Found it in a myspace bulletin.

Thoughts?

Nice find.

Never seen this before.

Thanks.

:blink:

Thanks!

That must be the result of jet fuel, which dripped down from the 96th floor, through the elevator shafts, exploding everything at the lobby and sub-basements levels.. ^_^

John Roberts can explain it, no worries. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.

Moved to WTC section.

Do you mean Mark Roberts?

Who is John Roberts?
:huh:

Here's another one from the East Side of WTC 1, showing something burning at the base of WTC 1 behind the stage. The Millennium Hotel is to the left.



Too bad we can't see the street where the smoke is coming from. Whether or not it was buring debris or from explosives cutting the columns around the base of the buildings.

Wow, very nice find thehighwaymanq! I would have to disagree about something however, that's the south tower, note the pedestrian bridge and WTC3 Marriott on the left in the photo. I liked it so much though I posted it to youtube for all the world to see, thanks and I also gave you a nod. Best wishes!

NYCPD property. What else have they got?

To quote Oliver Twist:

"Please, sir, can I have some more?"

The smoke is coming from within the building, or is this the car fire that many debunkers like to use to debunk the smoke at the base? Need the high res pic to see clearer but it really looks to be eminating from within the building. I am positive it is the start of the demolition due to the signature of thermate found as Microspheres by Jones, but for others could this pic be the final conclusive piece to the elusive truth debunkers proclaim so falsely as twoof?

I hope it is conclusive enough to separate those that are unsure but hold to the Official story, and even to those that really questioned but feel justified by shaving to save themselves from the twoofer craze by using occams razor as once shaved them to enslave them slathered with its unsolvable salve. Only to have been dull enough to now be merely a disposable razor.

Nice find. Sometimes I wonder how many more such pics of the smoke and stuff are out there but didnt come out to public eye.

I was wondering were there cell phone cams in 2001?

Best picture I have seen untill now of the smoke coming from the streetlevel, thanks!

Do you think smoke from a fire is just as logical conclusion to an unbiased observer as a pre collapse explosion. does it look like an explosion? Does anyone know when this photo is from other than from before the collapse.5 seconds before , 5 minutes before or 30 minutes before. And of course how did an explosion before the collapse cause the building to collapse from around the area of impact.

i wonder how that hole got there

Well if it's not too much effort for you Tom Bombadillo I suggest you start by reading NK-44's excellent analysis of basement and lower floor events which easily answer your question.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14674183

Of course I'm making the generous assumption that you are actually interested in the answer.

MM

It's a vehicle fire, as shown in this video, beginning at 30 seconds in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc

Smoke seems to originate from behind the vehicle. Seems to come from the wall of the building.

I have to agree with Avenger.

It looks to me like the fire is sourced within the building and quite likely those burning vehicles outside the building caught fire during the explosion that took out those lower windows.

MM

Yep that is smoke coming from within the building and you can see in this video that was confiscated and edited where that same smoke starts at 5:59. Why edit this out but leave all the other home videoesque footage in? Do most people understand what a dissolve is? :rolleyes:

5:29 look for the smoking gun

I think you can see in this picture comparison;



There is little to suggest that the picture on the left represents the picture on the right, no matter what their time of day.

The concentrated part of the smoke is exiting from at least ceiling height through broken lobby windows.

As NK-44's excellent research reveals, non-jet crash related explosions were taking place at groundfloor and basement levels.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14674183

Considering the destruction the explosions performed inside, it would not be too surprising to see burning vehicles close to the blown out windows.

MM

Car fires produce thick black smoke due to the amount of plastics, paint, etc typically found on most vehicles. That is a Greyish brown color, typically seen in chemical explosions.

Looks like the color of the smoke and the hole is at the south side of the building and compares with the frames around timestamp 4:10 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

Hey everyone, the photo is from a NIST Emergency Response Operations Report if it hasn't been discussed yet, on page 102: http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05150.pdf

Nice closeup comparison MM. Truly a smoking gun!

