New 9/11 Attack Aerial Photos Released

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 12:08 p.m. ET

Newly released aerial photos of the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center attack show the towers coming down from a dramatic new angle.

The photos were obtained by ABC News, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the National Institute of Standards and Technology last year. The NIST collected the images as part of its investigation into the terrorist attack.

Photos: Aerial Images Released

ABC said it was provided 2,779 pictures on nine CDs. Many of the photos, taken from police helicopters, have never been released before.

Twelve of the photos appear on ABC's Web site. One photo shows a close-up of the upper floors of the burning towers. Others show the towers' dramatic collapse in a thick plume of smoke and debris and sweeping views of billowing smoke clouds.

The release of the photos comes as the Obama administration wrestles with deciding where to conduct the criminal trial against the terrorist attack's alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The administration recently when deciding where to hold the terror trials.

Objections from New York City officials and residents have intensified since the Justice Department announced late last year it planned to put Mohammed and other accused Sept. 11 conspirators on trial in federal court in lower Manhattan.

In its new budget, the Obama administration is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting terrorist trials.

In 2008, the NIST notably of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the NIST said their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.

The new views of the terrorist attacks - one of the most recorded events of all time - add to the hundreds of hours of amateur videos, images and stories at ground zero.

The National Sept. 11 Memorial & Museum launched a Web site on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the attacks with its collection of citizen journalism of the tragedy and is appealing for more 9/11 stories from all over the world.

[maistir]

Hi again, egresor,

When were the "demolition" charges put in place? The morning of 9/11? When the Towers were built? Somtime between the late 1970's and 2001?By whom were they planted? Are there records of the expenditures needed to fund such a project and pay the innocent drones? Why has none of the demolition workers so badly fooled by the conspirators ever come forward? It is a house of cards you've tried to build, my friend. The fault is not in your physics but in your total lack of evidence and your defective arguments. This was not a problem in engineering the strength of materials; it was a real act of war that took men, budgets, logistics, etc.

[egresor]

just checked back to see the state of this thread and noticed you again asking when the charges were planted and to be honest i believe i addressed that.

in the weeks before 9-11

here are a few facts you may find interesting

A heightened WTC security alert was lifted on 9/6/2001...The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]

..Bush's cousin had a fortunate change of venue for a September 11 business conference...President Bush's cousin should have been in the World Trade Centre when it was attacked. Jim Pierce, managing director of AON Corporations, had arranged a business conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower where its New York offices were based. But his group was too large so they decided to move across the street to the Millennium Hotel. [Annova]

..and it just so happens that Marvin was in New York on 9/11.

Both WTC 6 and WTC 7 were evacuated within minutes of Flight 11 striking WTC 1, but this did not happen in the twin towers. There were no evacuation announcements in WTC 1 following the plane strike, and workers were encouraged to stay in their building...

Dan Baumbach - WTC 1 Survivor:Dan Baumbach, 24, a software engineer from Merrick, was stunned to find that building officials in One World Trade Center were telling workers not to evacuate even after the first jet struck. "You can try it, but it's at your own risk," he quoted one official as telling a group of 100 people on the 75th floor. Many chose to follow that advice; Baumbach continued his descent from the 80th floor and survived, but only after braving the debris that fell when the neighboring tower collapsed. "The reason we got out was because we didn't listen," he said. [Newsday]

"In the neighboring south tower people were also evacuating, but an announcement over the PA system tells them their building is secure and they can return to their desks..."

Stanley Praimnath - WTC 2 Survivor:'If they had continued on and exited the building, all of their lives would have been spared. As it was, that's not the way it happened. "As soon as we reached the concourse level, the security guard stopped us and said, 'Where are you going?' Stanley explained about seeing the fire in Tower One. According to Stanley, the guard said, "Oh, that was just an accident. Two World Trade is secured. Go back to your office."' [Mercola]

"Today it is still a mystery why no-one in the towers reached the roof..."

The solution to the mystery is simple - the roof doors were locked, as were many stairwell doors.

WTC surveillance tapes feared missing
Imagine my surprise...

Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday. ... The lost records probably contain vital information that could help answer questions, Sunder said. Investigators are trying to locate copies of many destroyed documents from the building's owners and city agencies. [FortWayne.com]

find it for yourself

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=bush+brother%2B9-11%2Btowers%2Bsecurity&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/marvin_bush_secrecy_surrounds_role_911.htm

this is a nice listing

http://erlenda5.blogspot.com/

there are so many inconsistencies and outright lies in the official version that it's astounding

"i'm trying to free your mind Neo"

but in reality

some people love bondage

one thing i've learned about truth, is that in many ways people do NOT want to know the truth.

and why?

because if you know the truth, you are faced with doing something about it.

