PDA

View Full Version : The mysterious "grab" photo ...


GlennB
9th February 2009, 12:59 PM
(if indeed the excavator is called a "grab" at all, but never mind) ... that they claim shows molten metal.

I've been looking at this photo, off and on, for a few years now and it still mystifies me. I'd be interested in any comments/theories about it. Let me stress that my opinions are pure speculation, but Truthers make so many bold claims about this pic that perhaps it would be useful to discuss it. This miight already have been done to death, but I can't find an in-depth analysis anywhere. Also, a high-res photo would be good but, again, all I can find is the usual stuff.

Firstly - the general shot, with some coloured highlights to look at. One of these truly bemuses me, so I'll kick off with some thoughts about that first :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/grabgoodwithhighlights.jpg

Firstly the yellow area, enlarged here :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/grabgoodcropped.jpg

A few things spring to mind.

1) the upper pink and dark areas appear to be symmetrical halves of a wedge-shaped and tapering piece of material, with distinct upper and lower boundaries. And - of course - what seems like a perfectly delineated boundary between the two colours.
That the pink/black colour transition might be due to a hot metal / cool metal transition strikes me as impossible to justify, whatever the conditions below ground before the "object" was brought up.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that this two-tone wedge is part of the grab jaw itself, though why it might be painted (or stained?) in a very precise two-tone is also a mystery.

2) The purple area, i.e. the bulk of the amorphous black material in the grab jaws. No matter how hard I look, enlarge or rotate this photo I can see no structure here. That it might have once been a metal column or piece of aluminium facade strikes me as unlikely. Notice, also, that the very top right of this black material (the green circle) appears to have a hot spot giving off a slight trail of smoke.
My very speculative guess is that this black material is in fact some kind of hydrocarbon debris. A desk, workstation or somesuch?

3) The black circle. This seems to be an extension of the main bulk of the black material in the jaws of the grab. If so, it would mean that this dark material is penetrating the glowing stuff. What could do that? Concrete through metal might fit the bill, but the dark stuff doesn't look much like concrete. Metal penetrating some burning hydrocarbon would also fit the bill, but again the dark material doesn't look like WTC metal.

4) The white circle. Looks like the headlights of a vehicle, or a floodlight. In any event, what effect will this have on the camera's exposure to the main object of the photo and the apparent colours reproduced?

5) The red circle. This is touted in Truther circles as a red-hot piece of pipe, yet it is isolated.

6) The blue circle. The bottom edge of this bright material is fairly straight, not what I'd expect from melting metal at all. The tangle of wires below also seem to have been connected to the "melting metal" lump, though this is not entirely clear. If so, why would thin wires survive while a bulk of metal is - supposedly - melting?

In general - the boundary between bright "hot metal" and dark unidentified material is extremely clear and precise. This is not the behaviour of any red/yellow/white hot metal that I have ever observed. And the general shape looks nothing like any WTC metal structures I have seen.

I'm more and more inclined to believe that this glowing object is not metal at all.

I'm speculating, of course, but your observations on all this would be interesting.

T.A.M.
9th February 2009, 01:19 PM
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0freaeS76P2Ph/610x.jpg

Orange isn't it.

My guess is that it is molten glass or some other material. I am no expert though.

TAM:)

Alt+F4
9th February 2009, 01:32 PM
The definition of molten is something made liquid by heat. Whatever that is, it's not molten. The machine in the photo is not used to move liquid materials.

DGM
9th February 2009, 01:35 PM
Every time I look at this picture all I can think is, What contractor would screw up his machine by dipping into a pool of "molten metal"? The radiant heat alone would melt hydraulic lines and fry the seals out of the rams. I think this picture (taken at night I believe) is no where near as hot a "truthers" are suggesting it could be.

Maybe they should talk to the guy that ran that piece of equipment (no sorry that would make why to much sense).

T.A.M.
9th February 2009, 01:40 PM
a piece of cracked glass, could heat up enough to turn orange, without being pure liquid, could it not (see picture I linked to above). It would be surrounded with a frame that might keep it "relatively" intact from a shape pov?

I am no expert, but that is what first comes to mind.

TAM:)

DGM
9th February 2009, 01:45 PM
a piece of cracked glass, could heat up enough to turn orange, without being pure liquid, could it not (see picture I linked to above). It would be surrounded with a frame that might keep it "relatively" intact from a shape pov?

