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: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


I wont quote as I will be tight for space, the pictures 1st, if you look at both sides of the part starting to form you will see more smoke it is not as dense but it is there, also look at my picture and you will see remnants of where the twister like smoke formation has moved from, like a faint mirror image, if you can see this it points more to smoke rising than falling, okay the next picture, after WTC2 collapse there was dust everywhere and people were moved well away from the area, but better still this picture clearly shows that it was WTC2 collapse and not the North Tower...



EDIT: Damn the blue writing cannot be read, it states that the blue lines are where the people are and their field of vision showing a tower and no corner angles proves beyond doubt it is WTC2 collapsing.

I have marked with red arrows where there appears to be no debris, that by all accounts should be roof top level, the blue mark shows the exterior face of WTC6, how did this section not collapse when the facing edge of WTC5 did?, unless the debris flood had a gap in it there is no explanation for this, you can see in the picture below (top left) that WTC1 is still standing and Vesey Street where the fireman were is about to get blitzed, why were they using water against damage caused by falling debris, and how did they get so quickly to WTC6 if the damage was caused mid collapse, as the picture shows no sign of the dust carpet, so it would have to be mid collapse at the very least?..



A layout of WTC we know now the damage was caused long before WTC1 collapsed, how would WTC2 falling debris have hit WTC6 look at the distance between them?.






[edit on 1-10-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Seventh]




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Ok.

Starting with this picture that I have edited for my explanation and my picture after...






If you notice the building that I have (crudely) circled in both photos you can clearly see that is the North Tower collapse, not the South Tower.

"I have marked with red arrows where there appears to be no debris, that by all accounts should be roof top level, the blue mark shows the exterior face of WTC6, how did this section not collapse when the facing edge of WTC5 did?, unless the debris flood had a gap in it there is no explanation for this, you can see in the picture below (top left) that WTC1 is still standing and Vesey Street where the fireman were is about to get blitzed, why were they using water against damage caused by falling debris, and how did they get so quickly to WTC6 if the damage was caused mid collapse, as the picture shows no sign of the dust carpet, so it would have to be mid collapse at the very least?.."

I am not trying to be funny or rude, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I haven't seen any photos, videos or reports that shows that damage to building 6 pre-North Tower collapse, if you have I would love to see/hear it. Until that, I stand by my assertion that is damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower.

This photo shows the interior of building 6, note the debris from the towers.



I've cropped your other photo to show my point. I cannot explain the lack of dust cover to the area. But based on 2 things I say this picture is well after the collapse of both towers. 1...the amount of smoke coming from building 7, and the lack of blazing inferno in building 6. According to the 500+ fireman testimonies that I have read, building 6 was an inferno that was brought (somewhat) under control before the collapse of 7. It raged for quite a while due to lack of water/pressure to hydrants in the area. 2...if you look at the shadow cast by the fire extinguisher in the picture, and the relation of building 7 in the picture I think its save to say the sun is in the west, placing the time well past noon, and after the towers' collapse.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


In, your 4 photos,the top is, yes building 1. as you can see the dust every where,look where the 2 guys are running, dust coverd every where.

Bottom picture, is before the collapse, of anything, no dust ! right there on that street? after both? towers? REALLY?There is dust in pic 1 way way down there, so for both to be collapsed in bottom pic ,is , imposable .



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


"I've cropped your other photo to show my point. I cannot explain the lack of dust cover to the area. But based on 2 things I say this picture is well after the collapse of both towers. 1...the amount of smoke coming from building 7, and the lack of blazing inferno in building 6. According to the 500+ fireman testimonies that I have read, building 6 was an inferno that was brought (somewhat) under control before the collapse of 7. It raged for quite a while due to lack of water/pressure to hydrants in the area. 2...if you look at the shadow cast by the fire extinguisher in the picture, and the relation of building 7 in the picture I think its save to say the sun is in the west, placing the time well past noon, and after the towers' collapse. "

I don't see how you can base it soley on dust. Any number of things could account for limited dust in that area. I haven't seen 1 picture or video or account of that amount of smoke before any collapse. You're going to have to go with the assumption that neither tower has collapsed if you're basing it on dust.

That being said, what has caused the tremendous amount of smoke at ground level and can you provide evidence of that same activity prior to collapse. Also, what about the shadows? If it were pre collapse that would be before noon. I think the shadow would be on the right of the extinguisher considering the position of building 7 and 6 in the background.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


You, can clearly see, in these photos, that the area, you are trying to pass off as, dust free after the collapse of both towers,is full of dust in these pics.Sorry man its just imposable for it to be dust free .
Tthat cropped picture is before the collapse

img96.imageshack.us...

img98.imageshack.us...

img91.imageshack.us...

img91.imageshack.us...

img98.imageshack.us...

img98.imageshack.us...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Like I said before, any number of things can account for lack of dust in that area.

