See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 911 - One Picture Worth A Thousand Words...Try These
Source:
http://www.rense.com
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general74/try.htm
Published: Oct 25, 2006
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2006-10-25 19:02:55 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 174
Comments: 13
911 - One Picture Worth A Thousand Words...Try These By Douglas Herman Exclusive to http://Rense.com 10-25-6 I got an email the other day from someone whose father worked on Operation Aphrodite. Never heard of it? Neither had I. In 1944, Operation Aphrodite was designed by the US Army to use remote control warplanes to target Nazi strategic sites in Europe. This was 57 years before remote control planes--drones--targeted the Twin Towers and Pentagon. Initially, I was skeptical of passenger planes being switched for drones but an unusual 9-11 photograph appeared at Alex Jones' website, http://www.prisonplanet.com. Undoubtedly, millions have seen this photograph before, taken from a distance, split seconds before Flight 175 strikes the South Tower. Here is the entire, panoramic photograph, showing the south Manhattan skyline, taken from several blocks away.(1) On a whim I decided to enlarge the plane in the picture. You can also do this at home using your computer, but I did it for you. I enlarged the plane 300%. What I saw surprised me. The sunlight from that clear, late summer day shines along the entire fuselage. And there, readily apparent, are the telltale bulges Jon Carlson has been writing about for years. Almost as if the fuselage had become impregnated with a pair of torpedos. And here is the enlargement, showing just the plane. You can even see the encircling bands around the tubes. Hardly an optical illusion. (2) Very likely, this was an image that should have never been seen by the public. The remote control plane--see Operation Aphrodite---curved up from the south. But by chance someone snapped this amazing photograph, a split second before impact, the plane clear as day. The next photograph I studied shows the eruption of Mount Saint Manhattan. What? You didn't know an undiscovered, active volcano existed exactly beneath the twin towers? Neither did anyone else. But how to explain a pair of obvious eruptions? Does any structural engineer in the America honestly believe that "pancaking" caused the pyroclastic effect of an erupting skyscraper seen here? (3) Recall that this eruption of dust and debris initiated within one to two seconds. Three seconds into the collapse, the towers were spewing debris more than 200 feet outwards. Please explain to me how landslides along the California coastline can genrate a fraction of the dust, while sending ten times the amount of weight falling hundreds of feet? I would be ashamed to call myself an engineer or architect if I agreed to such a bogus "pancake" theory. Study this excellent photograph of a pyroclastic flow. That is the hot gases and dust sweeping along the slopes of the volcano. The exact same blast effect survivors testified swept through Manhattan. A tsunami of hot dust particles generated by a terrific blast of pressure. A pyroclastic flow. Notice the blast of pressure sending clouds upwards in both eruptions. (4) Not convinced? Lastly we arrive at the residue of the toxic eruptions. The heat generated melted steel. Hard to melt steel with a ninety minute fuel fire. Weakened steel, perhaps; melted steel, never. Ample testimony to the molten steel found in the sub structure of the WTC exists. Many eye witnesses, too many to dismiss, saw it. NIST attempts to explain away the molten steel as cascading aluminum from the melted wreckage of the airplane. If aluminum had descended from 800 feet, would it not cool and perhaps solidify as it fell? Aluminum radiates heat quickly and would hardly remain in a molten state weeks later. Once again, If I were an architect or engineer, I would be ashamed at the slipshod conclusions from NIST, ASCE and FEMA. More like a team of royal alchemists from the Middle Ages, rather than an independent team of 21st century architects and engineers, experimented with fire and then resorted to guesswork to deny the obvious. A controlled demolition brought those buildings down. Postcript: Seems those engineers are still in denial, still unable to grasp the structural failure of stoutly built skyscrapers. In a recent issue of Engineering News Record ASCE spokesman, W. Gene Corley concluded that "for the life safety of those who may be trapped in the building and of those who must fight these fires, the design objective should be that no collapse occurs with a burnout...the experience after the 9/11 attack...proved a building can collapse as a result of fire." Not necessarily. Fellow engineer, Lawrence G. Griffis remarked: "Jon Magnusson said it very well on Peter Jennings' national ABC television news broadcast on 9/11, "The question is not why those buildings fell down but why they stood up (for so long). If you want to stop those types of building collapses, let's not indict the design process, let's stop airplanes from flying into buildings." But architect and WTC construction manager, Frank DeMartini, engineers John Skilling and Leslie Robertson declared that the WTC twin towers were indeed designed to withstand the impact of 707-757s and the subsequent fires. According to Demartini, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." Martini was killed when the towers collapsed. In the same column, Lawrence G. Griffis, president of the structures division in the Austin, Texas, office of Walter