September 11, New York. Picture was taken from the satellite. 13 megs!


http://www.unc.edu/%7Esinko/NY/New%20York.jpg

wow..

id like to know what the program used to capture that satelite image was

I saw something 2 years ago and i have been uneasy about it since, the "collapse" of building 7.

Consider that its opposite the towers, had two office fires, yet managed to implode perfectly. Fires cant do that to steel buildings.

I encourage everyone to find a video of WTC 7, it was almost completely ignored by the news.

I dont think this picture was taken from a satalite. Look at the angle of the taller buildings. I think it was taken with a wide angle lens from not vary far above the top of the buildings. What do you think.
Still an excelent picture though.

Regards
Colin Bate

Wow, having never see the destruction firsthand, this gives me an idea of how devastating and hellish Sept 11 was. Thanks for sharing this!

Fire can, and does do that to steel buildings.

steel gets soft when it gets hot.

when its got tons and tons of concrete and furniture, and whatever else is in the building on top of it... it buckles.

and when it buckles.... in falls the building.

Fire has a hard time reaching the temperature to melt steel. There are other buildings that have burned for days and did not come down, in fact IIRC no building has ever come down from fire alone. The way that WTC7 came down all the supports would have to fail simultaneously and equally. Also you can see the roof caving in before the lower floors where the fire was.
Also the other buildings ( WTC 6) closer to the towers which were hit with a much greater amount of debris were still standing for days. I really dont want to believe what is suggested, but until evidence is given otherwise, its the most plausible explanation. Its greatly disturbing.

holy crap...

thats just... my gawd...

god thats total destruction, god bless them ppl on 9-11th

In fact the 14MB photo in the top post should raise a question. Building 6 is still "standing" despite being hit by a huge amount of debris from the towers. Remeber building 7 showed little or no damage from debris because it was across the street and further away, yet it perfectly imploded on its own? In fact the photo shows no remnants of the center support columns, either because they've already been shipped overseas and melted down, or because the rebar reinforced concrete columns were blown to particulate!

Real Conclusion: Building 7 had to be brought down by explosives - controlled demolition. The next logical question is it takes more than 5 hours to wire a building...

Am I missing something, or am I the only one who cares?

NO your not alone.
I took alook on the web as you sugested in your previuos post.
There is definatly something very suspicious about the colapse of building 7.

Regards
Colin Bate

Topic cleaned. Please calm down folks. If you don't like topic, don't answer.

7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

Rules

me and two of my friends had about an hour or 2 argument about this exact thing, well except he was talking about the twin towers and how they imploded perfectly. he was saying the exact same thing that the towers wouldnt implode like that from just a plane hitting it and the jet fuel heating the steel. he thinks it was a consipracy set up by the government