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.

 

FLIR Footage of Twin Towers Burning

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Did a quick search and didn't see this posted.

these are thermal images/video from 9/11 that were taken by Carol Ciemiengo. Visit the link below to read her story. (Recommended)

Now to the video. It does not show the collapse *but if anyone knows if one exists let me know!*

I keep watching the video to see if there was anything out of the ordinary. what do you guys think?




As a thermographer, I felt compelled to add some thermographic images to my tape. In addition to the running tape, I snapped two more images: one of the north tower and one of the south. It did not occur to me, until someone said it later that day, these might be the only thermograms in the world of this event. The world had taken a turn for the surreal - it now seemed as if we were in the movie - not just watching.

www.irinfo.org...



edit on 9/15/2010 by ugie1028 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
From what i get in the video is that the fires were not burning as hot as some people claim. If you look at the left side of the video, you have the color code. Blue for cold, Red, and yellow for hot. Anything brighter than yellow is above 120 degrees Celsius. a C-F conversion gave me 248 degrees Fahrenheit. Notice the colors were not bright yellow on the north tower. they seem to be red/orange color. If the color code is right, the temperature didn't get as intense as the official story led most of us to believe. 180-200 degrees F. Maybe more/less

Can someone explain how these low temperatures caused the collapse?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
nice find did you notice the right bldg had a fire way low of the main fire is this low fire from the other bldgs plane



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
As an ex-Firefighter who has looked through thermal imaging cameras many times. I can tell you right now that is just what I thought when witnessing the tower burning so many times in normal imagery.

That baby is not even close to burning hot enough for collapse. That is one cool burning fire.


edit on 15-9-2010 by LoneGunMan because: lack of clarity



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yes i noticed that! could of been the plane fuel that went down the elevator shafts. could of came from the other impact as well.

this video just speaks a lot. the fires were not as intense as the OS led us to believe.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by michale357
nice find did you notice the right bldg had a fire way low of the main fire is this low fire from the other bldgs plane


It could be a very small fire or my guess is its a hot spot from the sun. That is how low this temperature is on this fore the ho tspot from he sun looks similar to the fire that is burning.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
the only thing I see is that the flames only seem to be at about 80 to 100 degrees celsius. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Just wondering is it possible to analyse footage in IR that has not been originally filmed with special recording equipment? That may seem a stupid question but it is nearly my bed time...

Star and Flag


I expected the fire to be white hot on the screen.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


Not to my knowledge. IR is a special detector on a camera. You cannot pick up temps from regular footage. there needs to be a device connected to it.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I can tell you right off the bat that the fire was much hotter than 200F. As far as the firs being hot enough to melt steel, of course they weren't but to weaken it, possibly. However, not nearly enough to weaken the steel to a point of total collapse, IMO anyway. Of course I'm not an expert, obviously, but from the research that I have been able to do, the all of the steel would not have been weakened nearly enough and then to multiply that by three buildings is absurd.

Anyway, thanks for the video!

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


This FLIR is showing centigrade Airspoon. My question is when was this FLIR done? After
the fact? Was this analysis done from existing footage? If so, Wouldn't that render the
findings completely useless? To use thermo imaging don't you need to be using a FLIR
camera in real time---as it happens? I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but taking existing
footage and applying this tech after-the-fact doesn't seem right...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Read the link in the OP. a IR camera was on site. The woman's story about that day is in that link.


And to answer your question, no its the original footage. there is also an accurate time-stamp/date on the top right/left of the video.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Well the time on the camera reads 09/11 at about 9 a.m. so I would guess it was done the day of, no?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I will have to check it out when I get home. No Youtube here @ work


I have no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


It may have been hotter, but the IR camera was picking up some low temps.

Dont you think this shoots a hole in the OS's foot? it takes 1200-1500F (or around there) to weaken steel, but the IR shows an 8th of that temperature. How did the towers fall if it was the supposed fire that caused the steel to fail?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I'm no expert, so this might be a silly question, but after seeing the thermal imaging (great find by the way), I see no evidence of significant heat below the point of impact.

If there was no significant heat below the point of impact, how could the incredibly tough steel structure lower down in the building have melted?

If it didn't melt, where was the huge steel structure after the collapse?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Sorry, double post.
second line.


edit on 16-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


In her article she says she had the FLIR camera with her at the time, because of her work, and took the picture as it was happening.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
She had sent this footage to the 9/11 Comission also, but there is no mention of this in the report. Hmmm......wonder why?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
From what i get in the video is that the fires were not burning as hot as some people claim. If you look at the left side of the video, you have the color code. Blue for cold, Red, and yellow for hot. Anything brighter than yellow is above 120 degrees Celsius. a C-F conversion gave me 248 degrees Fahrenheit. Notice the colors were not bright yellow on the north tower. they seem to be red/orange color. If the color code is right, the temperature didn't get as intense as the official story led most of us to believe. 180-200 degrees F. Maybe more/less

Can someone explain how these low temperatures caused the collapse?


Not to be a party pooper but I have worked with a FLIR camera before.

1. It would not register actual temperature 1/4 mile away. Unless it is a VERY expensive piece of instrumentation.

2. The color chart on the FLIR cameras is worthless. At least that is what my experience with them is. Although this could be due to the fact that my boss is the only one allowed to use it and he's not very tech savy. I'm pretty sure you have to set them.

Anyway. The camera that I have seen used before shows a white hot spot minutes after someone would place their hand on a wall. Again...maybe my boss' camera is set differently.

But, adding that we are viewing this 1/4 mile away, then I'd say the fires where hotter than shown.

Keep in mind, I could be wrong.


edit on 16-9-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join