I noticed a potential error in MM's original photo comparison. The photo on the left has been quite aggressively cropped and taken from a slightly degraded quality original, it doesn't entirely make clear that the few lower windows visible on the left are actually part of the "south bridge" which was connected to WFC1. Here is a crop of a better quality version of the original which contains slightly more to the side.


(click for larger)

While it may seem that the smoke is emanating from the south side of WTC2 with a slightly more detailed photo it appears to be either directly from the pedestrian bridge or from immediately adjacent to it. This is likely because of the cropped effect, it creates the illusion of the image being shorter in depth than it actually is. The pedestrian bridge was in fact quite a way from the front of WTC2 as you can see in this picture:


(click for larger)

I apologise for the poor quality but I found it quickly, you can also see the distance on the site plan view available at Wikipedia:


(click for larger)

Further to this there's really nothing that could produce the volume of smoke implied here in the lobby without expecting at least some report of it. The lobby had two levels internally and would have to be emitting smoke from either underneath the balcony or from the balcony itself to match the photograph:



I can see no method for this to happen in such quantities as we see in the photograph, where would the smoke be coming from and why didn't it spread out at all?

Where I do agree with MM is that the car fire on the right of his original comparison isn't responsible for the smoke in that photograph. We can just about identify the cars in the photograph and the one that is burning does not seem to be on fire, it would seem plausible that the video was taken after the photograph and after the fire had time to progress but that is simply speculation. I don't know what's burning in that photograph but I don't think that it's coming from WTC2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJPbpDLq9uk&feature=related

As soon as the person zooms in on the smoke it cuts and dissolves 2 sections together. It also was cut during the sounds of the explosions and please ask yourself why was this tape confiscated and edited before handed back. I mean it comes down to hiding something and I think we know what is being hid. Where I hate jumping to conclusions I only do so when there are cons in the clues that conclude only to seem like I don't look before I leap.

It wasn't

This is the original source for the video you refer to: http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/frequen...-questions.html

Well you are entitled (expected to actually) to disagree, but I see nothing in your rebuttal attempt that supports an error in my interpretation.



Again, there is little to suggest that the picture on the left represents the video screen capture on the right, no matter what the time of day.

The photo was of cropped out of necessity to fit well in a post. "Aggressively" suggests nefarious intent, and I can assure everyone, nothing of obvious importance was cropped out.

The concentrated part of the smoke is exiting from at least ceiling height through broken lobby windows. It actually looks to be maybe 4-5 car heights from the ground.

The angle of the dark rising smoke gives every indication that it is departing from the building and not from a car at ground level burning in front of the building.

Here's a composite view that takes into account your concerns.



MM

I only wanted to ensure that people were not under the impression that the windows directly below and adjacent to the smoke were part of WTC2, the picture you posted just happens to make it look like that if you're not aware of the context.

Well they are the same location, we can certainly tell that, but I do agree that the car on fire in the video capture is not the source of the smoke in the NIST picture.

I chose my wording to try and eliminate any implication of intent, I don't think it was intentional in any way, the compression alone would be my biggest qualm because it does appear to show continuations of the WTC columns where in fact they did not.

This is where we disagree, the lobbies were very very open up to the top of the trident pillars. The smoke on the exterior (if we assume it originates inside WTC2) would be exiting at the balcony level and unless forced out by some specific pressure would have to have filled the entire lobby to be able to exit with that density. I would have to see some more evidence of this before I would be willing to accept it.

I would suggest that it indicates something is burning on the opposing side of the pedestrian walkway, the picture is too poor to identify smoke blackening on the walkway entrance as is visible on the video capture.

This is perfectly fine and accurate, I was almost entirely unable to find good pictures of WTC3 including the 'south bridge'.