I'm open to the idea that the picture is precollapse. But the pictures you show aren't going to do it.

The North Tower collapsed at about 10:30. Building 7 fell about 5:30. We have no time frame for the picture at hand. In 6 hours any number of things could lighten the amount of dust in that particular area. Traffic..fire fighting activities being just 2.

In the picture, to the left is North, to the right is South. For the shadow by the extinguisher to be in the position it is, apparently a north-east orientation I'd say the sun would have to be in the south-west. Making the time well past noon.

Again. Note the amount of smoke on and around building 7. If you can provide pictures/videos/accounts of that amount of smoke, precollapse it would help to strengthen your argument.

To solely base your assumptions on the amount of dust in the area.....

I've addressed the dust issue. Address the sun/smoke please.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Do you have anything better to do with your life then try to prove a THOROUGHLY disproven conspiracy?

Your "eveidence" is building compression.

Tin foil hats for everyone.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



What ever helps you sleep at night.

But, we will have to agree to disagree,

But you are stretching it ,very thin to explain that dust free asphalt, ,abulance,sidewalk,man hole,every single building in that area, is not covered in dust. REALLY! Do you really! Honestly,and not just for the sake of argument,Really! think that this spot,after both towers fell!!
was squeaky clean? Like i said, what ever helps you sleep.
But i think you are, just arguing to argue. It would truly be easier to believe,that the easter bunny really hides the eggs, then to believe, that the photo, YOU, are saying is after , 220 acres of building, fell right there, with enough force to completely demolish,WTC 3,4,5,6,7,
left this area squeaky clean.Remember,220 acres of vertical dust,just went,linear.

I, would truly love to know, what they used, or what mother nature used, on that area, to keep it so clean.We could get rich on that ability.
With all the pollen,paint over spray,sheet rock sanding dust,wood working dust, ect.ect.

I, am just trying, to figure out,how, from the pictures i posted ,If you even! looked closely at them, you can see the area in your picture coverd in dust !! JUST look man. Goodness.

The Simplest explanation,would be, pre collapse. But I, would love to hear, your complex explanation, of that moment in time, after both towers collapsed, that this area of the chaos, that day, miraculously, shielded itself , from all the dust. While nothing on that day, that close to the towers ,that any picture shows, or video shows,had the ability to shield itself from the dust.

This will be good, Because there is not one logical answer , unless, you start spitting stuff out the side of your neck.

Sorry I, am not your huckleberry.

edit to add . and spelling


[edit on 2-10-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Yet you did not address any of the points I asked you too. And then went on your tirade about eggs and again, dust.

My point doesn't hinge on one point that could be easily refuted, as yours.

Do you know where this picture was taken from? About 2 blocks away. So 220 acres of nothing fell "right there". I have plenty of other photos of similar distance with very little dust coverage. ANY NUMBER OF THINGS COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE LACK OF DUST. Traffic, wind, and firefighting activities being just a few. As I said before I'm open to the idea that it could be precollapse, but not based on ONE photo and your idea of how it "should" look.

Sometimes the simplest answer is not the correct one.

Again I base my case on a number of things. Not just some dust, or lack thereof.

And heres another base for my case.

I'll read all 500 interviews again if I have to, but based on what I remember building 6 was not engulfed in flames until AFTER the collapse, it did not have damage to the extent thats seen in the photos PRE collapse. The water/pressure to that area was severely cut after the towers fell, and they didn't start on putting out fires for some time after the towers fell (I'm unsure of EXACTLY how long) but I believe at least an hour. The fact that building 6 is damaged to the extent it is, and the hose directed at the building help to show a timeline.

The sun and the shadows help to establish a timeline. I really think that says it all, unless I'm confused on which way the sun rises/sets. But once again...the direction of the shadow cast by the extinguisher is north east..right? So if the sun was in the east, say at 9:45 BEFORE the towers collapsed, then would the shadows be in that position?

The amount of smoke coming from or around buildings 6 and 7 is also a pretty good sign the buildings have already came down.

So again I ask. Please. Explain the shadows, explain the smoke, and/or provide other evidence to prove your point. I've explained/debated your points about the dust. Please explain/debate my points and don't tell me I believe the tooth fairy puts presents under your tree. Answer my questions, please. I intelligently answered yours and you come back with easter bunnys and eggs and completely ignore my questions.

So

Question 1: What relative direction would the shadows be at 9:45am?

Question 2: What relative direction would the shadows be at 3:00pm?

Question 3: What accounts for the damage to building 6, and the smoke around 6 and 7 if this if precollapse? I have a ton of videos and photos, not to mention accounts. In none can you see any amount of smoke relative to whats in the photo PRE collapse.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh



I’m going to say that this picture is a photoshop/fake. The smoke coming from ground level - I haven’t seen it in any other photographs or video footage. I have seen plenty of images at the time WTC2 was impacted that do not show this smoke. Are there further images corroborating the one above? If so I will reconsider my position.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Q24-7
 


Are you serious?

