Ground Zero photos released by exiled FEMA agent Kurt Sonnenfeld- 675 MB

Originally posted by conar

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
...Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me...

I've just watched the molten metal on Youtube. Can someone tell me why this proves demolition?

It seems to me that there was enough heat, for enough time, in that tower for metal to melt.

Could it not have been metal other than the tower's supporting structure (such as the aircraft, or floor supports) that are running down a diagonally collapsed floor?

~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel

Jet fuel:
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks Conar. Wiki's not the best source, but as the differences in temperature are so great they'd have to have got it way too wrong, so thanks for looking that up.

However, is there any chance that onsite conditions could have raised the temperatures beyond those in tested for jet fuel; enough to melt metal?

There'd be high winds at that altitude, and with the fire sheltered within the tower, yet fed by high wind via the aircraft's entrance damage, it might've acted like a giant furnace, raising the temperatures beyond those tested for jet fuel alone.

Just trying to be as skeptical about what i read on the net as i am about what i'm told on the news...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If he was on WTC grounds on behalf of FEMA then these images belong to FEMA. Releasing them will open a can of worms and is actually a crime. T & C surely don't allow such things

You Sir are opening a can of worms. You really don't have the AUDACITY to actually tell us here at ATS, THAT do you?

Man, I will be watching your posts with a very close eye from now on.

Hope your govt. pension is still around after TSHTF.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If he was on WTC grounds on behalf of FEMA then these images belong to FEMA. Releasing them will open a can of worms and is actually a crime. T & C surely don't allow such things

Actually, all photos taken by a US government agency, or paid to be taken for a US government agency, are in the public domain.

I'm working on getting the full-set into the ATS Media Portal for easy review.

reply to post by open_eyeballs


Looks several days to me, maybe weeks.
Alot of stuff has been moved around.

Awesome post! I don't need to see the pictures though, I saw the whole thing happen live on television and despite what others say or try to tell me...I KNOW THIS WAS DONE WITH EXPLOSIVES. Seeing the fire fighter picture always reminds me of a song...

"There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away.
Mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting.
I've done the the math enough to know the dangers of a second guessing.
Doomed to crumble unless we grow, and strengthen our communication." - Schism by TOOL

img219.imageshack.us...

Many steel beams cut clean over

(dunno how to upload to ATS)

[edit on 17-8-2009 by conar]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Agreed, but that is under the assumption that they are in fact released to the Public Domain first and Decrapified. Example, pictures off an Military Recon Mission are not in the Public Domain, though they do still belong to the American People, not just anyone can look through them at will( I agree with this!). However, after a certain period of time, lets say 7 years, the standard for declassification of all things 'Secret'. After that period of time, you can say what you want about it, but before, your in hot water.

--------
(edited for clarity) To everyone;

Why the photo's would be classified, is beyond me. Unless they are pretended to be classified to feed some 9/11 inside job conspiracy. I believe it is more likely Aliens from ID4 had something to do with it then our own Government.

Having these pictures surface this many years after the event, means nothing special to me. I do not see anything in it, other then, wow that building really came down and crashed into the streets below just like I saw it do. Otherwise, show me the Holographic Emitters.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by arcnaver]

Originally posted by YankeeDefender

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
That turbine is nowhere near big enough for a boeing 767. Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me. Great find! s&f.

OK, first of all, it is annoying then people jump in with no research!

Second of all, lets look at the specs for a Boeing 767-200ER:

Boeing 767-200ER Technical Specs

Notice that it has 2 listed, a Pratt & Whitney engine and a General Electric CF6-80C2. I have actually been working on these engines ever since I was 17 years old. I know for a fact that is the combustor section of the 80C2 engine. The turbine (depending which you were actually refering to, High Pressure or Low Pressure fits on to the front and back of that module, respectively.)

Here is a picture of a full complete GE CF6-80C2 core module which contains that combustor module: (try and look beyond the external piping at one of the fuel nozzles, they are the same as in the picture above and only 80C2's use that configuration of nozzles, AND this is a recent picture so the fuel manifold has been changed since 2001)


______________________________________________________________

Agreed, I misidentified the plane part as a turbine which it is not. Thank you for the correction Yankeedefender.