"ignorance is bliss"

[maistir]

Hi, egresor,

I'm sure that you are sincere, but the reason that nobody in power responds to you is that your views invite more skepticism than the official reports do.

Just one example. The whole conspiracy was motivated by the desire to "suck the oil out of Iraq" (your words). This vast and successful conspiracy -- nobody in it has ever leaked a single detail of how it worked -- was at the same time so stupid as to identify the hijackers as Saudis, not Iraqis, and then invaded Afghanistan (which has little or no oil) to punish the Taliban for hosting the camps where the hijackers trained. Such obvious flaws -- there are more than a dozen in your short post -- make any mistakes made by the official investigation insignificant in comparison.

Better to write, as noloyalisti does, we don't have to provide no stinkin' evidence, no answers; we just ask questions. That is the real state of the challenges to the official inquiry.

[egresor]

maistir February 12, 2010 10:45 AM EST


Hi, egresor,

I'm sure that you are sincere, but your views invite more skepticism than the official reports do.

=====
thanks for the respectful response

i have only a few mintes and then must run

i will respond withing your post

the invitation to more skepticism is intentional sir

to get people to question the motives for faking such an attack

something history teaches us is not unheard of to motivate america to war.

=========================

Just one example. The whole conspiracy was motivated by the desire to "suck the oil out of Iraq" (your words). This vast and successful conspiracy -- nobody in it has ever leaked a single detail of how it worked -- was at the same time so stupid as to identify the hijackers as Saudis, not Iraqis, and then invaded Afghanistan (which has little or no oil) to punish the Taliban for hosting the camps where the hijackers trained. Such obvious flaws -- there are more than a dozen in your short post -- make any mistakes made by the official investigation insignificant in comparison.

===============

i'll have to check back for your response but what mistakes are you speaking of?

cetainly the motives were conjucture but not outlandish by any means

history teaches us that and the very nature of man

=====================

Better to write, as noloyalisti does, we don't have to provide no stinkin' evidence, no answers; we just ask questions. That is the real state of the challenges to the official inquiry.

==========

no sir

that just isn't true and you should know better

what i detailed was a scientific (tho admittedly much abbreviated) explaination as to why the official version is false

and it is always better to present actual facts in the face of contentions

hope that explains well enough?

=================

you are also wrong on how extensive the conspiracy had to be.

in fact only key people would have to actually know what was going on. very few people. everybody else was just following their routine orders in a military style (i'm a vet also)

==============

there are more than a dozen in your short post -- make any mistakes made by the official investigation insignificant in comparison.

i admit to reading between the lines on the motives for invading iraq

but in an investigation one must read between the lines to find the truth of something

i did investigative work in the service and in that you had to look for explainations and motives without solid evidence.

it's called circumstancial evidence and the preponderance of it

from the very start the bush administration wanted a link to iraq and 9-11

the competent security chief on terrorism told bush that there was no connect and what was he told to do?
"look again"
then we get the mushroom clouds and wmd's?

afhganistan was only the stepping stone to iraq

that the taliban trained and supported terrorism and with making a connection between them and 9-11 the bush regime had it's excuse for going in militarily.

people fail to remember the conoco oil pipeline plans. which was built and has sucked bilions from iraq.

if you don't believe that do a search on it.

there was no other reason to go there and wolfowitz acknowledged that when he stated that wmd's were only the most publically aceptable reason for invading iraq.

what does that mean then?

that they deceived america with the threat of wmd's for motives other than this country's security and any threat iraq posed to it.

so what would have been the motive?

freedom and democracy for the iraq peoples?

that's laughable

iraq had nothing of value but oil.

============

i have to go

you can argue all you want on my reading between the lines. that was intended to make people question, but on the physics of the tower collapse-----show me the data from equivalent opposing view of mine?

remember tho that dr garcia's pronoucements have already been acknowledged by himself to be in error.

[ALBrainTrust10]

MEDS!!!

[Empire-George-]

by egresor February 12, 2010 12:17 AM EST

One thing you will have a difficulty "explaining away" is Flight 93, we actually heard not only the black-box recordings of the terrorists taking control over the aircraft, but loved ones calling on cell phones giving eye-witness accounts of the highjacking.....IT HAPPENED

Why won't you address ALBrainTrust10 February 12, 2010 8:35 AM EST
YOU DON'T HAVE TO "MELT" STEEL TO CAUSE IT TO FAIL.