You haven't seen many pictures or videos if this is the first you've seen of this.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Firstly I must commend you on the shadow and time part, that was excellent work, and picture two you are correct also, I mistook the dome topped towers for those I placed the two people between, again great work, and after reading it I must agree with the part you do not understand, looking at it more soberly.

But I am not trying to demean your good work, far from it, the bigger picture is still not solved, the picture you posted showed a lot of aspects, but no signs whatsoever pointing at a debris flood based collapse, as I have very limited time atm I will keep it short.... The one thing I have not seen mentioned yet in this thread is motive for destroying WTC6 - The missing gold vault iirc was beneath WTC6, anyway`s some interesting stuff regarding the picture....



And a very scorched WTC6 pre WTC1 collapse, notice all the blown windows.



I downloaded a few videos the other day when time permits I will copy paste the relevant parts.

And once again huge kudos on the shadow and sun position reply
.

/cheers.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Thanks. I appreciate your words.

I'd like to hear what your argument is regarding building 6. I think it might be better to make a new thread, guess thats your call. I'll keep a look out for it, and if I miss it feel free to u2u me. I have quite a few other high res photos and I can scan them for photos of building 6 if you would like.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   


Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Are you serious?

You haven't seen many pictures or videos if this is the first you've seen of this.


Yes I’m serious – I think that the picture has been photoshopped.


This is the WTC site from the south, prior to the second impact: -


No smoke plume (should be on right-hand side).


This is the WTC site from the north-west, during the second impact: -


No smoke plume (should be where WTC5 can be seen).


This is the WTC site from the north-east, during the second impact: -


No smoke plume (should be in the mid to left of this picture).


None of the above match the picture in the opening post. On the other hand we know that there was smoke from WTC5 after the impact of Flight 175 which ejected debris onto the roof and caught fire (see debris raining down in the last two pictures above) - this has been confirmed by FEMA and eyewitnesses on the scene.


This is the WTC site from the south, after the second impact: -


Now the smoke plume is present on the right-hand side.


Unless further evidence is brought forward then it appears that the image in the opening post has been photoshopped in one of two possible ways: -

  1. The smoke plume has been edited into a picture taken prior to the second impact.
  2. The WTC2 damage has been edited out of a picture taken after the second impact.

In conclusion, the smoke plume is explained by Flight 175 debris as it impacted WTC2 which was directly in line with WTC5, causing fire and smoke as confirmed by FEMA and eyewitnesses. Flight 175 debris found on the roof of WTC5: -




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 

Can u guys point out the shadows you 2 see.
I only see the firemens gear shadow, on the ground.Looks like the shadow is facing north? And the firemens backs are facing west?Help on that would be nice.

www.infowars.net...

you can see the hole in this one
www.infowars.net...

this has same area in question
911scholars.ning.com...

911scholars.ning.com...

911scholars.ning.com...

building 5 prisonplanet.com...

911scholars.ning.com...



www.infowars.net...


As far as what i think,happpend? dono,but somthing exploded,and was reported.

www.thepowerhour.com...

edit to fix pics


[edit on 2-10-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Q24-7
 


I literally laughed harder just now than I have all day long.

You made a real elaborate post and explanation, and I gave you a star just for that.

But.

If you look at the photo in question, theres a caption at the bottom.

It reads: First Plane Strike + 15 seconds



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 

Dont forget these .55 shows your area also after collapse

soapy.posterous.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
If you look at the photo in question, theres a caption at the bottom.

It reads: First Plane Strike + 15 seconds


Bearing in mind that my first impression was that the image was photoshopped, a bit of text apparently photoshopped in at the bottom of the picture didn’t carry much weight with me. But I checked the video footage here of the first impact and do you know, you are correct – the image is indeed taken 15 seconds after impact (the smoke pattern matches perfectly). I apologise and take back my initial incorrect assumption.

Perhaps you should watch the video footage also. See the impact at 1:37 and what’s that forming on the left side of the building at 1:49… it’s the smoke column! Watch over the next 5 seconds up to 1:54 as the column of dust, debris and smoke moves vertically away from the building. So there we have our answer – it came from WTC1.

The images provided in my previous post are still useful in that they show this smoke column dissipated fairly rapidly after impact and that there was nothing witnessed from WTC5 or WTC6 until after the second impact.

Do I get another star?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Q24-7
 


My post was meant to be lighthearted and a joke. I hope you took it as such.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by Q24-7
 


My post was meant to be lighthearted and a joke. I hope you took it as such.



My “Do I get another star?” comment was tongue in cheek


[edit on 2-10-2009 by Q24-7]

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Q24-7]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join