But how big is the combustor module? From the looks of the photo that module can't be more than about 30-36" in height. Max diameter of the engine is 105", from the pics I found the combustor module looks to be about hlaf that size or 50" or larger? What am I missing here?

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by conar

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
...Thanks for debunking the "cut beams", I had always taken that as gospel for thermite however the video of molten steel dripping from the corner of one of the towers is evidence enough for me...

I've just watched the molten metal on Youtube. Can someone tell me why this proves demolition?

It seems to me that there was enough heat, for enough time, in that tower for metal to melt.

Could it not have been metal other than the tower's supporting structure (such as the aircraft, or floor supports) that are running down a diagonally collapsed floor?

~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel

Jet fuel:
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks Conar. Wiki's not the best source, but as the differences in temperature are so great they'd have to have got it way too wrong, so thanks for looking that up.

However, is there any chance that onsite conditions could have raised the temperatures beyond those in tested for jet fuel; enough to melt metal?

There'd be high winds at that altitude, and with the fire sheltered within the tower, yet fed by high wind via the aircraft's entrance damage, it might've acted like a giant furnace, raising the temperatures beyond those tested for jet fuel alone.

Just trying to be as skeptical about what i read on the net as i am about what i'm told on the news...

Well, like I said before I have been working on and testing these engines since I was 17 years old. Here are a couple facts for you:

(Now I can't give you sources for these figures because they are straight out of our engine manuals and I don't have the proper authorization to print GE material!)

Exhaust gas temperature at full throttle: 1760+ deg F (960+ deg C)
Oil Temperature: 347 deg F (175 deg C)
The actual flame temperature within the combustor: 2500+ deg F

Now none of us can actually say what happened at the point of impact but with these kind of temperatures I think it is safe to say that it is melting structural steel is possible?!?

And for Asktheanimals, you have to remember the basic shape of a gas turbine engine, the fan on the front makes a big increase to the maximum height of the engine. The core engine is a smaller diameter than the fan, obviously. The biggest diameter of that module you see is about 38", then the low pressure turbine expands out even more to a bigger diameter.

I will try and get some more diagrams on here so you can better understand.

YankeeDefender

now what i dont get is this.....how did Building 7, which wasnt hit by any major pieces of plane, or parts of towers 1 and 2 collapse, when in some of these photos we see buildings within feet of towers 1 and 2 partially destroyed or with huge tears along their outside from falling steel from towers 1 and 2....surely having hundreds on tonnes of steel falling on it is enough to make a building collapse, but vast portions of the buildings still stand in the photos.

also, i dont take cut beems as complete evidence of thermite, as you can see some were cut by the crews after during clean up, but the molton metal pouring out of the corner of the towers before it collapses, the nano thermite residue on the dust, it all adds up for me.

im not a regular poster here, so let me know if u want me to post the pictures im reffering to above and ill work out how to do it!!

also slightly dissapointed that none of the pictures were from "the voids" that we hear about, or from the sub basement levels of the towers and building 7....i hope he gets to publish his tapes before he has an assisted accident!

Originally posted by YankeeDefender
Exhaust gas temperature at full throttle: 1760+ deg F (960+ deg C)
Oil Temperature: 347 deg F (175 deg C)
The actual flame temperature within the combustor: 2500+ deg F

Now none of us can actually say what happened at the point of impact but with these kind of temperatures I think it is safe to say that it is melting structural steel is possible?!?

Cheers Yankee, that's what i assumed.

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by YankeeDefender
Exhaust gas temperature at full throttle: 1760+ deg F (960+ deg C)
Oil Temperature: 347 deg F (175 deg C)
The actual flame temperature within the combustor: 2500+ deg F

Now none of us can actually say what happened at the point of impact but with these kind of temperatures I think it is safe to say that it is melting structural steel is possible?!?

Cheers Yankee, that's what i assumed.

Are you telling me the engines survived the impact so they could heat the entire 500 million tonnes building for 2 hours, which led to the collapse?