I currently can offer no explanation as to the cause/source of that billowing cloud of smoke though possibly it is connected with this research NK-44 did on WTC1.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14674183

MM

the contention is that it is not an explosion, but a reaction from thermite.

white smoke instead of black like where the fuel was burning...

definitely inside the building

we have all the evidence of thermite except a confession from the people who planted it... that usually starts a criminal trial where the government is not the accused.

If I burned down someone's house, and they found evidence of arson, and I was the only person who had access to it, you can be I'd get a knock on my door pretty quickly.

Why is it you think there is nothing fishy going on here? Just wishful thinking? How long is that kind of thinking going to hold up in your mind?

From my previous reading of NK-44's theory it involved a series of intentional acts to sabotage the firefighting and rescue effort. I'm not entirely sure what ultimate end is proposed but it is concievable that this could include filling the lobby with smoke. I imagine however that quite a few people who were close to the towers base survived the collapse and I haven't seen any account which supports this theory.

No offence intended, but if this is the only evidence to support this claim it must be considered quite tenuous?

Perhaps you could speculate on the reason for this thermite reaction? The base column trees of both towers survived to some extent I believe and were somewhat less structurally integral than columns further up as the core was braced at these floors.

Forgive me for saying this but so far I have yet to see definitive evidence of thermite or thermate. There have been a series of discussions going on with Steven Jones reprinted over at JREF and until there's some open access to his data it's going to be hard to determine the truth. Several interesting sources have been proposed for all the evidence he presents which would be entirely 'natural' in origins.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to grasp that my motivations are not somehow flawed and I am not approaching this subject with any intent to console myself, to lie to myself and protect my ego or any of these ideas. The fact that many people I have talked with here have been unable to accept that a rational minded person could honestly disagree with them is very worrying. No person should ever be that confident about any of their beliefs.

I repeatedly state my lack of qualifications and I defer to the experts whenever possible. If not I try to provide the fullest argument possible supported with as much evidence as I can calculate or research. Despite this it would take probably one photograph (if sufficiently compelling) to convince me that I was in the wrong. Say for example a photograph of one of the wide flange columns which made up the core at impact levels with the flanges clearly cut out and a straight cut above it. This would be an absolutely positive sign of demolition as shaped charges must be placed essentially against the steel and there could be no natural cause of this save for cleanup work. I admit it may be somewhat esoteric but it was a quick example of specific evidence you could provide which could plausibly exist and would throw my beliefs entirely into question. Could you provide any such example for your beliefs?

Incidentally you recently had two quotes of me in your signature, I'm wondering which you think was inaccurate and why?

So it was edited out at the precise moments that would have crucial evidence that was desired by me, but they just did it on their iMac, and no one confiscated it. I was hoping to see how and if the smoke propigated and got stronger but it got edited out.

I guess I hinge my conclusions too much on Microspheres and the Red Chip traces of unreacted thermate. The red chips are supposedly Fly Ash? And what are the Microspheres and how they became molten and spherical with the signature of Thermate in the end. If all of the components of the actual Spheres exist in the towers, then why are there no other contaminations from other types of metals and compounds within the spheres?

Essentially all the spheres have the same makup and match similarly along with the Red Chips or supposed unreacted Thermate or Super Thermate. They only differ in size and saturation of the same compounds. So how was there no contamination from the abundance of other materials that came directly from the cloud as these samples did not brew in the cauldron pit the debris pile made. If the kinetic energy and heat made these, then would we expect to see a variety of other compounds included?

Pretty much, I don't really understand the whole 'we didnt catch the beginning of whatever' and I suspect if anything they made inappropriate remarks verbally and want to cover that up. Regardless if the people who released it say there's been no confiscation and editing we should at least trust them until we have better evidence.

To my understanding the red chip stuff hasn't been properly addressed yet and is still in the speculative phase. However microspheres of iron and various other components are known to form in Fly Ash, which is used in some types of concrete.

