One of the first pictures taken of the first tower.

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
i.imgur.com...

This picture was just posted to another site and it is supposedly one of the first pictures. Anyways it doesn't really look like a plane hit it at all. Judging by the debris I'd say that someone snapped the pic as soon as it happened. If a plane did hit I'm not to sure that the debris would be projecting so far outward. It would make more sense of an explosion from inside the building because that picture looks like it was taken some distance away and you can see that the debris is pretty much right outside the _ Just thought I'd pass along the photo and my 2 cents. I know people are going to spew their BS anyways.




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


For some reason you are making a judgement based on a still picture when there is earlier video :-

www.youtube.com...

Not a plane impact ?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


i dont know why people bang on about no plane theory?

If whoever dropped the towers had the time, money and will to carry it out, why not just send 2 planes diving into the building? and then drop them with controlled demolition?

It just seems to me that if I were illuminati and i was sat in the boardroom planning the whole charade, id defo say ' hmm, why dont we just fly the planes in to the building? Seems to leave less room for us to get found out'

I mean, someone is going to know its a lie simply standing at ground zero, seems such a stupid plan for a group that are so well oganised.

just my opinion.

rice and peace



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I'm not saying there was no plane. I just think that the wings would of made a more clear hole instead of it looking staggered, but who really knows. As for the video I don't trust anything that was presented first as it could just be smoke and mirrors. The picture looks like it's more genuine and it's pretty high resolution. So let's keep it on the picture. Thanks.
edit on 15-4-2012 by stigup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


It would make sense if this picture was taken from the opposite side of the building where the impact took place.

path of plane ----->*impact*----ejected debris---->

Physics.

Stuff going in one direction tends to want to continue going in said direction, even if there's a building in the way. If said building is in the way, stuff that does indeed manage to continue following the path it *wants* to follow will pop out the other side in an explosive display.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Alright rightfully so. How come there isn't a gaping hole the size of the plane from wing to wing? When you zoom in there are obviously some parts still in tact which seems a little odd considering a plane went through it. Don't you feel that there should be no parts in tact from wing to wing?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


Buildings tend to be built out of stuff.
That stuff gets in the way of other stuff wanting to continue on any patch of trajectory.
Things like walls, support beams, elevators, water pipes, sewage pipes, electrical pipes, stairways, desks, chairs, computers, glass, people, and all the other myriad countless things that make up and occupy the building get in the way, and with some bits become part of the contributing mass of material.
All the stuff that gets in the way, including all the stuff that gets added to all the stuff that's travelling on a certain trajectory and path tends to break up the pattern like a shotgun blast.

If you had a shotgun, and you had a barrel especially made in the shape of an airplane, or a duck, or a naked lady, and you then fired that shotgun, the pellet spread would not be shaped necessarily like whatever shape of barrel you've chosen.

Complicate that spread further by putting lots of things in the way that won't get immediately destroyed, and those pellets, or airplane debris will pin-ball, ricochet, and bounce off in other paths of least resistance.


edit on 15-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


LoL. Ok I could understand the debris rebuttal, but this is just hilarious. Are you really comparing shotgun pellets to a solid mass of steel? Obviously a plane shaped shotgun isn't going to make a plane shape even if you fire it at a piece of paper! I know what buildings are made of inside and out. There's nothing that is going to stop a 200+ mph plane from destroying whatever is in it's path. NOTHING! So thanks for playing Druscilla, but your argument on this one is invalid.
edit on 15-4-2012 by stigup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by stigup
 
For some reason you are making a judgement based on a still picture when there is earlier video :-
www.youtube.com...
Not a plane impact ?


what's it all about ALFIE???
The OP said PICTURE ............NOT VIDEO PICTURE
AND BY THE WAY - there were NO PLANES on 9/11

NAUDET IS FRAUDULENT THROUGH AND THROUGH !!!!!!
edit on 15-4-2012 by Vitruvian because: EDIT FUNCTION WAS IN OPERATION FOR SAID POSTERMAN



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


Ridicule all you want, but, your error is in assuming an airplane is a solid mass of steel.

Sure, they're heavy, and they have lots of metal bits and pieces, but please consider that airplanes are made to be a lightweight as they possibly can.
Further, most of the BULK of the airplane, the very middle part, is made up of AIR, and soft stuff like passengers.

Solid piece of steel. I think not.

I further suggest you browse the web for pictures of big-rig trucks that have had run ins with things like telephone poles, bridge supports, and other things somewhat similar to the things that a building of substantial height would be potentially be made from from a structural stability and resistence to impact standpoint.
Big-rig trucks only travelling at a mere 70 miles an hour will often show surprising degrees of destruction compared to the relatively minimal if any sign of damage shown on the bridge/overpass support.

