9/11 Conspricy Claim - 'People' seen in WTC

[Segnosaur]

I've tried to find some stuff on this in some of the other conspricy threads, but they seem to have gotten a little long... so forgive me if I've overlooked something.

On another forum (www.canadawebpages.com), I'm involved in a debate with someone who claims that there were people seen in the 'holes' in the side of the WTC; because of this, they were claiming that the fires weren't that hot (and thus couldn't have caused the collapse.)

Now, I just assumed that this was a case of pareidolia (people trying to identify familiar objects in chaos), and that they were just seeing some random debris. However, someone posted the following reference:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/j...70105woman.jpg

Anyone familiar with these claims? Have any of the pictures been edited at all? (I do find it strange that you don't see any smoke in that picture.)

[dubfan]

Yes, there are extant pictures of people in the holes made by the impact of the planes. In one case, at least, there are claims that the person was identified.

As I'm sure you can reason on your own, the existence of these pictures is not evidence that there were no fires, or that the fires weren't hot.

[PopeTom]

I asked this same question in April

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...16#post1573216

Links to other pictures and at least on video clip of the woman waving follow that query.

-PopeTom

[azazal]

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately actually, I saw a site that I do not recall the link to, that showed pictures of people who choose to jump out of those ragged impact holes, instead of staying and being burnt in the fires. When some one claims that there were no fires, ask them why those people choose to jump then.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

First, looking closely at the photo (wich is so grainy you can't make out basic features like eyes, nose and fingers) can you tell me wether or not she is covered in 1st or 2nd degree burns from being too close to a major fire?

Second, if there was no fire, what was this man trying to get away from that an assured death by massive blunt trauma was preferrable to what was inside the building?

http://vikingphoenix.com/photos/911-2003/wtcj-1.jpg

[dubfan]

Originally Posted by PopeTom

I asked this same question in April

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...16#post1573216

Links to other pictures and at least on video clip of the woman waving follow that query.

-PopeTom

That appears to be the origins thread for Gravy's eventual rebuttal, too. Historic.

[Segnosaur]

Thanks for the references folks.

I know there's a lot of misinformation passed around by the 'believers'. I just didn't want to fall for some photoshopped image.

[Gravy]

http://memorial.mmc.com/pgBio.asp?ID=54

[Rolfe]

These images were in the newspapers at the time. I kept them for a while, and I wish I had them still. Those poor people, trapped by fire and destruction, standing in the (relatively) fresh air at the edges of the holes made by the planes, able to see out to normality, and entirely unable to reach it.

How many of them jumped, when they realised fire was encroaching on their perch? How many burned? How many were still there when the pancaking happened and were killed that way? Who knows.

How can anyone who saw those images think of anything but the appalling predicament of the people? I remember a young woman, with long, wavy, pre-raphaelite hair. I'll never forget her, even though she was only a video or newspaper image.

There's no reason at all to imagine that the fact these people were there tells us anything in particular about the destruction of the buildings. Even if the planes killed everyone on the impact floors when they hit, which is entirely possible, why shouldn't people trying to get down from higher floors, and seeking some fresh air, come to those holes as they found the air, but failed to find any way further down?

The whole thing disturbs me because it comes over not just as an atrocity, but as a tragic drama, with dramatic and artistic attraction. The idea that these pipsqueaks who call themselves "truthers" can sully the memory of the victims in this way, makes me want to vomit.

Rolfe.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, you can see that the building's on fire. And there's no such thing as cold fire.

[farrisjs]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The whole thing disturbs me because it comes over not just as an atrocity, but as a tragic drama, with dramatic and artistic attraction. The idea that these pipsqueaks who call themselves "truthers" can sully the memory of the victims in this way, makes me want to vomit.

Rolfe.

I couldn't agree more. The more I lurk here and at the LC forum the less I understand about the "Truthers" reasons. Why do the continue with thier rants? What are they trying to gain? The truth is important, utilizing the tools of science and critcal thinking is the best approach to finding the truth. The "Truther" just don't seem to get it.

[Bronze Dog]

They're content with truthiness.

[steve s]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Well, you can see that the building's on fire. And there's no such thing as cold fire.

You can also see that she's a floor below where the main fire is at. There may have been some fire on her floor, but clearly not the raging inferno that was going on above her.

Steve S.

[Segnosaur]

By the way, if anyone is interested in trying to debate 9/11 conspricy believers, by all means come to the www.canadawebpages.com forum (look in the politics forum... its the one threat that is up to around 45 pages.)