[egresor]

Empire-George- February 12, 2010 10:20 AM EST
by egresor February 12, 2010 12:17 AM EST

One thing you will have a difficulty "explaining away" is Flight 93, we actually heard not only the black-box recordings of the terrorists taking control over the aircraft, but loved ones calling on cell phones giving eye-witness accounts of the highjacking.....IT HAPPENED

Why won't you address ALBrainTrust10 February 12, 2010 8:35 AM EST
YOU DON'T HAVE TO "MELT" STEEL TO CAUSE IT TO FAIL.

===============

sorry but i thought i had addressed it in my first post and have reposted part of it.

it's true you do not have to melt steel to cause it to fail. which is the contention of the nist

in effect what AlBrainTrust10 was saying is what the nist had said

that it was pancaking

the weaked support collumns giving way under weight and pancaking down upon the lower and unstressed floors.

that has been refuted and the nist was forced and i do mean forced to finally admit it was actually freefall.

that means there was no longer a fulcrum present

you can observe it was freefall and that there is zero resistance from the lower floors.

no air pressure resistance and no impeding due to the unaffected columns below. which is ridiculous and the physics prove that.

because of media like cbs new presenting the official view and not even looking at what the hard data shows----people think they're the whole story and the true one. which they are not.

look at the math in my post below.
argue with that

that old arguement of steel not needing to melt isn't supported by any physics concerning the dynamics of the building collapses.

what dr garcia contended (your purported pancaking collapse) has been completely refuted and acknowledged by dr garcia himself.

under duress sir.

so who is speaking truth here?

in my first post i detailed (slightly detailed yes) the physics of why the official version is in error and again a little below this one

directly at what the poster you mentioned said

your contentions have already been discounted in the refutation of the pancake theory

please

visit the architects forum

read what is there

ask questions----it's fine, but don't insult those who present facts and scienticically verifiable ones at that and say you're presenting anything other than ignorance.

againe that is not an insult people

it only means you are unaware

BE INFORMED

read the data

question the data

you will find your answers the same as i did and the picture isn't pretty.

the phone calls?

my knowledge of the electro-dynamics of cell phones in high altitude is very limited but a simple google search

flight 93 cell phone calls

will find your answer and should raise more questions concerning the official story.

that is all for me

i have work to do

look at the data folks and then decide

www.ae911truth.org

failure to do that only perpetuates a lie

peace

[ALBrainTrust10]

"no air pressure resistance and no impeding due to the unaffected columns below. which is ridiculous and the physics prove that."

YOU SOUND LIKE A GLOBAL WARMING NUT..."The drought and lack of snow prove global warming!:....then....."The record snow and rain prove global warming!"

If you look at the footage, the "truthers" said the windows blowing out below the collapsing floors was a sure sign of explosions. NOW you are saying there was no "air pressure resistance."

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!...

As far as the floors collapsing one onto the other and "pancaking" down...try to imagine the weight of the dozens of floors above the burning area pushing down and then when the weakend (not melted) steel gives way, ALL THAT WEIGHT IS FALLING STRAIGHT DOWN.....THE COLUMNS (supporting structure) BELOW THE PANCAKING FLOORS COULD NOT POSSIBLY WITHSTAND THE FORCE/WEIGHT/MOMENTUM OF THE TOTAL ....T O T A L ...NUMBER OF FLOORS PLUNGING DOWN.

NO ONE FLOOR SUPPORT SYSTEM COULD HOLD UP THE MILLIONS OF TONS ABOVE WHEN THAT WEIGHT WAS IN MOTION DOWNWARDS.

IF YOU DROP A SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT ON AN OBJECT THAT IS NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THAT WEIGHT WHILE IN MOTION DOWN, IT WILL FALL AT ABOUT "FREEFALL SPEED."

Now, time for your meds!

[noloyalisti]

After all the lying, cheating and killing by the Bushoccio Crime Family, I would think the American people would need proof they DIDN'T DO 911 for political and financial gain.

[ALBrainTrust10]

TAKE YOUR MEDS.

[wheresmycountry]

It is so easy to prove the conspiracy theories wrong! All you have to do is burn some kerosene (jet fuel) under a steel beam, and you can watch it turn to dust right before your eyes.

[egresor]

wheresmycountry February 11, 2010 11:06 PM EST
It is so easy to prove the conspiracy theories wrong! All you have to do is burn some kerosene (jet fuel) under a steel beam, and you can watch it turn to dust right before your eyes.

-------------

are you joking

surely you are?

do you have any idea of the temperatures required to melt the steel in that building?

