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.

 

One of the first pictures taken of the first tower.

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lagrimas
 


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

Unless you were there and witnessed the entire event, then partook in the investigation / vetting of evidence.. it's all a bunch of "theories".

Evidence is not on cnn, mswhatever bs, interwebs or TV.. Politicians are notorious infamous liars only a fool would trust.

Evidence is that which is found to be CREDIBLE AND RELEVANT in an open fair COURT OF LAW.. A pre-911 virtue apparently, like "innocent until proven guilty".. post 911 people believe what they're told, and "as seen on TV".

The man counts on sheep not to think critically about things like what defines "evidence".."we don't need no stink'n court challenged evidence!!, we got TV".. they know the gullible court of public opinion is chalk full of knee jerk jesters and easily duped partisan clowns.




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

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.



If that photo is original and untouched there should be a long list of EXIF data available.

Upload it here to view the EXIF data: www.wisegeek.com...
Almost nothing comes up.

I believe that image has been scrubbed.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


double post..remove please...
edit on 16-4-2012 by Arawn73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


its the opposite side of the building..



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:57 PM
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 ?

Thanks for the link. I had never seen that particular video before. It is possible that someone could have edited-out the plane hitting the tower. I remember seeing this exact video --only a different version where there is a plane seen striking at the impact. In this day and age, it is hard to determine which one is the true video: with the plane or without it. Thanks for posting. STAR



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
If that photo is original and untouched there should be a long list of EXIF data available.


Not sure what about the photo itself you feel is suspect, but remember that this would have been taken in 2001 so - while it's almost a given nowadays - it very likely may not have even been taken with a digital camera.

Anyway, I think the premise of the original post, the assumption we were looking at the impact hole, was the problem. Not the photo itself.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 






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

Unless you were there and witnessed the entire event, then partook in the investigation / vetting of evidence.. it's all a bunch of "theories".


I was supposed to be there that day, but I was not, I got sick the week before on my run with pneumonia. I friend of mine with the same company took my load. After unloading in White plains NY, he did not know the way I went down into Manhattan, so he went back out the Tappan-Zee and down NJ Turnpike, stopped for the night at the Alexander Hamilton travel plaza, woke up late, and was doing his morning pre-trip when the first plane hit. He was watching from on top of the truck when the second plane hit. He ran back to the Canadian border and bonded the load back into Canada.

I would not have been so lucky, I would have been there, a ways south of Canal St. on Church, but I was luckily not.

My friend told me in detail about what he saw as our company halted cross border shipping for a few weeks after, a lot of the work we did was dedicated NY stuff, and the border situation was in flux. My company too me off that area for a while, I did not go back to NYC for 18 months, even then it was hard, i had be doing the run for some time, and had gotten to know many people, including a cop that helped me out of a tight spot once (nothing legal), he did not make it out of the complex, I found out later.

So, there you go, I will trust all the evidence, irrefutable evidence, of video from many many angles, physical evidence, testimony of thousands of people, and my friend. I will also trust my gut, the scream my mother let out, while we were on the phone with her.

I was at work that Tuesday morning, in Orillia On. at my company, getting the necessary paperwork to go on sick leave, I had been ordered off work for a month minimum, with sever double pneumonia, we got a satellite message from my friend about what was happening right after the first plane hit, we did not have a radio in the office, and the TV was not working, I called my mother at home and we had her on speaker listening to live streaming news, when the second plane hit, I will never forget the blood curdling cry my mother gave (I type that with tears in my eyes). We could not contact the driver and lost satellite comm (text/location) with him (system overload we found out later) and could not locate him. I got out of there, and i only took me an hour and 35 minutes to get home in Niagara-on-the-lake ON, usually a 3 hour drive with traffic on the 401 over the top of Toronto, I think I saw about a dozen cars that morning.

That day is burned in my brain forever, that is pretty much why I am a "conspiracy theorist", while I do not believe we have been told the whole truth, there is absolutely no doubt that 2 planes hit the twin towers that day, why or by who, might be a different story, but those planes were there. My brother's girlfriend at the time, lost her aunt there too, she had just got out of the car at the WTC complex, her husband had just dropped her off at the south end of the complex as the first plane hit, she was hit by falling debris and a short time later succumbed to her injuries. It had been part of the fuselage as he described, he survived, he heard the first plane, and saw the second plane hit, I have this first hand from him as well. I personally know 3 people involved, on of them killed, two who witnessed it.

Please use your head to think about the events, use common sense when viewing videos. It is not prudent to base your opinion on one little piece of evidence, but rather in a body of evidence, and there is just too much evidence that shows there were planes there. If you have to witness an event, and participate in the investigation of it to be sure it happened, you must not be sure of very much. I will trust the evidence analyzed by 1700+ engineers, architects and scientists, over your agenda driven opinion any day.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by evilod

Originally posted by HIWATT
If that photo is original and untouched there should be a long list of EXIF data available.


Not sure what about the photo itself you feel is suspect, but remember that this would have been taken in 2001 so - while it's almost a given nowadays - it very likely may not have even been taken with a digital camera.

Anyway, I think the premise of the original post, the assumption we were looking at the impact hole, was the problem. Not the photo itself.


