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.

 

New aerial photos of 9/11 released

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Are these all new?? might this be one step closer to closure??



Never before seen photographs of the aftermath of the World Trade Centre attacks have been released more than eight years after the horrifying 2001 incident.


New aerial photos

Where have these been hiding??

Please forridge and leave your comments.


All we want is the truth......


Edit to add: What has allowed news corps to released these pics after so long.?

[edit on 9/2/2010 by scubagravy]




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
wow!

Really lends credence to the depth of that tragedy that day



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by scubagravy
 


Not sure but those photos look alot like the aerial photos from the Sonnefeld collection www.abovetopsecret.com... here on ATS.

Either way here is a perfect example of the majorly messed up thing about 9/11 evidence. Here we have a giant total eight supposedly unreleased photos/evidence that shows basically nothing of any particular value. Yet it required someone to file a FOIA request just to gain access to them.

One can only wonder why.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
The clean up would still be going would it not??

I mean the dust would have settled in places not yet found.

Are there any New Yorkers that can still see dust around from that fateful day ?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Can't believe it took a FOI Act to get these from ABC! Throw us a frickin' bone here people...



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


So this was from the Freedom of Information Act??? Why was it suppressed in the first place??

Perhaps the pics have been doctored......



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The pictures were taken from NYPD helicopters cicrcling the scene
not by ABC



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by scubagravy
 


Bit strange being released 8 years later!

"Perhaps the pics have been doctored......" -
Could well be, but then you'll never see the 'originals' in that case...!

Do all aerial police officers carry cameras at ALL times in the U.S.?

Much love...



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Just found this interesting article about a russian who was flying on the day of 9/11.

Off in the distance he noticed the bellowing smoke, and turned toward to investigate,

PHOTOS INCLUDED

link



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by scubagravy
 


Also i found this,

Military photos of the twin towers
(not sure why its labelled (Military)

there is a mistake on the first slide dating the 9/11 incident in 2004, other than that, a few photos i havnt seen.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by scubagravy
 


Look at photo No. 2. Is everyone still satsified with the "typical office fires" nomencalture?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Look at photo No. 2. Is everyone still satsified with the "typical office fires" nomencalture?



Lets look at some facts.

The jet fuel was burned off in the first 10 minutes.

As most experts have stated the dark smkoe means the fires were oxygen starved.

Since the fires were burning out before the collapse, what caused the molten steel in the debris field?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Repeat: Look at photo 2 - oxygen starved - burned out fires?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Repeat: Look at photo 2 - oxygen starved - burned out fires?


As most experts have stated the dark smkoe means the fires were oxygen starved.

Since the fires were burning out before the collapse, what caused the molten steel in the debris field?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The caption on the last photo says "at total of 7 wtc buildings were reduced to rubble following the attacks".


Were the other 4 knocked down after the fact because of residual damage?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I'm getting tired of these drive-by-bring-nothing-to-the-discussion-posts.

What is your educational background that you are basing your opinion on?

Are you familiar with the science of fire, or are you just arguing from hearsay, other peoples opinions, conspiracy web sites?

If you think the opinion that the fires were cooling and not raging is wrong then you need to bring more to the table than telling us to look at pics that don't even show fire at all. None of what you're saying supports the official story you seem so desperate to support. Just your opinion, which is based on what? Not science obviously. We've already looked at all the pics, we have already concluded beyond a doubt that the fires were not the huge raging events you want to claim. So unless you have something new and valid you're just wasting your time, unless you get paid that is (and yes it has been proven that does happen).



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



telling us to look at pics that don't even show fire at all.


Really? My educational background? Well it's better than yours, as I am able to recognize fire in a photograph. (By the way, its the kind of orange thing in the building)



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Then you need to post that photograph, not just talk about it...

And then add your scientific evaluation of the fire please. Explain why you think it's not cooling, and why you think it had enough thermal energy to transfer enough heat to cause all the steel to fail. Can you explain how thermal energy is transferred between objects?

Just saying. 'look at this' is not enough because my evaluation is going to be far different than yours I have no doubt.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Then you need to post that photograph, not just talk about it...


Dear God. What are you not following here???????? The OP posted 8 newly released photos from NYC on 9/11 that were taken by the NYPD. I first refered to photo No. 2 in the link. Try and keep up.







 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join