575 degrees in open air

that is an astounding difference

steel melts at 2750 and sometimes does at maybe 2500 degrees

there is no way jet fuel melted those steel columns

imperically impossible

nothing in a normal plane and nothing contained within those buildings had the capability of producing temperaturs necessary to melt steel and cause the simultaneous failure of all those massive steel columns.

nothing and no combination of any of them.

it just isn't possible

the details can be found at the architects and scientists for truth forum

if you genuinely want to know the facts of it. detailed examinations can be found there that disprove any assertions of jet fuel causing that collapse.

it is absurd!

if you've read my previous post on dr garcia's explaination of the tower collapse?

you'd see that the physics show that all of the steel collumns had to have failed at the same time. or it could not have been freefall and it was freefall sir. something the nist was literally forced to admit.

ok

enough for me

visit the forums that question for the truth through scientific method and you will see the ridiculousness of the official version.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i hope all you doubters will wake up and see what the data shows

like in the movie Dune

"the sleeper must awaken"

:)

good job reporting cbs

you've done your usual failings well

when are you going to actually look at the facts?

instead of reading to us what the government hands you?

wwhere are the investigative journalists at cbs news

oops forgot about researching tiger woods and his infidelities and sex addiction treatments

important stuff there fellas

maybe next time you all decide to put something on dealing with 9-11?

you will have actually investigated what you're disseminating as fact and the real news?

tho i doubt it. it's so much easier and safer to read it of the news wire.

isn't it?

:(

[ALBrainTrust10]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO "MELT" STEEL TO CAUSE IT TO FAIL.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOAD ON THE STEEL. THOSE BEAMS WERE NOT JUST STANDING OUTSIDE IN THE BREEZE.

[erb0087]

"In 2008, the NIST notably solved the mystery behind the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories."

=======================================

It didn't put an end to the theories, though. Thay've run even farther since.

Actor Charlie Sheen, for one, continues to believe this was an inside job by the Bush administration.

[erb0087]

Phonetic spelling is overrated.

"They've run even farther since."

[ALBrainTrust10]

AT LEAST THE CONSPIRACY FOLKS HAVE CHARLIE ON THEIR SIDE.... I'm sure Mr. Sheen believes many things....like beating up his wife was justified? That drug and alcohol abuse are good for the soul.

[noloyalisti]

Have you heard of circumstantial evidence? There clearly were too many coincidences that occurred, a clear and obvious coverup and a stalled and fraudulent investigation.

How do you know we really landed on the moon? How do you know that HIV is caused by a virus. How do you know God exists? You have never seen ANY of that evidence personally. SO you depend on data and observations by others.

There is no doubt the three buildings were brought down by planned and controlled demolitions. If we do a real investigation we might find out who planned and carried it out. We only need to ask the questions, not provide the answers.

[ALBrainTrust10]

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF "OCCAMS RAZOR?"

IT SAYS IN THE CASE OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS...."IF YOU SEE WHERE 4 LARGE AIRLINERS HIT 3 BUILDINGS AND A SMOKING HOLE IN THE GROUND, THE CAUSE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE BUILDINGS IS PROBABLY THE AIRLINERS."

WHO WOULD GAIN (I need specific benefits listed that outweigh the risk of detection) FROM THE 9/11 ATTACKS?

HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD IT TAKE TO PULL OFF SUCH A CONSPIRACY? HUNDREDS? THOUSANDS?

HOW COULD SUCH A LARGE CONSPIRACY BE KEPT SECRET? IN PARTICULAR SINCE IT ENDED UP KILLING 3,000 PEOPLE AT 3 DIFFERENT SITES?

(You do believe that planes actually hit the 3 buildings?)

[ALBrainTrust10]

OOPPPSSSSS...Since I responded to the outlandish, I have furthered it's serious discussion.

[maistir]

It simply is not good enough to pick at holes in the official investigation or to dispute the official report. Nor is it good enough to say that there were a plenty of people who would/could have brought down the towers. Suspicions and quibbles over theory don't suffice.

To make a genuine case you must produce the culprits, specify their motives, disprove al Qaida's claims, explain why there has been not a single leak of the information you alone claim to know, and demonstrate the logistics of the operation. Then reveal the evidence to convict the "actual" bombers (which should include financial records, munitions purchases, training and organizational schemes, etc.).

Anything else is novelistic or mental m*a*s*t*u*r*b*a*t*i*o*n.

[egresor]

maistir February 11, 2010 1:00 PM EST
It simply is not good enough to pick at holes in the official investigation or to dispute the official report. Nor is it good enough to say that there were a plenty of people who would/could have brought down the towers. Suspicions and quibbles over theory don't suffice.

To make a genuine case you must produce the culprits, specify their motives, disprove al Qaida's claims, explain why there has been not a single leak of the information you alone claim to know, and demonstrate the logistics of the operation. Then reveal the evidence to convict the "actual" bombers (which should include financial records, munitions purchases, training and organizational schemes, etc.).

