It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


One of the first pictures taken of the first tower.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:57 PM
Besides 9/11 when did a plane crash into a building like that? What is this compared to.... Cause to me it looks like a plane hit it, and i seen it happen

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by Alfie1

Do you realize the angle on the impact in that video?
Insanse. That could never be a plane.
edit on 15-4-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by stigup

If anyone wants to see a picture(s) of the plane superimposed over the holes in the tower(s)...


Really... what planes?

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by evilod
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.


I thought the same thing as soon as I saw the op picture. Thats the hudson in the background. So, this isn't the impact hole on the north face that we are looking at. It is of the east face as you have so astutely pointed out, therefore deeming this entire thread rubbish.

Nice work

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Druscilla
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)

Your logic makes you my new hero. "Soft stuff like passengers" - lmao.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by Druscilla

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.

Major fail.

300,000 to 400,000 pounds is 300,000 to 400,000 pounds, no matter which way you fly it, throw it, sling it, or try to stop it.

Hollow or not, the weight is still there. It is weight in motion.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:43 AM
The way I see it, if the gov can find the "terrorists" passport and half burnt ID, they owe the American People 6 CF6-80C2B6 engines (not CFM56 thats for 737 not 767) and two Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. Util I see those I call BS on the plane impacts

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:54 AM
The amount of ignorant moronic fools who say there was no plane is beyond absurd..i guess the four people i know who live in new york and saw the planes are government shills along with the thousands of other people who saw them.. some of you people should not be allowed anywhere near the internet or out in public in general

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal
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)

So these drones didn't have wings? How did they fly? And how do you account for the video of a large winged object flying into the tower? Or are drone wings qualitatively different than manned aircraft wings in the manner in which they interact with buildings during collisions?

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by Siberbat

Nice try to appear "informed":

they owe the American People 6 CF6-80C2B6 engines (not CFM56 thats for 737 not 767) and two Rolls-Royce RB211 engines.

Why "6" CF6-80 engines?? And WHO in the hell EVER said there were any "CFM56" model engines installed on ANY of the four jets crashed on 9/11???

I don't know your level of expertise.....but I do know mine.....not sure if you are a pilot (or not)...but I know, I to "Tango"?

Before, that though.....the thread is about the "One of the first pictures taken of the first tower"....(to exactly quote the title).

Now, with some 'lee-way' in this discussion, and focusing only on the World Trade Center, for the moment.....AS TO the engines mounted on the two airplanes.......the FIRST jet to hit was American Airlines Flight '11', a Boeing 767-223ER. N334AA S/N 22332.

HERE is the FAA N-Number registry showing the de-registered N-Number:

Engines installed: GE engines used on the American Airlines B-767 fleet. "30025" as the "Engine Model" is the reference to the CF6-80 GE engine model.

Next, we turn our attention to United to impact the WTC.

United Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222. N612UA. S/N 21873.

United's B-767s did NOT....I repeat.....did NOT have GE engines, they had Pratt & Whitneys....(or, P&W).

NOTE: FAA Registry N612UA


Engine Manufacturer P & W
Engine Model 52054

Back to P&W website....(and FAA) for engine model designation (see ^^ above):

It is the JT-9D base engine.....there are other variations, depending upon the installation.

OK.....THAT covers this thread's topic....of FOUR engines, of TWO different manufacturers at ONE basic crash site.

For "some" reason your post included four more engines.....from other locations.....WHY is that, exactly???

Oh and.....there is one known and documented example of the core of a large jet engine that exited one of the Towers, as part of the accident sequence, to fall to the ground as it exited the building. This does not mean that ALL of the impact scenarios will play out the same way, in all cases.

Furthermore, contrary to many, many, many claims.....when the Towers collapsed......they did NOT "fall into their own footprints", as is so widely asserted.......what nonsense.......

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:28 AM
Some people watch too many cartoons. Expecting to see a perfect cookie cutter hole of the coyote through a bolder has warped cognitive thinking.

Tell us how solid commercial aircraft wings (auxiliary fuel tanks) and the upper half of the fuselage is compared to the outer structural steel shell of the twin towers (1/3 of the 3-part reliant construction design) or the recently reinforced Pentagon section before impact. Seems kind of silly to ponder which system would crumple most. We see large commercial aircraft get totaled just overrunning the landing strips.

Seriously, a cookie cutter hole?

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:01 PM
Reading this thread helps me understand why "truthers" are are looked on with pity and disregarded. I do not believe that 9/11 Happened the way the NIST report says, but some people choose to completely disregard reality, ignore facts, and have some just plain fantastical ideas about what happened. No theory is faulty, until it is proven to be completely impossible, at that point, to continue flogging it when independent evidence has been provided, is not doing the people looking for the truth any good.