Unfortunately, there seems to be 3 'conspricy theorists', and I'm the only one that seems to be debunking them on a regular basis.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

By the way, if anyone is interested in trying to debate 9/11 conspricy believers, by all means come to the www.canadawebpages.com forum (look in the politics forum... its the one threat that is up to around 45 pages.)

Unfortunately, there seems to be 3 'conspricy theorists', and I'm the only one that seems to be debunking them on a regular basis.

I think I'll pass, I'm afraid to get French-bashed.

[XXX]

Over at good old LC forums...

"Nope they come up with the explanation for this...........they say the picture is so grainy you cannot see the 1st and 2nd degree burns all over them.........nope I am actually not kidding, this is the critical thinking that goes on at JREF (just most people call is denial)."

Uh...no. That's not "our explination". Let's look at the original quote please? "First, looking closely at the photo (wich is so grainy you can't make out basic features like eyes, nose and fingers) can you tell me wether or not she is covered in 1st or 2nd degree burns from being too close to a major fire?"

He is asking if you can make out if she does or doesn't have burns on here. Of course twising people's words around is just par for the course for these people (see "bombs in the building").

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Exactly my point. The photo of the woman in the hole proves the existence of a woman in a hole. It doesn't prove or disprove anything else.

I could have explained that to the loosers myself had they not banned me from thier forum for disrespecting the Reverend Fred "God Hates F_gs" Phelps.

But hey, now that we know the loosers are reading my posts and as long as were talking about people in close proximity to fire, why don't they give us thier explanation for this picture:

http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615383...l_Foundry.html

I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I see here a guy in a t-shirt standing in close proximity to a stream of molten steel at 2900 degrees.

Shows that you can stand pretty close to something pretty hot and still be standing just like the woman in the WTC, doesn't it?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

First, looking closely at the photo (wich is so grainy you can't make out basic features like eyes, nose and fingers) can you tell me wether or not she is covered in 1st or 2nd degree burns from being too close to a major fire?

Second, if there was no fire, what was this man trying to get away from that an assured death by massive blunt trauma was preferrable to what was inside the building?

http://vikingphoenix.com/photos/911-2003/wtcj-1.jpg

Yeah, and what is that red thing in each and every window a storey or two above him? And why is the paint (or whatever is on the surface) discoloured and peeling off the outside plates? Could it be fire and heat?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

*quote*
The whole thing disturbs me because it comes over not just as an atrocity, but as a tragic drama, with dramatic and artistic attraction. The idea that these pipsqueaks who call themselves "truthers" can sully the memory of the victims in this way, makes me want to vomit.

Rolfe.

Amen to that!

It's all the more pathetical because it is sooo idiotic. They are heaping up ad hoc nonsense to try to support their basic nonsense. Uncounted millions of people watched worldwide as the planes crashed into the buildings, exploding into huge fireballs, and the buildings subsequently burned furiously, creating huge columns of black smoke that partly obscured the part of the buildings above the impact points. How can anybody, even for a moment, doubt that huge fires were raging up there? Where were the flames and smoke coming from?

As for standing near a fire: In all fire scenes, there is something called air corridoors. A fire needs huge amounts of fresh air, which it sucks in therough all available openings. I have seen a fire scene, where packets of stuff wrapped in brown paper lay unscathed one yard from molten glass. When in a fire, survival chances can be greatly enhanced if you can find an air corridoor; it will provide you with cool, breathable air, and it will lead to the outside. Unfortunately for the poor people in the WTC, they found the entry point of the fresh air to be hundreds of meters above the ground.

Another point: The pictures show people standing on the very edge of twisted wreckage, with an abyss below them, waving. Would you stand like that if there was any kind of safety behind you?

Hans

[WildCat]

Yes, they claim that there was only a small fire and hardly any damage, yet for some reason these people weren't able to walk down the stairs and many leaped to their deaths... mindless idiocy.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yes, they claim that there was only a small fire and hardly any damage, yet for some reason these people weren't able to walk down the stairs and many leaped to their deaths... mindless idiocy.

Small fire, small damage. So where did the fireballs the size of ordinary buildings come from? Who was smoking cigars to make those towering columns of smoke? What were the jagged holes extending most of the width of the buildings and over at least two storeys? If that's minor fire and damage, I'd sure hate to see major ones.

Hans

[60hzxtl]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Yeah, and what is that red thing in each and every window a storey or two above him? And why is the paint (or whatever is on the surface) discoloured and peeling off the outside plates? Could it be fire and heat?

Hans

That peeling stuff is aluminum.

