Nearly 5 minutes of Unedited audio from within WTC on 9/11 - ***WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AND AUDIO***

If one body ended up that intact, then all the people around him should of too. The circumstances are not that extreme. Unless it was just that one body that sat in a fire for hours, but from the plane parts you can tell it was a "passenger".

Also, I've seen a lot of burned bodies, none of them looked like that, the ones I saw were all black and looked like black marrow :/

Originally posted by Skibum
HUH, how is that? Were they all subjected to the same experience?

I see faulty logic going on here.

Same experience....um YEAH!
The crash zone is only so big, so it is safe to say that those in that vicinity should have had equal exposure.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by SMR]

I had two friends die in a crash simultaneously, even though they were next to each other and subjected to the same forces (both without seatbelts), they suffered and died from completely different injuries... Going by your logic the government did it. OK no fire invovled but it demonstrates the point..
Life (and death)'s random bud..

[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Im sorry to hear of your friends.But your example is far from what is going on here.We are talking about exposure and not just impact.Ofcourse impact can very, but exposure always leads from one point to another being the end result.
Exposure to fire will always lead to the same result.Freezing cold will always result to freezing.
We are talking elements here.

Yes I know what you mean, but the boundaries of fire have to start and end somewhere. Look at things like Spontaneous Human Combustion, it seems it is a wick type effect that causes it but it seems unlikely does it not? A human body being burnt to nothing and the surrounding area virtually unscathed..
The body on top could have actually been on fire and the one below might have only suffered from smoke and heat.


[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Boundaries exist in this situation, they're:

Body disinigrated? No? Okay so then the one RIGHT NEXT to it shouldn't of either. Logic? You have to have fire hotter than lava to fully disinigrate a body. That body is fully intact, except for the arms, and still has muscle tissue, if that's a real body and if I'm seeing it right.

How does SHC work then? The 'official' explanation the last I heard is a wick type effect..
Like a lot of people I used to like covering my hands in something like deodourant and setting them on fire for a gag, fire burning at hundreds of degrees on my hands, no burn marks.. Yes a relatively short amount of time, but again demonstrates the boundaries possible.
It's like rain, you can literally drive over the barrier between where it is raing and where it isn't.. Everything has a barrier and you can have extremes either side.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

That's so silly in this situation I refuse to make a reply other than this .

I believe these 'explosions' are just people hearing structural failures pre collapse having no other way to describe the explosions. FEMA has a few photos showing structural failure with cllapsed floors pre collapse in one of thier reports.

At the pentagon or the WTC Towers?

SHC is a good example.I have forgotten about that.
But we have to remember one thing about that.It's as mysterious as Bigfoot when you look at it.Nobody knows much about it and how and why.It does happen, but we know as much about it as we do about life on Mars.

With the SHC we are seeing an element within rather than a seperate one.
As you can see in the images, we have 3 seperate kinds of burns.We can assume that the bodies were not moved so in saying that, if you look, how can this be that we have ( pardon the name ) a charcol chunk, half burned, and then the, what I call, the Pompeii effect.All in the same area and not on top of eachother.The one that looks glazed ( showing muscle? ) right next to one that is almost unidentifiable as a body at all.

Perhaps this could also be just one of those times where we say, 'stranger things have happened!'

Well..the body looks plastic/rubber, all burned bodies that i've EVER seen look like black bone marrow of sorts, or something like crappy CG from Pirates of the Carribean. :/

That body just looks like a artist had fun with a crash-test-dummy.

Pretty much my point in my posts in this thread.I just didnt want to come out yelling 'FAKE' and get flamed for being insensitive.But yeah, from bodies I have seen, and seen many in books from sister-in-law who has been going to school for autopsy for a few years now, I have not seen anothing like this from this type of element.Also being that I have viewed many online from a popular site and again, this still does not fit.

I don't understand. There were people for the past 4-1/2 years who asked where are the bodies? and now the pictures are coming out and the same people are saying those bodies are fake.

