ONE picture to base your arguement on, but if you look at the other photos of said crater you can see a plethora of debris in the crater.


I expect there to be at least some remains of what caused 10 storeys to collapse, and the 10 storeys that collapsed, in the crater caused by the collapse.



I'm sure at heart we both think generally the same thing. I do however think you have flawed logic. I have tons of pictures and videos and a whole set of high res photos I grabbed from the FEMA website that not more than a handful of people have. I'll look in those and see if there are any that clearly show the crater and the debris inside.


Like I state many times people are entitled to their opinions, and my logic is not as flawed as your inability to look at pictures that clearly depict aspects, that you appear to still seek.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
This should be fun.

These are a series of stills I captured from one of the videos I have. The first one is from about the first time the smoke begins to drift, with the others taken 2, 4, 6, and 8 seconds later.

The first shows the smoke forming and beginning to drift down and what I'm assuming is west.




Continued drift...


Continued drift...


Continued drift...


Continued drift...


And then your pic which I've added to for my explanation....



At the higher portion of the cloud theres more light on the cloud, and theres probably more particles in the cloud to reflect the light. As it gets lower buildings begin to block the sun making the lower portion appear darker. The video doesn't show the source of the smoke at ground level because there is no source at ground level.

I'm pretty sure the cloud isn't entirely consistent of smoke, there is surely dust and other debris in the cloud which is being blown in the direction it is by the wind. The cloud is surely denser than the air so it slowly drifts down as it drifts to the left. I'd also speculate that the downward projection of the cloud is a product of the pieces of plane and building that fell to the ground upon impact, the heavier ones falling down quicker and the lighter ones falling slower while drifting left.

I don't know what to make of your "treating it as it deserves" statement. But the fact that I even have to explain this kind of gets to my point.

I think I've explained how the smoke could drift, I don't see any evidence of flames at the bottom of the smoke. I propose an experiment for you. Fill a paper bag with sand, dust, maybe some paper and light twigs. Hang the bag about 10-15 ft above the ground. light the bag on fire and see if the smoke and lighter contents of the bag drift down and in the direction of the wind, or if they plummet immediately to the ground.

I guess we were speaking about 2 different pictures. I thought the 2 in your opening post were the 2 pictures in question. My bad.

As for your second picture. I think its pretty obvious that is the North Tower collapse. The South Tower has collapsed, what you have in the box is the smoke coming from the heap.

In this picture I don't really see any hole, what it does show is hard to discern at best. If you could provide any other pictures I'd be happy to speculate this line of thought. But based on this one I cannot. But I will say, that judging by the amount of smoke coming from and around building 7 that this picture is post collapse of both the towers.




I cannot upload my high res photos, my internet is not the greatest and times out trying to upload the 5mb photo. But as soon as I can I will and I will keep trying. But there are a few of the interior of what I believe is building 6, with loads of debris from the towers inside it.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join