I am no expert, but that is what first comes to mind.

TAM:)
I'm thinking more along the lines of a fabric of some sort (maybe a metal mesh) and it's no where near as hot as it looks.


ETA: Try lighting a piece of steel wool on fire and see what that looks like.

alexi_drago
9th February 2009, 02:12 PM
Is it definitely something the grab's got a hold of or is it something going on in the smoke behind it?

scissorhands
9th February 2009, 02:18 PM
Just wondering if anyone knows the provenance of this photo?
Photographer, date taken, etc?

DGM
9th February 2009, 02:22 PM
By the way it's a "Grapple"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1707449909def549bc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15244)

MikeW
9th February 2009, 02:24 PM
Just wondering if anyone knows the provenance of this photo?
Photographer, date taken, etc?
It's supposedly taken by Frank Silecchia, a ground zero worker. I originally found it here (http://web.archive.org/web/20020609005905/www.wtcgodshouse.com/photos.html), even before Jones did I think, where it's captioned "this is a picture of Tower #1 ..2 months later, molten steel". For some reason the image is no longer displayed, though.

scissorhands
9th February 2009, 02:32 PM
Thank you.
I was wondering if I could find an original photo, not that Im suspicious about truthers inadvertantly messing with it in photoshop, of course.

MikeW
9th February 2009, 03:20 PM
Thank you.
I was wondering if I could find an original photo, not that Im suspicious about truthers inadvertantly messing with it in photoshop, of course.
I added a copy to my own page (http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html) when I found it. That's not as satisfactory as having the source to hand, but it's the best I can do.

scissorhands
9th February 2009, 03:51 PM
Contacting Frank Silecchia would be the logical step, from what I have read, he is best known for his discovery of the "cross" amongst the ruins, and a couple of other very blurry long distance shots of "molten metal" that look like they were taken on a camera phone.
Nothing like the quality of this photograph.


I find this photograph extremely dubious.

It looks enhanced to me.

jaydeehess
9th February 2009, 08:45 PM
I've always thought it looked like a large transformer with cables hanging off of it.

Brainster
9th February 2009, 09:05 PM
This couldn't by any chance be that weird orange sculpture outside WTC-7, could it?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_97774990fcf0e5ecb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15247)

BigAl
10th February 2009, 07:01 AM
Just wondering if anyone knows the provenance of this photo?
Photographer, date taken, etc?

I've seen that still shot edited into this YouTube video clip of a guy
in a hard hat and safety vest speaking about how hot the pile is.
It is made to look like they were the same event. I suspect the still shot is hacked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY

The hard hat guy looks like he is in charge. Does anyone recognize him?

GlennB
12th February 2009, 01:16 AM
enlarged :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/grabpipe.jpg

Strangely, it seems to be raised above the ground and appears to be connected to an open structure of some kind.

Even more strangely, the side that's facing the light is brighter, while the underside is in partial shadow.

I don't believe this is glowing metal at all. I suggest it's simply a red object.

Sunstealer
12th February 2009, 04:56 AM
The hard hat guy looks like he is in charge. Does anyone recognize him?Notice how in his description he does not mention liquid or molten metal (and the video's title is misleading). A few points.

He estimates 1500 degrees which is most likely Fahrenheit, but ofcourse this is an estimate.

"We've had some small windows into the core at some point and it looked like an oven, it was just roaring inside and it had a bright, bright, orange reddish colour."

"See the stuff he's pulling out, it's red hot."

No liquid metal, but he is describing conditions that would have a severe detrimental effect on steel. The likelyhood is that any glass, aluminium, lead, etc would certainly have been liquefied and the metal react with allsorts of other materials.

Kent1
12th February 2009, 10:01 AM
enlarged :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/grabpipe.jpg

Strangely, it seems to be raised above the ground and appears to be connected to an open structure of some kind.

Even more strangely, the side that's facing the light is brighter, while the underside is in partial shadow.

I don't believe this is glowing metal at all. I suggest it's simply a red object.
I think its likely glowing metal. BTW there are more photos. I know of 3. It was taken on 9/27. Here's another one.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

Personally I think we are seeing glass with possibly rebar in it.