You are actually quite right, the digital camera I had at that time, a RCA unit, did not record EXIF either, as that is something TIFF and JPG/JPEG files contain, my camera saved BMP (Bitmapped) image files.

Looking at this image, I see no JPG comments/IPTC Info embedded in it, and absolutely no EXIF data on it.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 


I "THINK" someone needs to learn a few "TRUTHS" (outside the silly "conspiracy sites" THAT THEY (Apparently) have decided to use as their ;SOLE SOURCE; OF.....'information'.....(sadly).....

) idunno
It is PATHETIC the way that a few (or MANY0 idiotic websites......STILL post GARBAGE!!


SAD it is.........so very, very sad..........



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
You are actually quite right, the digital camera I had at that time, a RCA unit, did not record EXIF either, as that is something TIFF and JPG/JPEG files contain, my camera saved BMP (Bitmapped) image files.

Looking at this image, I see no JPG comments/IPTC Info embedded in it, and absolutely no EXIF data on it.


That's actually a direct result of the image being hosted to imgur.com. That website removes exif data from the uploaded images so that they can't be easily tracked back to the user that uploaded them. Using Google's image-search as well as TinEye, I can't find any evidence that the picture was available or archived on the web before it was posted a couple days ago. It is possible that a website it was previously posted on was deleted.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

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..
If you watch the September clues documentary, it has loads and loads of live news footage from the day, and there are lots of people reporters included saying they didn't see a plane only an explosion and the few who say they did see a plane said they seen a small plane definitely not a commercial airline plane. Most of the people who say they saw a plane say it after the fact when they seen the footage repeated on the news.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The lady in Chelsea said she saw a plane, right? Compelling evidence against planes, but the lady wouldn't lie.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
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?


Glad you brought that up! Here's something for the "Untruthers" to mull around.



Tower walls were composed of high-strength steel beams approximately 14 inches square on one-meter centers (39.37”) surrounding windows with each column beam secured to others by steel spandrel plates about 52 inches x 10 feet forming a belt around each floor (see p. 8 pdf). Steel beam thicknesses varied from 4” at the base and tapered from 5/8” to ¼” in the WTC 1 impact zone and 13/16” to ¼” in the WTC 2 impact zone. WTC floors were grids of steel topped by four inches of steel reinforced lightweight concrete in corrugated steel pans. Walls effectively were dense webs of nearly 40% steel covered by aluminum and backed by steel and concrete floor grids mated to an incredibly strong and dense core of 47 cross-braced steel columns, stairwells and elevator shafts.


www.911hoax.com...
edit on 17-4-2012 by ajay59 because: to add



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stigup
 

(This is my first reply on ATS, so apologies if it comes out all gobbledegooky or I've clicked on the wrong person to reply to.)

Re: comments to the effect that the debris is going in the wrong direction:

If you sit a few feet away from an open, or ajar, window whilst smoking a cigarette, you'd think that the breeze or wind would blow the smoke into the room but it doesn't - it sucks it out of the window. So I'd say that it's the wind /breeze whistling past the building that is sucking the debris out. It's a building full of offices so a lot of that debris in the picture would be paper, which obviously doesn't weigh much, so it would travel quite a distance with the wind.
Plus, I don't know a lot about aeroplanes but wouldn't the back-draft (?) from the engines blow stuff out behind it?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
There is eyewitness testimony Network video and private video of the planes impacting the tower. I am not aware of any privately shot video that shows the lack of a plane.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
No Planes theory has to be taken seriously, do you believe the planners of 911 could take the chance that both planes would hit both towers. I don't think so if we believe the official story the hijackers could hardly fly small propeller planes let alone jet liners, just one mistake by these so called hijackers/ pilots could cause them to miss one of the towers. Also at the speeds the jet liners (drones?) supposedly hit the towers at, they may well of broken up/ become unstable in flight. There could be no upsets to the plan. If only one or no towers were hit/collapsed, the planners couldn't risk that after all the time spent rigging both towers with explosives. The only way to guarantee 100% both planes hitting the towers that day was impossible, so if they can't make them hit they fake them hit using CGI look at the evidence its unbelievable but its the only conclusion possible, if you believe 911 was pre planned.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItCantBeTrue
No Planes theory has to be taken seriously, do you believe the planners of 911 could take the chance that both planes would hit both towers. I don't think so if we believe the official story the hijackers could hardly fly small propeller planes let alone jet liners, just one mistake by these so called hijackers/ pilots could cause them to miss one of the towers. Also at the speeds the jet liners (drones?) supposedly hit the towers at, they may well of broken up/ become unstable in flight. There could be no upsets to the plan. If only one or no towers were hit/collapsed, the planners couldn't risk that after all the time spent rigging both towers with explosives. The only way to guarantee 100% both planes hitting the towers that day was impossible, so if they can't make them hit they fake them hit using CGI look at the evidence its unbelievable but its the only conclusion possible, if you believe 911 was pre planned.


You're assuming a lot in order to make that a possibility. 767s are very sturdy aircraft meant to be able to take a lot of stress. In air shows, they can get ridiculous with the high speed maneuvers they pull off. The "terrorists" who are purported to have flown the planes are documented as having a good deal of flight school experience, as well as plenty of time in flight simulators getting a handle on all the necessary controls. Maybe it's impossible for you to aim a plane, but with training, it's not that big of a deal.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join