You're entitled to whatever bias and opinion you want to have. I'm just explaining the facts and expected outcome of a hypothetical situation regardless of whether that hypothetical situation happened the way you want to think or believe it happened.

If you're just looking for validation of a preconception, please, just say so. We'll pat you on the head and say things like 'that's nice', and all the people that agree with you will agree with you.

There's no need for you to get all hostile and sarcastic at me, but, if that's how you want to be ... eh, them's your stripes to show.



edit on 15-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


Just as a matter of interest, how does your still pic look " more genuine " than the video ?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


The still pic doesn't conform to the rules of cartoon physics, therefore conspiracy.

/thread.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I'm not trying to ridicule, I just feel like you just want to shoot down my side regardless of what is being said. I've seen people on this site and how they move and react, so excuse my hostility. When I say solid piece of steel I don't mean like a bar of gold solid I should have been more clear. Yes they have to be light, but a 747 still weights 900k lbs give or take.

I know the center of the plane is where most of the weight and structure is derived, but the wings aren't made to disintegrate. If you look at the photo on the left side you can clearly see the vertical steel beam is in tact from top to bottom. There should clearly be more damage to the steel that's all I'm saying.

I welcome a friendly debate and I'm not going to back down easily if I feel strongly about my view. I already gave you the satisfaction about the debris blowback. As for the big rig argument yes when a big rig crashes into a bridge they tend to fold up. This is mostly due to the fact that the trailer is just hollow wood and fiberglass. The truck itself has the bulk of the mass.

Although I appreciate you trying to use that as a comparison I just don't see how it can relate to a planes mass and there aren't really other examples on such a large scale. There are smaller planes that have crashed into buildings and haven't done as much damage because I just don't think they have enough mass that a larger plane has.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


It's more genuine because it was probably taken by a worker in an adjacent building. Plus I can see pretty damn well in the picture. You posting a link of a video that just happens to be filming and points up at the perfect time is not convincing to me. Maybe it's sufficient enough for you, but it's so far away it really has no relevance in what I'm talking about.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 

maybe im wrong, though I doubt it. But that is the side the plane impacted on. So.. Shouldnt debris go in? And I base my conclusion on the location of the other tower. And the direction of the river behind it..



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by stigup
 


It would make sense if this picture was taken from the opposite side of the building where the impact took place.

path of plane ----->*impact*----ejected debris---->

Physics.

Stuff going in one direction tends to want to continue going in said direction, even if there's a building in the way. If said building is in the way, stuff that does indeed manage to continue following the path it *wants* to follow will pop out the other side in an explosive display.



Uhh, nice try but isn't the debris going the wrong direction? Watch the vid in the second post. The debris seems to be defying the laws of physics and going the opposite direction of impact!



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stigup
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I'm not trying to ridicule, I just feel like you just want to shoot down my side regardless of what is being said. I've seen people on this site and how they move and react, so excuse my hostility. When I say solid piece of steel I don't mean like a bar of gold solid I should have been more clear. Yes they have to be light, but a 747 still weights 900k lbs give or take.



You are considering the wrong aircraft. It wasn't a 900k lbs 747 but a 395k lbs 767.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


I mean typically you would think that, but the scale is different so I guess the effects are different? If you look at this picture from the plane crash of that yankee picture you can see there is some debris on the street.
i.imgur.com...

Not that much and it didn't really fall far, but again scale is much smaller. But I'm guessing because the planes "fuel" exploded on impact that the debris shoot outward. That's what the debunkers will say anyway. Somehow there is only here-say and never any conclusive evidence. Regardless of the 2 towers building 7 should be more than enough evidence of controller demolition.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by stigup
 


It would make sense if this picture was taken from the opposite side of the building where the impact took place.

path of plane ----->*impact*----ejected debris---->

Physics.

Stuff going in one direction tends to want to continue going in said direction, even if there's a building in the way. If said building is in the way, stuff that does indeed manage to continue following the path it *wants* to follow will pop out the other side in an explosive display.



Uhh, nice try but isn't the debris going the wrong direction? Watch the vid in the second post. The debris seems to be defying the laws of physics and going the opposite direction of impact!


What laws of physics would that be exactly ? These bullets also don't know about them :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


It was stated that things going in a direction tend to continue going in that direction, was merely pointing out the statement was incorrect as applied. The direction implied was obviously at fault therefore the opinion of the post is null and void!





top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join