They were potentially molten way before the building was ever occupied. The 'signature of thermite' means that some of the chemicals in thermite/thermate were there, however these are common elements such as Iron, Aluminium, Copper, Sulphur, Silicon and Manganese. All of these would be abundant in the towers and in sources of microspheres. The trick is actually getting access to Steven Jones' research so that a close match can be made.

Bear in mind that I think the technique used by Jones can only detect elements, not compounds but even so I don't think the current theory is that microspheres were formed in the towers, simply that they existed in various products used in construction / day to day work. Stuff like fly ash for concrete or toner for printing could conceivably contain these elements.

This entire paragraph presumes a few things about Dr Jones' work but is essentially correct, we don't know when the microspheres were formed at the moment but we don't have any lab data that's been released to help us identify them (not to my knowledge anyway).

Hope this answers any questions you had.

Well, there is some sort of smoke, either from the bridge or the building (probably the bridge, from what I see). The question is, why? :/

If it is toner wouldn't all spheres be the same size as a manufactured process? With quantities beyond the stretch of my imagination to conform to the ratios found. There would have to be such large quantities just to be found in the mountains of pulverized concrete. I am sure you would agree there was more concrete than Magnetic Toner in the towers.

By the same token does the ratio of spheres coincide with normal distributions of fly ash in concrete?

The chips combust and chemically react so if the spheres are Fly Ash the chips are some other naturally formed Thermate reaction process? All formed from the WTC house of cards Jones is constructing only to have debunkers say who ever smelts it dealt it.

This is purported by Jones and other Labs that used a Laser and Micro Torch to create a reaction and explosion of the red chips.

Honestly I don't know, yes you would almost certainly only get microspheres with specific size distribution from toner but I think the suggestion is that there were many sources. I have been away for a while so I haven't kept up with this but as far as I am aware the problem is currently the lack of any lab data from Steven Jones so independent researchers can assess his claims

Honestly I have not had time to read this research yet, however I look forward to seeing Apollo20 detail it for the common man :)

Regardless the original point was to do with the smoke and I think I have illustrated my position reasonably well. I don't doubt that it looks as if the smoke was exiting in that manner but I think it's just an illusion and the lack of any convincing reason for there to be any smoke in that section of WTC2 should leave this theory in the 'unlikely' bin until there's more evidence presented.

I keep seeing these not so veiled accusations about Dr. Steven Jones and his supposed unwillingness to share his independent lab test results.

Over on JREF, Greening (Apollo 20) is forever making an issue about this.

Is Dr. Jones the only person able to obtain samples that can be independently tested, or is this another case where the skeptics debunk by attacking the investigator rather than doing their own research?

I ran into a similar treatment in JREF regarding Danny Jowenko and his contradictory viewpoint regarding the type of collapses which occurred with WTC 1, 2 & 7.

JREFers put much energy into attacking Jowenko's view that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that WTC 1 & 2 were not.

But would a single JREFer consider contacting him in order to get the man himself to explain the contradiction in his beliefs?

NO.

This kind of behavior suggests to me a fear of what they might discover.

An illusion.



Well I'll be damned.

Now why didn't it occur to me that this very visible dark smoke percolating out of WTC2 was just an illusion?

Others might say this billowing cloud of smoke was; suspicious, unusual, suggestive, incriminating, at odds with common beliefs, worthy of further investigation etc.

An illusion is the one description that never occurred to me.

MM

Dr Jones is making claims about dust recovered from the WTC which he has in his possession. So no, we cannot obtain samples for research unless he releases them.

I believe pomeroo had quite a long email conversation with the man, and I have sent at least one email to his address before now. So YES.

Oh please MM, you know damned well that I was referring to where the smoke was exiting from to be the illusion. I believe it was probably something on fire either in or at the opposite side of the pedestrian walkway. I have already stated it's worthy of further investigation and given you some questions I'd like to see answered. Please don't play the blame game here, if we're trying to find out the truth there should be no conflict between us. Here are the questions I feel need answering

• What is causing the smoke to exit just this section of the south side of WTC2 with such density?
• What is causing the smoke?