Anything else is novelistic or mental m*a*s*t*u*r*b*a*t*i*o*n.

=======

you remind me of the person i directed my physics anaysis at in 2006

only imperical prove will suffice to you

however crimes are solved by the exercise of diligent investigation and this is no different

the problem is that the suspects are not cooperating at all and even the ones with the evidence refuse comment

so how does one solve a crime of this magnitute if the fbi and the ntsb refuse to comment on the veracity of what is found in those anaylses?

it would be the most simple of things for the fbi and the ntsb and the pentagon to release the photographic evidence of the attack upon the pentagon, but they refuse to do so.

and national security has nothing to do with it

that the pentagon is the most secure and photographed building in the world should be a given. they have the means to silence all criticism but do not....so we are forced to do it piecemeal.

it was done in the refusal of the nist to acknowledge the freefall of the towers and it is done on their failure to verify flight 77 had not had it's cockpit door opened.

nothing short of an outright confession from the apparent perpetrators would satisfy you sir.

will you get that from them?

that is a fantasy world. they will never confess such a heinous crime upon their own countrymen.

they did not with the maine and they did not with vietnam and the other high crimes committed upon our country.

if bush and cheney and the heads of the fbi and ntsb would confess they faked findings?----there would be such an outcry from america that their very lives would be in danger.

so why doesn't the current fbi and ntsb release and verify the findings?

for the very same reason sir

because it would tear this country apart with rage

rage at their children killed and maimed to steal another countries oil. to build a pipeline and suck the wealth out of iraq with their children's blood and this country's wealth.

you would see protests unlike any other in the history of this country and around the world. calling for the culprits be brought to justice.

so it seems nobody in the current government wants it verified and certainly none of those in the bush administration would want to have to answer for it.

when the ntsb is finally forced to admit the cockpit door had not been opened....and it will happen sir....when they admit to the deception by bush concerning flight 77----in effect they admit to a conspiracy and they will not do that.

the ramifications of that admittance would be astounding

nobody in the know in washington wants to see this country torn apart by that revelation and it would be.

so the rime is being hidden and it will come out slowly----until those who've perpetrated it are dead. just as the did with the other atrocities and intended atrocities. they are hidden away and all you'll get is no comment.

well that isn't good enough.

swallow the offical story if you want, but i prefer the truth. no matter how ugly it is.

south africa found a way to deal with the crimes of apartheid and this country needs to come to terms with this one, but fear of the results will kill that one.

btw

it isn't mental ma-s-t-u-r-b-a-t-i-o-n to scientically investigate a crime.

places like this are for things of that nature. you can say whatever you want and have any opinion you want here, but in the piolots and architect's forums that isn't the rule nor purpose. they examine everything with an analytical eye.

that is not m-a-s-t-u-b-a-t-i-o-n

[ALBrainTrust10]

YOU NEED SOME M E D I C A T I O N !!!

[RedWings_ninety_one]

15 Days after 9/11, the CIA had special operations troops in Afghanistan. They (the CIA) had been wanting the oportunity to go there to take down Osama for a long time before 9/11. The attacks just gave them just cause to go there in the eyes of the American Government. When they got there they had to rebuild alliances with the group that they had been working with during the Soviet invasion. One man with the small group of operatives over there had worked with this same group during the Soviet invasion, and he said it was as if he'd never left. They marked Taliban and Al Queda hotspots with GPS but the military moved far less quickly than the CIA, so it was days before the bombings would begin. The Afghans started to question whether or not we were serious about riding the country of the Taliban. (This was mostly due to the fact that after the Soviets left Afghanistan, we left for them to pick up the pieces of the comflict.) Days later the Military finaly gave the word that the bombings were to begin soon, lone behold a couple of hours later, the first bomb went off. The planes were droping bombs and special operations troops from the actual military rather than the CIA operatives that were already there. They had Osama within their grasp, but the order was never given to prusue him and that let him slip away into Pakistan, where he is belived to be hidden today. The deployment marks the fastest CIA deployment ever. Mostly because the 9/11 attacks made things personal.

Just a little true story that most don't know.

[mari1963]

I am tired of hearing about how pictures and discussions affect the victims families. Give me a break! It's been 9 years, can we please say this is over and move on? It's pictures of smoke. You can't see any thing except clouds and smoke. I would like to hear the voice recorders from the airplanes that the government still won't let us listen to. This is a free society and the public has a right to see it all. Oh, and to the victims families - If you can't take it - don't look! Maybe all the money you are still reaping from the 9/11 fund can console you.