Remember the whole 500 million tonnes steel building would have to get weakened for the collapse to fall at that speed.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by conar]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d1a654edb7c9.jpg[/atsimg]

I cropped and resized this one, again to fit. Notice signs:

"No cameras or video equipment permitted!"

"VIOLATORS will be prosecuted and equipment seized!"

Same sign on gate in background. I don't remember there being a sign like this on the Sheraton hotel at the Pentagon- but that didn't stop the FBI from taking those videos.

Well, seeing as there was not supposed to be any equipment there, obviously there were going to be things they did not want the public to see. Which we are seeing some of now, thanks to Kurt Sonnenfeld. Hats off to Kurt. Thanks.

Is it normal for the feds to cover up an area from the public and the press shortly after a plane hits a building?

Wow...were those chunks of concrete and even some cardboard I saw. I thought that all the concrete was powderized and there was no way a paper product could survive.......

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by conar


Yes. Several reasons why, respect for the families of the dead...pictures of body pieces did not need to be shown by the media. Then, government offices were destroyed....and whether you believe it or not, the Privacy Act of 1974 would force the government to take steps to protect any personal information that might have ended up in the debris.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If he was on WTC grounds on behalf of FEMA then these images belong to FEMA. Releasing them will open a can of worms and is actually a crime. T & C surely don't allow such things

They belong to whoever takes the pictures...and that is that......

I love how our country is made up of people taking possesion and credit for other people's work.....

The answers have a lot to do with simple physics. Firstly, there is access to pictures of the broken poles near the Pentagon.Looking at the damage to them, it is possible to calculate at what speed the object was hit. You can calculate by knowing the radius and thickness of the steel pole and adding to it angle or curvature it received after the impact. To my visual approximation either the speed was much lower than declared or simply the wings disintegrated upon impact. knowing the size of 757 wings, it would be unlikely that poles would cut off the wings. Now, if we consider that it was actually hit buy a Global Hawk RQ4a, then it would be more likely, for its wings are much thinner yet approximately the width of 757 or a bit less. What do you think guys?

[edit on 08.15.09 by Advancedboy]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Actually, all photos taken by a US government agency, or paid to be taken for a US government agency, are in the public domain.

yes , thank you overlord. this is so cool, i almost wet myself. the angled cuts the remaining slag.who needs more? but there is more.i have to my lawyer. my mother n law .



[edit on 17-8-2009 by randyvs]

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by wiredamerican
Wow if you just google Kurt Sonnenfeld some of his pics are already on the net. Take a look at this for instance, one of his pics. I must download the 675mb file and see whats on there.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a860b8d67386.jpg[/atsimg]

I dont understand... how does this picture of beams that were cut by the demolition workers cleaning up the site show evidence of thermite?

You seem very intent on trying to get people to believe that these cut columns were cut by workers after the event . Why? Please post ANY pics or ANY evidence that THESE core columns were actually cut by anyone after the event. It does not exist. These core columns were cut PRIOR to the event and allowed the destruction seen.

Why on earth would rescuers and clean up people waste valuable time cutting core columns clean? Why would the core columns, if twisted and not cut, be destroyed as evidence by cutting the tops off? There is NO sound reason to believe that anyone cut those core columns after the event. There is no reason to...there is no evidence of if at all, and the only reason to try and get people to believe that this is the case is to obfuscate and deny the truth.

Maybe you do not have a horse in this race, and maybe you do....but to ALLEGE that those columns were cut after the event is purely speculation, and without any sound basis in reality.

the core pictures MUST be attacked by deniers of truth because they show clearly and convincingly that they were cut PRIOR to ' collapse'. Put that in you pipe and smoke it!

There's so much disinformation here it's ridiculous.

This photo for example, where we are being told that the cut beams indicate the use of thermite cutting charges.

It's obvious that they have been cut with a grinder as part of the clear up process, you can actually see the grinder marks, not to mention the complete absence of any burning or blast spalling from the "charges".

This stupidity will never end, all while there are plenty of genuine, interesting conspiracies out there.

The WTCs were hit by planes full of fuel and they burned and fell over. The USA went insane, and over-reacted by invading Iraq based on a pack of lies and false information.

That really is all there is to it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a860b8d67386.jpg[/atsimg]