NEW! 153 NYPD photos from 9/11 released on Cryptome.org

Hi all
153 NYPD photos of 9/11 were released on cryptome.org, some of these have not yet been seen.

direct link:
cryptome.org... (64MB zip file)



12 photos (in small size) were published by ABC News on 10 February 2010:
abcnews.go.com...

They are aerial photos.


[edit on 9-3-2010 by crustas]

Some very good photo's. I see some superficial damage to WTC 7 after the first collapse but no apparent fires. How did those fires get started?

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
How did those fires get started?

from what I've heard before,
the fires in WTC 7 was started by falling debris
and also parts of the jet that went through
the building in the 2nd plane hit and out the other
side and went into WTC 7. But maybe I'm mistaken.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
How did those fires get started?

from what I've heard before,
the fires in WTC 7 was started by falling debris
and also parts of the jet that went through
the building in the 2nd plane hit and out the other
side and went into WTC 7. But maybe I'm mistaken.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/73f1b96bb1a4.jpg[/atsimg]

No, the trajectory of Flight 175 debris was nowhere near WTC7. And it was claimed that the southwest corner was damaged by WTC1, which would be the right side of the above diagram.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1a8515fcc60.jpg[/atsimg]

Larger image

No sign of any large fires in WTC7 in the photos above or this crop of WTC7 after the South Tower collapsed. But Barry Jennings and others reported explosions in the stairwell and WTC7 before the towers fell. Were the fires deliberately set by arsonists or started by planted explosives?

It seems the photographer captured photos of everything but the south face of WTC7 before it fell. It seems amazing that none exist. Perhaps they do, and NIST decided they needed to censor them.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0c6cc4a7a78.jpg[/atsimg]

To me it's pretty obvious that the third plane was supposed to hit the WTC7, didn't happen and they needed to take it down as it was filled with explosives. Seems to be the simplest explanation?

Originally posted by Compulsionist
To me it's pretty obvious that the third plane was supposed to hit the WTC7, didn't happen and they needed to take it down as it was filled with explosives. Seems to be the simplest explanation?

Was used as a command and control center for the incoming flights. These flights were controlled remotely and flown from within the command center. The use of this type of technology is now in well over 150,000 autonomous craft fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - almost every major military power now possess them - including many rag tag outfits. The technology has been available for almost three decades or more.

The flights over Iraq and Pakistan etc are launched from either carriers in the gulf or from airstrips in friendly countries. They are then piloted, controlled and commanded from compounds in the Nevada desert. The compartmentalized structure of these operations is designed to obfuscate responsibility for military crimes and avoid persecution for war crimes - the planes are launched by private military companies, provided by PMC's, maintained and armed by them, the intermediate technology in broadcasting information is third party private technology - owned and operated - while the piloting is done by young marines who defer to a commander for strike orders.

The strike on the Pentagon would almost certainly have been carried out like this - as would the two strikes on the WTC's - it is almost beyond belief that people can think uneducated almost illiterate peasants from the backwaters of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan would fly these pieces of equipment with such precision - it is absolutely beyond the capacity of mind to even come close to accepting that as a possibility.


All of these terrorists may well have been on the plane, they may well have attempted hijack them - but that is where it ends. They were controlled and flown remotely - exactly the same way the VAST MAJORITY of missions are flown in today's air force.

That is the simplest explanation - as that is the way it is done right now.

reply to post by audas


I am sorry, but you seem to know very little about the reality of the UAV, and how those differ from a passenger airliner.

I suggest you do more research. Pay particular attention to the airpeeds involved with the UAVs, such as a Predator for instance.

This is important to comprehend, because remotely piloting the airplanes at the speeds seen on 9/11 with that sort of precision is beyond human capacity. There are a number of visual and auditory and other sensory cues that are used when actually IN the airplane that are lacking when doing it remotely, by visual means only.

If you want something to compare to, so that it can be understandable, then imagine trying to drive a racecar at over two hundred MPH by remote control.

Of course, it's all moot anyways....any attempt to convert a Boeing 757 or 767 to "remote control" would have entailed a huge undertaking, with hundreds of man-hours....a lot of additional equipment would have had to be installed,the airplnaes are not designed from ground up for that, not like a UAV which is.

"Remote controlled" is just another truther fantasy, unsupportable in reality.

Oh, and WTC 7 as the command and control HQ??? That is so silly, I hope everyone can see why.....