IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
My picture collection, Surrounding building damage

rob balsamo
post Nov 17 2006, 02:24 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,658
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Some of my first work when i first started researching 9/11.















Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JerryB9105
post Nov 17 2006, 04:25 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 453
Joined: 23-October 06
From: Maryland
Member No.: 139



JDX --They were great pictures back then, and they're great pictures now. Thanks for posting them again.

Just a passing comment: That damage seen in your photos shows gaping holes in the tops of buildings // doesn't it seem logical that random falling debris from the towers would most likely have added more so to the tops of those buildings than what we can see in the photographs -- creating gaping crevices many floors deep.

It's almost like all the 'toothpaste' was squeeze from the inside-out // not the opposite of outside-in. Make sense? I'm sure you said YES.

Later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Miragememories
post Jan 21 2007, 04:36 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 7
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 320



I've been involved in some rather strained dialogues at LC and the govt loyalist site regarding the strange absence of large concrete slabs.

My argument has been that the supporting evidence indicates the use of powerful explosives because a gravity collapse wouldn't account for the almost total pulverization of all the reinforced concrete.

Most of the Ground Zero cleanup footage around the former WTC 1 & 2 seems to support this, mostly pulverization, but I'm curious if there is photo evidence of the other near-destroyed WTC buildings (3,4,5 & 6) that reveals large pieces of concrete as would be expected in non-CD destruction?

I realize I'm probably wasting my time because the skeptics will counter argue that the smaller buildings will have less powerful gravitational damage. Still it would be interesting to know.

MM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Jan 21 2007, 04:46 PM
Post #4


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Welcome to the forum Miragememories. Actually, the pictures of WTC 4, 5 and 6 would be good evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jan 22 2007, 04:56 AM
Post #5


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Hi MM,
I'm not clear, are you seeking concrete from WTC 1, 2 and 7 as it impacted the other buildings or rather concrete from the partial collapse of those buildings? I suppose it would be rather difficult to tell the difference between the two unless the concrete was still attached, though, huh? Anyway, I've looked at a lot of pics, but not particularly focusing on the concrete aspect. As a start point, I'll pull out a few (mostly hi res.) and then point you to my galleries listings for more...

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5494.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5444.jpg
http://206.241.31.129/ImageCache/cgov/cont...v1/wtc_5f21.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image303.jpg
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/tn/wtc026.jpg.html
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc/tn/wtc032.jpg.html
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=24...057594112589148
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=24...057594112589148 (about the most concrete I've seen)
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=13...057594112589148
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=13...057594112589148
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/u...0002/005_2A.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/6033.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5509.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5491.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4273.jpg
http://206.241.31.142/ImageCache/cgov/cont...v1/wtc_5f12.jpg
http://www.matf.org/P9160048LR.jpg
http://www.matf.org/wtc05close.jpg
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image139.jpg
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...RG/Image140.jpg



more here
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...sterNumber=1391
more galleries listed here. I just don't see much concrete anywhere I look...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Miragememories
post Jan 22 2007, 08:22 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 7
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 320



Thanks waterdancer. Nice resolution.

MM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critter183
post Jan 23 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #7





Group: Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: 18-January 07
Member No.: 465



I found this gallery the other day:

http://www.jimmacmillan.com/911/index.html

The nice thing about it is that the pictures are captioned with the approximate time they were taken. The bad thing is that thay are small.

But here's one I found elsewhere that I think is interesting:



It is allegedly a 4" plug from a core drilled hole on the 20th floor of one of the towers, from 1975. It does give you a good idea of what the floors were made of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Mar 19 2007, 08:32 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



Unbelievable, even the stone within the cement were transformed into dust clouds!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrOsborn
post Jul 21 2007, 08:01 PM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 20-June 07
Member No.: 1,198



I recently read that the concrete was four inches thick. I know the angle is deceptive but that looks like 5 or 6 inches to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeS29
post Apr 18 2010, 02:38 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Left Coast U.S.A.
Member No.: 4,978



QUOTE (Critter183 @ Jan 23 2007, 10:31 PM) *
I found this gallery the other day:

http://www.jimmacmillan.com/911/index.html

The nice thing about it is that the pictures are captioned with the approximate time they were taken. The bad thing is that thay are small.

But here's one I found elsewhere that I think is interesting:



It is allegedly a 4" plug from a core drilled hole on the 20th floor of one of the towers, from 1975. It does give you a good idea of what the floors were made of.


That link is dead, try this one...
http://jimmacmillan.com/september-11th/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post May 29 2010, 05:51 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



I'm glad this got kicked up.

I've been meaning to look for these to add to my slide shows. handsdown.gif

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: May 29 2010, 05:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 29 2010, 07:38 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



The USG themselves told you what caused those holes when they named the site "ground zero". We did not name it that, they did. Ground zero, hypo-centre of a nuclear event. Remember they said it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2014 - 06:19 AM