Common sense should prevail, but it doesn't. I am a "truther" in the sense that in my mind, the NIST report is inconsistent, it ignores facts, and obfuscates others. Some people are latching onto one video that is questionable at best, and ignoring all other evidence that either clarifies the first "evidence", puts it in context, or shows it to be a sham.

There is only 1 place that I can think of where this picture was taken, first is from in the "One Liberty Plaza" on Cortlandt St, just east of Church St, (south east side of intersection, across Church st. from the old WTC4 building) it would be the only place high enough in the correct direction and that close.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by liejunkie01

Major fail. 300,000 to 400,000 pounds is 300,000 to 400,000 pounds, no matter which way you fly it, throw it, sling it, or try to stop it. Hollow or not, the weight is still there. It is weight in motion.


If you took a 400,000lb analogous solid block of steel and threw it at the tower at the same speed, it would likely pass right through the tower, and actually cause comparatively minor damage to the building, anything on the ground on the other side is in trouble though.

Now take 400.000lbs of inflated rubber balloons (theoretically speaking of course) and threw them at the building at the same speed, they would bounce off and you would have yourself one heck of a party.

Density and area play a huge part in this. With the right combination of density, and area affected, what you get is the transference of energy.

This is how bullet proof vests work, it takes the kinetic energy of the bullet and spreads the force over a larger area. Make the bullet small enough with the same potential energy (mass, velocity, acceleration. etc), and it would go through the vest.

the Aircraft was able to dissipate the kinetic energy it had through flying to pieces, transferring the energy tot he building, causing the damage.

If you ever watch open wheel racing, and wonder why when the car has even what appears to be a minor collision, think of the same principle, every part of the car that comes off leaving just the protective "Tub" takes some of the collision energy with it.

A similar thing happened here, the bulk of the plane structure is not dense enough to travel through the building without encountering a great deal of resistance. That is why only things like landing gear, and engine cores made it through he building, the rest being shredded for lack of a better term, al the while transferring the energy to the building structure, damaging it.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by RyanFromCan

I see what you are trying to say, but you used two vast extremes.....and muddied the discussion.

What I mean is, using a(n) (imaginary) '400,000 pound' single "block" of something, then comparing that to the equivalent weight in 'balloons'.....I mean....seriously??

I know the old adage of a "pound of feathers" versus a "pound of bricks" (or whatever variation you are familiar with).....a "pound" of anything is still a pound.....but, the distribution of the mass, the shape and density of the materials that comprise the structure....etc, etc, etc.....THOSE are all important to the comprehension, here.

What you attempted to do was an over-simplification.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by Druscilla

If that's the case, this image would suggest that the debris was not caused by the impact of the plane but by an explosion from within the building where the plane hit.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Again.....not a "solid" foundation to stake such a claim, on only ONE photo of an event with no time reference attached....

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:19 PM
Thanks for pointing out it wasn't the impact side. Clears a bunch of things up and I apologize I didn't catch that. I still wonder why out of 11 flights since the 1960s 3 of the flights were on 911 that black boxes were never recovered. I feel there's so much abundance of evidence pointing to foul play why do people still hold on to the official story?

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by stigup

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.

People like you are the reason I have given up on 911 truth. Planes are made from light weight aluminum. The only solid pieces of a plane that you'd expect to remain somewhat intact, are the engines and possibly the wheel assembly.

Guess what? That's exactly what they photographed.

Secondly, if you were an honest truther, you'd have a basic understanding of the internal structure of the WTC towers, knowing that the steel support columns would completely SHRED the plane as it entered.

That's about the only accurate part of the popular mechanics / nist report, that the plane was shredded, it's to be expected.

Let alone that you can go see video of the first impact.

Some of us want answers, but coming off half cocked and misinformed merely dilutes whatever message you are trying to present. Ridiculing those trying to point out your errors speaks volumes about your character.

P.S. I'm a former truther, believe elements within the US government colluded with agents within the Israeli government, to get 911 done, so keep that in mind when you call me a disinfo agent, cause the only one spewing dis/mis-information is you.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by stigup

I still wonder why out of 11 flights since the 1960s 3 of the flights were on 911 that black boxes were never recovered.

Black boxes are not indestructable.
If I remember correctly they are placed in the tail of a plane to allow a better chance of survival. Meaning that in most cases the rest of the plane hits first and absorbs much of the impact.

In this case the tail gets its own floor to impact.
Then the fire of over an hour. WHen was the last time any other plane crash burned unabated for an hour plus?
As a coup de gras they had at least 15 floors of debris chewing them up. Or should I say down, down to the ground.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:45 PM

They are designed to withstand a deceleration of 310mph over a distance of 14 feet.
as to fire

The current fire test requirement consists of a 30-minute exposure to a propane burner calibrated to the heating conditions created by a jet fuel fire.

Both conditions were exceeded at WTC.
edit on 16-4-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in