One of the first pictures taken of the first tower.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MI5didit

 

That ridiculous video made by "Simon Shack" was already posted up-thread.

It is complete nonsense.

Here.....this is the definitive video to explain the deceptive methods used by "Simon Shack" to fool his viewers:

Google Video Link

As to the OP, and the photo? The opening caused by the airplane's entry is partly obscured (in that single photo) by the smoke. ONE photo alone does not tell the entire story of an event --- surely everyone understands this concept?

As to the way the opening is not "perfectly" outlining the airplane's head-on silhouette? This was the nature of the building's construction. Specifically, the exterior lattice columns, and the way they were assembled, and where they broke (at various attachment points) on impact.

Here is another video to watch, and learn from:

edit on Sun 15 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Is that to prove the effectiveness of CGI? How well it can be used to defy logic, even physics?

Originally posted by loveguy
Is that to prove the effectiveness of CGI? How well it can be used to defy logic, even physics?

You've clearly never been involved in simulations. They simulate physics in the most realistic reconstruction currently possible. Otherwise, we'd have to build another tower and crash a plane into it. I know it's so hard for anybody on the "truth" side to even consider that some things might have actually happened. I know that being in denial makes you feel like an internet warrior, but sometimes you have to face reality.

reply to post by loveguy


I can only presume you refer to the second video? That was not "CGI" in the usually understood sense. It is a computer simulation of the physics involved, to the best of the ability using what data they had on design of the building, both the facade "skin" supports (an integral part of the building's overall strength and support, BTW) and the interior components, and how things would have interacted --- purely from the physics of it all.

IN that video, there is a scene showing the computer simulated airplane breaching the exterior lattice --- this show the way the components broke, during the impact sequence.


Now, again....as to the OP's photo and the (what I infer) to by his/her "question".....the premise presented, in the OP, was that the photo was "one of the first" post-impact photos. Then, the "question" consisted of, (paraphrasing):

"How did the debris seen that was away from the Tower, and closer to the camera's position, get there?"

Basically, that seems to be the proposed "question", here.

However, the actual time post-impact is not given, in the OP. Merely the vague "one of the first" after impact. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the airborne debris seen in that one still image is of lightweight materials, mostly papers.

I think that many people wish to strive with such intensity to "prove" something other than reality, that they will clutch at any straws, and twist their perceptions (and then attempt to foist those twists unto others) in order to alter the facts, and thus "spin" the results.

reply to post by stigup


That isn't debris, it is a dirty window, and that isn't at impact, it is well after and there it is just the smoke from the fire billowing up the side of the building. This is a non-thread, sorry.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Just one problem - WTC was not built from concrete, especially solid concrete wall

The exterior wall was lattice of columns joined by welded spandrel plates and bolted together in 30 ft sections

Question is why was post something totally irrevelant....?

I cannot possibly imagine...how someone working in an office, would grab a camera phone or otherwise and take this shot so fast. I mean, between entering my passcode and pulling up my camera on my own cell, it takes a bit to get it going. This is incredible.

Originally posted by stigup
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 window. Just thought I'd pass along the photo and my 2 cents. I know people are going to spew their BS anyways.

I cannot see how a fabricated plane crash narrative can be denied anymore by anyone.
Unless people have alterior motives, of course.
(Wink wink, alf, dman, proudbirdman etc. etc.)

www.911research.dsl.pipex.com...

The game is up folks!

reply to post by thedman


It wasn't irrelevant. The dust flies backwards eventually. If you read the OP.


But the OP picture doesn't even have dust, it's a dirty window.

Originally posted by stigup
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 window. Just thought I'd pass along the photo and my 2 cents. I know people are going to spew their BS anyways.

It was a plane.. don't forget just how many witnesses were there and saw it .. New York has a lot of people.. a LOT of people.. by suggesting it was something other than a plane, you discredit every person who saw it with their own eyes that day..

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
I cannot possibly imagine...how someone working in an office, would grab a camera phone or otherwise and take this shot so fast. I mean, between entering my passcode and pulling up my camera on my own cell, it takes a bit to get it going. This is incredible.

I keep my camera bag with me at all times.. the person probably heard or saw the plane coming in and was ready for something bad to happen.. still incredible

I'm still trying to figure out how the body count was so small with the number of floors and capacity of the buildings. It was the start of a work day and too early for lunch so that never made sense to me.
Before anyone says it, I already heard the Jew conspiracy so don't bother. If you ask me I'd be looking at the Eskimos since NONE of them were in the building.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


some of them got phone calls telling them not to go into work -

reply to post by Trublbrwing

I'm still trying to figure out how the body count was so small with the number of floors and capacity of the buildings. It was the start of a work day and too early for lunch so that never made sense to me.

The first plane hit at 8:47 am - people were still arriving , Sept 11 was also an election day - the primary
to choose candidates for November mayor election to replace Guiliani

Many people stopped to vote

The 16 minute gap between first strike on North Tower and second strike on South Tower gave many people
chance to escape - either by not entering buildings or evacuatiing the towers

Haha, yup, no holes from the wings like there is supposed to be. Of course the wings should have fallen off and been discovered, this is the point. All you have to do is look at the impact hole, and why the plane didn't break off any parts on impact..

Here's your two possible answers:

1. No planes
2. Drones used (this is more likely, for obvious reasons, and what I believe what was used)

Also to resident shills, Proudbird, GoodOlDave, Alfie, Hooper, don't reply to me ever in 9/11 threads, because you won't get a response.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by loveguy
Is that to prove the effectiveness of CGI? How well it can be used to defy logic, even physics?

You've clearly never been involved in simulations. They simulate physics in the most realistic reconstruction currently possible. Otherwise, we'd have to build another tower and crash a plane into it. I know it's so hard for anybody on the "truth" side to even consider that some things might have actually happened. I know that being in denial makes you feel like an internet warrior, but sometimes you have to face reality.

Thanks for the friendly suggestion. I have a question pertaining to cgi vs real footage.

Why wasn't the following video confiscated and used for the investigation; AND kept from public scrutiny? It's in NYC too...

This photo appears to be of the east face of the north tower, thus it is NOT showing the impact hole. This is supported by the shape of the hole and it's orientation in relation to WTC 2. We're viewing the Hudson and New Jersey in the background of the OP photo.

Here's a picture I put together to illustrate what we're looking at. The blue and purple dots are reference points. Look at the shape of the hole above the dots as they correspond to each other, showing how they are the same hole in each photo.




Again, the point being that the hole in the OP photo is NOT the impact hole.

reply to post by evilod


Well done there!

/thread.

reply to post by stigup


I think the government is aware of the fact that their people no longer trust them because of gun sales and passing the NDAA not to mention buying up millions of rounds of ammunition. No mainstream media outlet even covered that.

reply to post by stigup

Judging by the debris I'd say that someone snapped the pic as soon as it happened.

Judging by your statement you didn't do much analysis. The debris is paper all thru the shot. Zoom in on your own photo. This is some time(?) after the impact. Still cool pic though. Thanks for bringing it. The Pic not the BS.