I see nothing about any of the pictures that looks fake. What exactly are you talking about that doesn't look right? Please explain in detail.

Did you note that the one man who is still sitting upright was electrocuted?

www.rcfp.org...

I'm assuming the two bodies next to each other were toward the rear of the plane. That assumption has an extremely high probability of being correct. Bodies toward the back of the plane would have passed through the burning areas ignited by jet fuel...not lingered in them long enough to turn to charcoal.

My brother was burned over 65% of his body when his chopper went down in Viet Nam.

www.rcfp.org...

That body exhibits the same effects as my brother's body...thick raised scarring. I just don't understand what you people are taking as evidence these pictures are anything but what they are purported to be.

Originally posted by Valhall

What exactly are you talking about that doesn't look right? Please explain in detail.
=====================================
I think we have.Did you read?We even went into talk of SHC and how it looks similar.

Originally posted by Valhall

Did you note that the one man who is still sitting upright was electrocuted?
=====================================
Perhaps I missed that somewhere, but where does it say that about THAT 'person' in THAT image?

Originally posted by Valhall

I'm assuming the two bodies next to each other were toward the rear of the plane. That assumption has an extremely high probability of being correct.
=====================================
Although an assumption, you are trying to state it as fact.They may have been, but you dont know for sure.But you are saying your probably right.You cant conclude on that assumption I am afraid.


If said bodies were infact at the tail end, how then can one be nearly turned into charcoal and another right next to it be nearly untouched?
Whatever hit the Pentagon, it hit fast.So fast that whatever was in that area was hit most likely equally with fire.The back of the 'plane' didnt have to 'catch up' seconds later and feel a fraction of the heat.I am almost sure that the fire in front was the same as the fire in th back of whatever hit because impact was fast.
If you see video's you can see that when planes or other explosive objects hit, it is almost as if fire waits until the whole thing is 'inside' or crashed before showing up.Im not saying it does, but it shows you that the area around is nearly getting the same effect.

Yeah, I can say that I feel my assumption has a high probability of being right. Live with that.

What you THINK these bodies should look like doesn't have much merit to me, but you're free to THINK what ever you come up with.

BUT, I'd like to know why two of the people in this photograph:

www.rcfp.org...

and this photograph:

www.rcfp.org...

Are both wearing red jumpsuits. That's what I'm interested in. But I don't think the pics are fake. And I haven't read anything in this thread (which I did read) that makes me think otherwise.

Perhaps these are 'real' bodies.Perhaps they did get here by way of a 'plane', crash and burn.Are these the said passangers of flight 77? Does this conclusivly tell us that a 757 flight #77 hit the Petagon?
I have to say no.Untill I see a video of an AA 757 hit the Pentagon, I will have to ask questions.And thats really all I am doing.Are these the passangers of flight 77 from the AA 757? Who is to say this wasnt a small plane that had 10 people on board that crashed into the Pentagon.Sure, we get plane parts and bodies, but does this make it conclusive? Im afriad in all this 9/11 talk, this is still not enough.The fact that it was known that 3-4 cameras caught whatever hit were taken and never shown does this.

On the images, that is very interesting.Very interesting indeed......

EDIT: My spelling sucks when I type too fast

[edit on 13-4-2006 by SMR]

OK, Im a bit surprised by these two images.

This one shows the impact of the "plane" into the Pentagon. And this one the same impact site but obviously later on.

Notice the first thing, how the earlier image has been cropped, you cant see the second floor windows or the mess in front of the hole like in the second one.

Secondly, see how different the mess is in front of the two holes. The first one has the appearence of "spilling out" and the second one, well, it looks like a scarp yard.

Notice the similarities and differences. For instance, wheres the lamp post looking thing seen in the second image but not in the first? The lamp post has a filing cabinet shape object practically leaning on it, yet if you look in the first image that same box shape has no lamp post. Much "junk" has been added in my opinion.

I agree with SMR, all the government has to do is release only one of those tapes. Three or four cameras caught the whole event ... that's MORE than enough, let us see it and we'll shut up. Until then ...

What is this?