CptColumbo
12th February 2009, 10:26 AM
If the upper right-hand corner of the picture is the sky, it would appear to be twilight (or later) and I would guess that the bright object on the right is a flood light.

JimBenArm
12th February 2009, 10:37 AM
There is just one thing I have to add to this. Anyone who thinks that it's molten needs to do a simple experiment.

Take some tongs and a glass of water.

Lower tongs into water. Close tongs.

Raise tongs. Observe amount of material dangling from tongs.

That's exactly how much would have been dangling from the grapple if it dipped into molten metal. Steel, aluminum, glass, whatever. It would not have picked up anything molten.

Anyone who thinks it would have really needs to do this experiment. After banging their head against a wall, repeatedly. Just for being stupid enough to think otherwise.

Kent1
12th February 2009, 11:46 AM
There is just one thing I have to add to this. Anyone who thinks that it's molten needs to do a simple experiment.

Take some tongs and a glass of water.

Lower tongs into water. Close tongs.

Raise tongs. Observe amount of material dangling from tongs.

That's exactly how much would have been dangling from the grapple if it dipped into molten metal. Steel, aluminum, glass, whatever. It would not have picked up anything molten.

Anyone who thinks it would have really needs to do this experiment. After banging their head against a wall, repeatedly. Just for being stupid enough to think otherwise.

Molten doesn't always mean liquid. I'd have no problem with someone saying that's molten.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molten

scissorhands
12th February 2009, 03:20 PM
Molten doesn't always mean liquid.

Really?
Every dictionary definition of the word, describes the term "molten" as meaning the state of a solid material after melting.
To melt, means "to be changed from a solid to a liquid state by heating."
The material in the photo shows no sign of being in a liquid state.
Therefore it is not molten.
:)

Kent1
12th February 2009, 03:40 PM
Really?
Every dictionary definition of the word, describes the term "molten" as meaning the state of a solid material after melting.
To melt, means "to be changed from a solid to a liquid state by heating."
The material in the photo shows no sign of being in a liquid state.
Therefore it is not molten.
:)

That's incorrect. See post above

dtugg
12th February 2009, 03:47 PM
Honestly, that is a stupid definition. I have never heard of anybody refer to something as molten simply because it has "warmth or brilliance." Hell, according to that definition, a freaking lit light bulb is molten.

alexi_drago
12th February 2009, 03:52 PM
Cool, molten fish.

http://www.mongabay.com/external/images/reuters_fishglow_399x450.jpg

Kent1
12th February 2009, 03:53 PM
Honestly, that is a stupid definition. I have never heard of anybody refer to something as molten simply because it has "warmth or brilliance." Hell, according to that definition, a freaking lit light bulb is molten.

I wouldn't refer to a light bulb as molten either. However a hot glowing (possibly dripping) soft piece of metal or glass, I would.

Minadin
12th February 2009, 03:55 PM
It's somewhat like when people refer colloquially to 'melted' steel beams / columns when they mean 'heat-deformed' instead of 'liquefied'. It's not unlike some people who like to use the word 'theory' in a manner which is more vernacular than scientific.

alexi_drago
12th February 2009, 03:56 PM
I wouldn't refer to a light bulb as molten either. However a hot glowing soft piece of metal or glass, I would.

Glass can be molten without glowing or being hot. It just flows really really slowly.

dtugg
12th February 2009, 03:59 PM
I wouldn't refer to a light bulb as molten either. However a hot glowing soft piece of metal or glass, I would.

Well if you want to go by the dictionary definition you cited, a light bulb is molten. If you disagree with that then you must agree that the third definition is bogus. So disregard that, and go by the first two.

Kent1
12th February 2009, 04:02 PM
Well if you want to go by the dictionary definition you cited, a light bulb is molten. If you disagree with that then you must agree that the third definition is bogus. So disregard that, and go by the first two.
I'll stick with what I stated. Thanks.

dtugg
12th February 2009, 04:04 PM
I'll stick with what I stated. Thanks.

OK, so you will stick with something that is scientifically incorrect.

Kent1
12th February 2009, 04:09 PM
OK, so you will stick with something that is scientifically incorrect.
Have you ever heard of pliant molten glass?

dtugg
12th February 2009, 04:11 PM
No. But I think we are talking about metal here.

Kent1
12th February 2009, 04:15 PM
No. But I think we are talking about metal here.

I don't think the object is metal. I think its likely glass. Especially of its translucent nature.
But here is def for pliant.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861738529

dtugg
12th February 2009, 04:15 PM
I have to say this is kind of a stupid argument. I got drunk early today. I do believe there is a metallurgist here (Sunstealer?) that could settle the argument if he wants.

DGM
12th February 2009, 04:23 PM
Have you ever heard of pliant molten glass?
I believe that's a state that iron /steel doesn't readily take. Your splitting hairs to make a point that is somewhat pointless. In the context of the discussion "molten" is very clear.

Just my $.02

Smackety
12th February 2009, 04:36 PM
I think it is an orange lamp shade. It is upside down, and the lamp is still lit, so the lamp shade is 'glowing.'

Don't even try to tell me everyone remembered to turn off the lights when they were evacuating!

Kent1
12th February 2009, 04:37 PM
I believe that's a state that iron /steel doesn't readily take. Your splitting hairs to make a point that is somewhat pointless. In the context of the discussion "molten" is very clear.

Just my $.02

Its not splitting hairs in the slightest if you go back and read from the beginning. Steel can also be malleable, but the main point of course being that molten doesn't always equal a full liquid state. Furthermore its debatable as to whether or not the material is dripping. I thought JimBenArm was being a little too silly. So I had to point out the various problems. I thought it was in fact molten glass. Scissorhands then came on without simply reading my link. Then of course we had silly fish, light bulbs etc.
I also posted this earlier in another thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4427191&postcount=140

DGM
12th February 2009, 04:47 PM
Its not splitting hairs in the slightest if you go back and read from the beginning. Steel can also be malleable, but the main point of course being that molten doesn't always equal a full liquid state. Furthermore its debatable as to whether or not the material is dripping. I thought JimBenArm was being a little too silly. So I had to point out the various problems. I thought it was in fact molten glass. Scissorhands then came on without simply reading my link. Then of course we had silly fish, light bulbs etc.
I also posted this earlier in another thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4427191&postcount=140
You would need to show me (I do ornamental iron work) that a piece of metal could be dripping on one end and be picked up on the other and look anything like that picture, Good luck. Your splitting hairs with a definition.

Kent1
12th February 2009, 04:53 PM
You would need to show me (I do ornamental iron work) that a piece of metal could be dripping on one end and be picked up on the other and look anything like that picture, Good luck. Your splitting hairs with a definition.

As I stated, I don't think its metal.

DGM
12th February 2009, 05:28 PM
As I stated, I don't think its metal.
My apologies then (I must have missed that). I agree that it's not pure metal and likely a combination of several different things.

I still believe though that your definition of "molten" does not apply here in the context of the argument. Mostly because the temps they are claiming are well above the temps for the states you base your argument on. Remember this picture is supposedly an argument for "molten iron" thus proof of "therm?te".

Kent1
12th February 2009, 06:00 PM
My apologies then (I must have missed that). I agree that it's not pure metal and likely a combination of several different things.

I still believe though that your definition of "molten" does not apply here in the context of the argument. Mostly because the temps they are claiming are well above the temps for the states you base your argument on. Remember this picture is supposedly an argument for "molten iron" thus proof of "therm?te".
I understand. But I wanted to make a few points.

In hindsight I didn't realize it would drag on and I should of explained myself better.

But anyway, the object is likely not steel. I thought I was making that clear throughout my posts. Second that molten may not be used the same for everyone. Some witnesses may not use the word molten as in the term "fully liquid". The original photographer himself used the word molten steel to describe what was in the photo. I think both Minadin and Mike at 911myths understand that point. I hope others do too.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
I also thought some of the posts by scissorhands and JimBenArm were getting way out there, with faked photo claims and silly experiments.

One other side note. I have no problem with small amounts of melted steel in the pile. NIST and others don't think this is a problem either. Various tests have shows temps in fires reaching above 1200 and 1300C

For what its worth I'm not a truther. I've done a fair amount of interviews, contributed to both major debunking websites (I think I'm in Gravys debunking guide also), and I have my name on the WTC 7 report for helping them with some photos.

T.A.M.
12th February 2009, 07:40 PM
Yah, Kent1 has been away from this subforum for a while (until as of late), but I recall him as full force debunker.

I agree with Kent1, I think the item is a partial pane of glass, with part of its frame still attached, and maybe a few other things in the mix.

But it is just a guess based on its appearance as I see it.

TAM:)

NoZed Avenger
12th February 2009, 11:23 PM
You know, with the title to this thread, the actual posts are a bit of a disappointment.

Minadin
13th February 2009, 01:49 AM
Hey, my post was spot-on, darn it.

If you were looking for Richard Gage spooning Judy Wood when you saw the thread title, a) I don't know why you clicked, and b) you're a sick, sick man if you're dissapointed.

scissorhands
13th February 2009, 03:05 AM
I also thought some of the posts by scissorhands and JimBenArm were getting way out there

Yep.
Call me overly skeptical but I dont trust truthers, they have this track record of lying and manufacturing bogus evidence you see.
However since MikeW claims to have found the photo in question prior to Steven Jones getting his hands on it, though the site he found it on is now defunct, I will concede that it is genuine.
Your definition of molten is incorrect, but I wont be adding to the derailing of this thread by pointing that out anymore.
Damn it, I just did.

Sunstealer
13th February 2009, 01:47 PM
Why aren't there more photos? Anyone got links to more photos of the clear up? I would have expected that if there were significant amounts of molten metal that a) there would be photos of such metal and b) during the clean up that there would be very large pieces of material that would not have any definable shape because they re-solidified.

twinstead
13th February 2009, 02:18 PM
http://www.supertrapp.com/jackson.jpg

Oh, crap. I should have read the thread before I posted a mysterious grab photo...

njslim
13th February 2009, 03:13 PM
I agree with Kent1, I think the item is a partial pane of glass, with part of its frame still attached, and maybe a few other things in the mix.


Of cousrse the twofers will say "How do you expect us to believe the a pane of glass
survived a 110 story fall unbroken! Must be a conspiracy - the NWO had to have planted it......

Unsecured Coins
13th February 2009, 11:28 PM
http://www.supertrapp.com/jackson.jpg

Oh, crap. I should have read the thread before I posted a mysterious grab photo...

ooooh.. guess who hates you with an unbridled passion now?:mad:

ElMondoHummus
14th February 2009, 06:58 AM
http://www.supertrapp.com/jackson.jpg

Oh, crap. I should have read the thread before I posted a mysterious grab photo...

ooooh.. guess who hates you with an unbridled passion now?:mad:

The scary thing is that I'll bet twinstead's got a 40x60 poster of that and stares lovingly at it at least once a day... ;):D:p

pgimeno
20th February 2009, 02:39 AM
Hi all, first post here.

There's something that I've realized when looking at that photograph. It would look as if the orange piece is half-transparent.

I'm not allowed to post images or links for 15 posts (an anti-spam measure, I assume), so I can't show you the image I've prepared. However it would seem to me that there's some transparency and the black objects that are behind the glowing object can be seen through it.

If you put together this link maybe you can see what I mean:

http : //www . formauri . es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/silecchia-crop2.png

Compare with the original:

http : //www . formauri . es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/silecchia-crop1.png

I realize that that's really not much different from looking for faces in Belmez or Mars, so maybe it should not be taken very seriously. It would give a hint that the piece might be glass, though.

On the other hand, the smoke's orangeish glow strongly suggests that there's more bright orange stuff that can't be seen from that point, contradicting the idea that it's merely an orange object.

As for the apparent dripping, I would not throw away the idea that there was something that appears like dripping. Couldn't it be something dust-like but incandescent, falling from the orange piece? Just a wild idea.

If these assumptions are reasonable, that should give an idea of how difficult it is to evaluate that photograph and claim, as some truthers do, that it is this or that thing without a doubt.

By the way, does anybody know at what temperature does glass typically glow like that? I remember seeing a page indicating color vs temperature in steel. Is there such for glass, maybe? Yeah, that can vary depending on the mixture but so does steel and I'm just after an orientative figure.

Smackety
20th February 2009, 02:44 AM
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/silecchia-crop2.png

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/silecchia-crop1.png

Welcome to the forum!

pgimeno
20th February 2009, 05:30 AM
Thank you very much Smackety! Could you please edit or post again to put them as images, which was the original intention?

twinstead
20th February 2009, 05:42 AM
The scary thing is that I'll bet twinstead's got a 40x60 poster of that and stares lovingly at it at least once a day... ;):D:p

It's on the wall of the dance studio where I take my moon walk lessons ;)

Smackety
20th February 2009, 07:00 AM
Thank you very much Smackety! Could you please edit or post again to put them as images, which was the original intention?



http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/silecchia-crop2.png

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/silecchia-crop1.png



I assume you are hosting them, right? So no trouble from hotlinking?

ETA: It does look like there is something behind the orange thing, now that you mention it.

GlennB
20th February 2009, 07:04 AM
...

If these assumptions are reasonable, that should give an idea of how difficult it is to evaluate that photograph and claim, as some truthers do, that it is this or that thing without a doubt.

...



Hi pgimeno, and welcome to the forum :)

The statement you included above hits the nail on the head for me. Truthers have made substantial claims about "proof of molten steel" based on their interpretation of the photo. In fact it's extremely difficult to analyse given the definition and the lighting and - of course - being able to explain how its temperature was maintained for so long.

As for glass - this has been suggested, but I'm not so sure. If the colour is true and represents glowing glass then it would seem unlikely that it could maintain its shape. On the other hand the dark material held by the grappler does appear to pass through the orange "thing" and appears to be outlined through it. Glass being illuminated from behind while embers of something else fall of the bottom? Maybe.

pgimeno
20th February 2009, 02:18 PM
Thanks both :)

Smackety, yes I'm hosting both and there's no problem with hotlinking.

In fact it's extremely difficult to analyse given the definition and the lighting and - of course - being able to explain how its temperature was maintained for so long.

(emphasis mine). Indeed the date is another point I'd like to ask about. Noone seems to have clarified that in the thread so far.

Apparently Steven Jones mentions in his... "paper" that the shot was taken in September 27. I have no problem assuming that the wtcgodshouse.com page mentioned by MikeW was Silecchia's creation and that the two months period he mentions is more accurate than Jones' half month, unless proven wrong. Is there a source for Jones' claim? Or, on the contrary, is it known when these machines were installed at Ground Zero? Maybe later than 27th? I've read that an inspection of the sublevels was required before placing them, but I don't remember seeing a date.

Jones' paper is The Truth for spanish truthers, you know...

pgimeno
20th February 2009, 02:27 PM
Thanks both :)

Smackety, yes I'm hosting both and there's no problem with hotlinking.

In fact it's extremely difficult to analyse given the definition and the lighting and - of course - being able to explain how its temperature was maintained for so long.

(emphasis mine). Indeed the date is another point I'd like to ask about. Noone seems to have clarified that in the thread so far.

Apparently Steven Jones mentions in his... "paper" that the shot was taken in September 27. I have no problem assuming that the wtcgodshouse.com page mentioned by MikeW was Silecchia's creation and that the two months period he mentions is more accurate than Jones' half month, unless proven wrong. Is there a source for Jones' claim? Or, on the contrary, is it known when these machines were installed at Ground Zero? Maybe later than 27th? I've read that an inspection of the sublevels was required before placing them, but I don't remember seeing a date.

Jones' paper is The Truth for spanish truthers, you know...

T.A.M.
20th February 2009, 05:48 PM
pgimeno:

I concur with your assessment of the material being glass. I believe Kent1, and a few others concur as well. The transparency did it for me as well.

Welcome to the forum.

TAM:)

pgimeno
21st February 2009, 03:30 AM
Sorry for the multiple posts. I got a database overload error every time, so I didn't know they went through.

Kent1
21st February 2009, 09:30 PM
Thanks both :)

Smackety, yes I'm hosting both and there's no problem with hotlinking.


(emphasis mine). Indeed the date is another point I'd like to ask about. Noone seems to have clarified that in the thread so far.

Apparently Steven Jones mentions in his... "paper" that the shot was taken in September 27. I have no problem assuming that the wtcgodshouse.com page mentioned by MikeW was Silecchia's creation and that the two months period he mentions is more accurate than Jones' half month, unless proven wrong. Is there a source for Jones' claim? Or, on the contrary, is it known when these machines were installed at Ground Zero? Maybe later than 27th? I've read that an inspection of the sublevels was required before placing them, but I don't remember seeing a date.

Jones' paper is The Truth for spanish truthers, you know...
From my understand the 27th comes from what is printed on some of the original photos themselves. Also see my link earlier on other photos.