What these CT'ers have no grasp of is the shear size of the WTC, and the complex itself, and how it was set in a plaza - not cheek and jowl as the rest of Manhattan is. THe fire looks small because the building was huge, and set away from anything else to give it scale.

They never saw the place when it was standing, never walked across that plaza, never looked up to try to figure out where their office was if they worked on the 74th floor.

But now they are experts.

[gfunkusarelius]

the only thing this picture proves, along with the original argument, is that people will throw away tons of evidence to support their theory. as many have pointed out, the overwhelming evidence that supports why someone would be visible in this photo is that there is something incredibly dangerous and impassible forcing them into suck a position.

you have to make so many concessions in logic to make an argument that it is evidence that the "fire wasnt hot enough to melt metal" that is proves that there is no sense arguing with someone who takes that satnce.

[Ducky]

Horrific nature of those pictures aside why did the fire have to "melt" metal?

IIRC the metal only needed to be weakened to give out and collapse.

[dubfan]

Originally Posted by fowlsound

Horrific nature of those pictures aside why did the fire have to "melt" metal?

It didn't. It's just another one of the hundreds of strawmen and non-sequiturs that keep popping up like Whack-a-Moles. NORAD stand-down, melting steel, no plane at the Pentagon, Flight 93 landing in Cleveland....it's endless.

[Pardalis]

These Cts just can't see the forest before the trees. They focus on one thing, the hair of that poor woman, as being a proof that the WTC didn't collapse. WHAT ABOUT THAT BIG FREAKIN' HOLE?!!!!

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

These Cts just can't see the forest before the trees. They focus on one thing, the hair of that poor woman, as being a proof that the WTC didn't collapse. WHAT ABOUT THAT BIG FREAKIN' HOLE?!!!!

You may notice that CT's love to show the woman, and crop her image as much as possible, then claim the fire was not that bad. They try to avoid the films of her, since they are not as cropped, and they show the fire blazing hot and heavy not too far from her position.

That and I have yet to see a CT'er who really understand how fire works. Seriously, they miss things that 3rd graders comprehend.

[Woody-]

CT'ers that use this argument must never of been around any kind of large fire. I'm just a "dumb" farmer but as part of my work I get to be around some fairly large fires. Every year I have to burn off stubble after I cut the wheat and/or I have to burn off old pasture grass to promote new growth. You quickly learn that there are a few safe places to be around a large fire. The safest is simply someplace where the fire has already burned and used up all the fuel. The next safest place would be upwind, fire can travel into a wind but its much slower and less intense.


The woman in question at the WTC appears to have both bases covered. She is standing in the hole made by the initial impact, the fuel for any fire has long since been used up at that location. The wind is also blowing toward that side of the building so any remaining fire and heat would be blown back into the structure. Since the stairways were blocked I would say that she is in perhaps the safest place she could be(at least from the fire/heat).

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Woody-

CT'ers that use this argument must never of been around any kind of large fire. I'm just a "dumb" farmer but as part of my work I get to be around some fairly large fires. Every year I have to burn off stubble after I cut the wheat and/or I have to burn off old pasture grass to promote new growth. You quickly learn that there are a few safe places to be around a large fire. The safest is simply someplace where the fire has already burned and used up all the fuel. The next safest place would be upwind, fire can travel into a wind but its much slower and less intense.


The woman in question at the WTC appears to have both bases covered. She is standing in the hole made by the initial impact, the fuel for any fire has long since been used up at that location. The wind is also blowing toward that side of the building so any remaining fire and heat would be blown back into the structure. Since the stairways were blocked I would say that she is in perhaps the safest place she could be(at least from the fire/heat).

Welcome to the forum, Woody! Excellent post.

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by Woody-

CT'ers that use this argument must never of been around any kind of large fire. I'm just a "dumb" farmer but as part of my work I get to be around some fairly large fires. Every year I have to burn off stubble after I cut the wheat and/or I have to burn off old pasture grass to promote new growth. You quickly learn that there are a few safe places to be around a large fire. The safest is simply someplace where the fire has already burned and used up all the fuel. The next safest place would be upwind, fire can travel into a wind but its much slower and less intense.


The woman in question at the WTC appears to have both bases covered. She is standing in the hole made by the initial impact, the fuel for any fire has long since been used up at that location. The wind is also blowing toward that side of the building so any remaining fire and heat would be blown back into the structure. Since the stairways were blocked I would say that she is in perhaps the safest place she could be(at least from the fire/heat).

I question whether they have been on the outside of a tall building in New York City. Very high winds, especially down on the battery.

Don't let the end of King Kong fool you.