P. Moore and Associates Inc., stated: "The buildings in the World Trade Center collapsed because of a malicious terrorist attack. Everything that followed was a result of that attack...Of more importance to the fire protection community, however, were the collapses of buildings WTC 5 and 7. These two buildings collapsed during burnout from fire even though there was no evidence found that the collapsed areas had been seriously damaged by impact of debris." Adjacent to these learned comments was a photo captioned: "A FIRST: Five and Seven WTC collapsed before burnout." Neither building had been struck---"attacked"--- by airplanes. None of the engineers dared explain how the collapse actually happened. Nor touched on the incriminating evidence found in the basement, the molten steel, or the enormous pyroclastic flows, or the videotape of a classic controlled demolition, especially in WTC-7. Pathetic. USAF veteran and private investigator of public crimes, Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite Disclaimer Email This Article MainPage http://www.rense.com This Site Served by TheHostPros
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Those are not missiles. They are LANDING LIGHTS. Even during the day they're turned on. I live close to an airport and I see jets flying overhead at all hours of the day, and every single one of them has lower landing lights turned on. Why??? Because how else can other planes see them when they're obfuscated by clouds? As far as anything else goes, this photo has been seen before, and I have to say I'm not that impressed by the quality. Give me a good negative of the thing, and then let ME analyze it, and I promise you'd get the truth. A photographic negative picks up so much more than digital footage ever could.
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#2. To: Kamala (#0)
You've been posting a lot of good 9/11 articles/threads this week. I'll have a better chance over the weekend to read through them.
#3. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#1)
Who turned the landing lights on and why?
#4. To: Kamala (#0)
There are a lot of engineers and architects that should be ashamed then. If the author looks closer, he might see the space alien sitting on the wing waving.
I would be ashamed to call myself an engineer or architect if I agreed to such a bogus "pancake" theory.
#5. To: HOUNDDAWG (#3)
Landing lights is probably a misnomer, for argument's sake they'd be the equivalent to running lights on the sides of your car. They're always on.
| What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#6. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#5)
So, do you believe all, part, some or none of the official, approved 9/11 story?
#7. To: HOUNDDAWG (#6)
No I do not. I have this book called OVER NEW YORK, and they show how the world trade center was constructed. If you believe the official story of how a plane destroyed a building as well constructed as this thing was, you need to have your brain put back into your body. When you see the sheer amount of STEEL in this thing, compared to how an Aircraft is made, and what it's made of, it would be the equivalent of taking a pop can, and firing it out of a cannon, and into the side of a battleship. I should scan the pictures from this book, so that people can have a much better appreciation of what went into making this building. If you've ever seen a plane crash on a runway, you'll notice that the runway is scarcely damaged. That's because of how it's constructed. Imagine a building made of steel, full of little runways. This building should NOT have fallen.
| What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#8. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#5)
Actually Tommy, unless the people flying the aircraft turned them on, they were off as landing lights are used day and night not only for visibility, but to indicate the aircraft is either taking off or landing. They could very well have been on, as this was hardly normal operations protocols being used to fly these aircraft, but aircraft have navigation lights and anti-collision beacons to make them more visible to other traffic. Those are the lights generally left on.
#9. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#7)
I tink eye schmell unt anti zhemite! ;)
If you believe the official story of how a plane destroyed a building as well constructed as this thing was, you need to have your brain put back into your body.
#10. To: Kamala, All (#0)
What is seen when you blow up an object to that extreme is subject to head- scratching - at best. With the cargo bays wide open for explosives - if you wanted to go that far - what would be the purpose of adding "torpedoes?" Is there a law against common sense? Carlson is a disinformationist jerk!
#11. To: All (#0)
Just because I post an article doesn't mean I agree with the article or part of the article. Do I believe the planes were switched. No. Do I believe in pods or anything along that thinking. NO. There are some good points in this piece and bad.
Mark
The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.— Robert Wright - Former FBI agent
"At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7."-http://www.911research.net
#12. To: robin (#2)
Check out the Kevin Ryan stuff. Solid info.
Mark
The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.— Robert Wright - Former FBI agent
"At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7."-http://www.911research.net
#13. To: Kamala (#12)
Thanks, will do.
Check out the Kevin Ryan stuff. Solid info.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest