It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 22
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
No investigation is evidence in itself.

False flag terrorism is not going to get investigated.
Ship off the tower steel, destroy the evidence.

Imagine having to destroy 99.9 % of the steel to hide the crime.

NIST now claims that most of the samples marked for investigation were accidentally scrapped so they're down to a handful.

Even then the metal test showed evidence of evaporation and explosives residue but NIST executive summary avoids mentioning it just like the 9/11 commission report avoids mentioning WTC7.

What the hell were they thinking demolishing three towers in front of TV cameras???

These guys must be criminally insane to think that at some point in the future the televised footage isn't going to come back and hang them.

The brainwashing is wearing off folks and those towers are starting to look like fountains of debris not crumbling chunks like in an earthquake.

Look at Kobe Japan, did you see and dust clouds floating around for an hour?

No way, but you sure did when they blew the dome in Seattle.




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
What A Real Skeptic Believes


Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
it's so ironic to me that people who fight the 9/11 truth movement call themselves "skeptics" when he swallow the official story hook line and sinker despite all of the glaring contradictions and anomalies.

I call myself a skeptic, and I'm skeptical of the overwhelming majority of "alternative explanations" for what happened on 9-11.

I'm also skeptical of the "official story", which leaves some rather important questions unanswered and seems to hand-wave away many other important questions.

This whole 9-11 business stinks from hell to high heaven.

Somebody's lying.


I'm also skeptical of the approach of seeking to bolster one's claims by taking potshots at those who may disagree with them. Doing so does not give credit to such claims.

A much better course is to adopt true skepticism which, at its foundation, is nothing more than accepting the very strong possibility that we're all wrong to some degree or another.

Once we get past that, maybe we have a chance of finding out the truth -- despite the strenuous attempts on the part of so many to hide it.

While we need not agree on everything, if we can agree to share what we know in a reasonable and civil manner, the rewards may well prove worth the effort.

It's worth a try, anyway.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Oh wow
how touching, do I get to be in the next video as well


Allow me to recap:


Unedited frames direct from video


OVerlay of frames from early and later in the collapse

As I said before, the debris furthest out is from higher up, obviously due to the varying force at which it will hjave been thrown out and also the density of the various pieces, they will not all be ejected the same distance, so no prizes for stating that some of it fell close to the tower..

And how about that for doublethink:


911eyewitness intentionally does not try to identify the origin of the projectile..
[....]
It only confirms that the arc of the debris was non-horizontal.


Emm, so how can you tell the trajectory of an object without having a reference point to start from or work your way back too?

*silence*

As the image at the top of my post shows, a direct screenshot from the DVD, he does try and identify the origin of the projectile, how else would you show it's trajectory? Where does it show it goes 'up and out'?
Can you explain the apparant theory that the building collapsing would not cause it to suck the debris down behind it causing the arc? That's what you are implying.

Watching the video, as I have said, you can see that the vacuum caused by the collapsing building pulls the rear end of the debris trail down in with it causing the arc effect.
Our dear friend seems to keep trying to imply that the debris is thrown up and out when it obviously is not when watching the video. Looking at the still photograph is not so obvious as we forget to take into account the rear end of the debris trail being dragged down with the building.

And you wasted all that time with that beautiful presentation..

I also find it curious how your dear friend who actually admitted he has no knowledge or understanding on physics can make such certain conclusive statements.

His cheap parlour psycology tricks in the writing and presentation style may work on the vulnerably minded people it's targeting, but overall it's pretty pathetic..


[edit on 6-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
So, it appears that being unable to hold their own in a moderated forum, certain people have taken to sniping at members of this forum from the outside.

It’s a childish, and loser tactic if you ask me.

What is the point of this, Narc?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
You forgot to post his other one too by the way:



I especially like the way my strawman comment was underlined like it's 'big evidence', the more astute of our viewers can probably tell what is my rather dry, sarcastic sense of humour when they see it. However such highlighting is an excellent example of what I've said before that some people think that the clues will be handed out on a plate to them like a movie. I expect you think Miss Marple or Poirot is going to step out and reveal all?


I see his also drawn some lovely boobies on one of the pictures of the collapse..


'Pro-Disinfo'!! LOL - I love it - thanks


Still you extremists will only see what you want so touche, I can't be bothered anymore, I have more important things to do like wash my hair and massage my ego. Keep having fun hiding from the Gubmint and all that as you are so dangerous to them with your 'free (from) thinking ideas'! LOL

EDIT:

I just wanted to add, glancing over this quality work once again - I think you should send a resume to the Fox Network, that's assuming you havn't done work for them before..


[edit on 6-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh wow
how touching, do I get to be in the next video as well


His cheap parlour psycology tricks in the writing and presentation style may work on the vulnerably minded people it's targeting, but overall it's pretty pathetic..


[edit on 6-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



Oh is this supposed to be about you???

Well that's predictable.

Look, I'm not even going to spend my time on you.

You have already demonstrated that you're not a worthy adversary.

There are very few on here I can even take seriously.

I simply did it as a favor for a friend.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I especially like the way my strawman comment was underlined like it's 'big evidence', the more astute of our viewers can probably tell what is my rather dry, sarcastic sense of humour when they see it.


Sure, but since when does a sense of humor make one's "viewers" feel ill to the stomach? There's so much snide oozing off of your posts, reading them makes me feel as though I've eaten a lot of rotten fudge, regardless of whatever it is you're saying. It's as if you're always p.o.'d or something. Might you be a pessimist, Smith? Just wondering.


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh wow
how touching, do I get to be in the next video as well

...
Emm, so how can you tell the trajectory of an object without having a reference point to start from or work your way back too?

*silence*
...
And you wasted all that time with that beautiful presentation..
...
His cheap parlour psycology [sic] tricks in the writing and presentation style may work on the vulnerably minded people it's targeting, but overall it's pretty pathetic..


Less than 450 characters there, out of the 1906 total (exlcudes quotes, and quote tags, and image tags). That's a little less than a quarter hate content in that post alone.


Edited to take out one of the comments, 'cause it wasn't really hateful enough to be counted.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
What A Real Skeptic Believes


Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
it's so ironic to me that people who fight the 9/11 truth movement call themselves "skeptics" when he swallow the official story hook line and sinker despite all of the glaring contradictions and anomalies.

I call myself a skeptic, and I'm skeptical of the overwhelming majority of "alternative explanations" for what happened on 9-11.

I'm also skeptical of the "official story", which leaves some rather important questions unanswered and seems to hand-wave away many other important questions.

This whole 9-11 business stinks from hell to high heaven.

Somebody's lying.


I'm also skeptical of the approach of seeking to bolster one's claims by taking potshots at those who may disagree with them. Doing so does not give credit to such claims.

A much better course is to adopt true skepticism which, at its foundation, is nothing more than accepting the very strong possibility that we're all wrong to some degree or another.

Once we get past that, maybe we have a chance of finding out the truth -- despite the strenuous attempts on the part of so many to hide it.

While we need not agree on everything, if we can agree to share what we know in a reasonable and civil manner, the rewards may well prove worth the effort.

It's worth a try, anyway.


You make excellent points and I agree with them all.

But in the context of 9/11, the worst attack on American soil that has been the pretext for a permanent global war that has already led to the deaths of 10's of thousands of innocent people..........well let's just say that it is not your typical reference frame for normal debate/discussion.

It is particularly unique because this time it is the "skeptics" that are asserting the radical conspiracy theory of osama bin laden and 19 hijackers.

The truth movement has not officially asserted a complete alternative conspiracy theory. The one common demominator of those in the truth movement is that we believe the official story is a lie. Now that is nothing but skepticism. Yet we are quickly labled "conspiracy theorists" and dismissed.

The burden of proof of OBL & 19 hijackers is on them and we assert that have not come even close to meeting that burden. In fact there are mountains of contradicting claims and holes in the scant amount of evidence that they have presented and even more than that deliberately left out.



Bottom line; if the world made sense......as you said......a true skeptic would have to be skeptical of the official story.......and once this is acknowledged.....you are part of the truth movement like it or not.

But as reality stands....there are only two camps in this debate......99% of the population that believes in at least the basics of the official conspiracy theory.....and the few warriors that dare question it by risking being ridiculed, ostracized, and perhaps even being surveyed.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
99% may be an exaggeration:




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I sure hope it is an exaggeration but I don't think so.

A general "cover-up" of negligence is accepted by most and was the entire white-wash mission of the 9/11 commission.

This poll merely shows that they succeeded.

The results would completely flip if it was worded:

"Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job and was not perpetrated by osama bin laden and 19 al quada hijackers?"



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Unedited frames direct from video


I just got that DVD the other day. Thanks to that man!

Your Unedited frames direct from video seem to be from some other video. The DVD I have is shot from NJ and not NYC as yours is clearly.

My question then is if you are being deceptive or duped? Did you know that is not original material or were you fooled?


Also, your sequence above is reversed. The lowest frame being the first, as the building goes down the debris goes up. The top of your video is cut off so as not to show the effect, but the enlargement of the cloud as one views your "evidence" starting from the bottom going up, it is plain to see. It is quite clear in the DVD and I highly recommend getting it.


Perhaps if you wish to really be efficient in your research you would use the proper materials or not mislead people? I assume that when you said Unedited frames direct from video you did not refer to the 911Eyewitness video, but one you fabricated or altered to your argument here, therefore you were misleading as this thread is about that 911Eyewitness video. Providing frames from "only you know where" and making it "seem" to be evidence on that DVD is provocative at best.

Mr. Smith, you do need to do better work.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by MERC
...how credible do you think the information is about FEMA turning up for a disaster on September 10th?


One of the great things about this video is that it doesn't try to "hard sell" you any ideas, if you know what I mean. The information, for the most part, is presented as is and left for you to make your own conclusions. The footage is played unedited and raw first before going back again and pointing things out. A recording of CBS news with Dan Rather interviewing a FEMA official on Sept 12 is played:

Rather: "Tom Kennedy...Kennedy a rescue worker with the National Urban Search & Rescue which is part of FEMA."

Kennedy: "We're currently...uh...one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today [Wed Sept 12] did we get full opportunity to work the entire site."


Google for "FEMA + Tripod II" for more info on FEMA arriving on Sept 10th for a disaster scenario drill of planes crashing into the WTC towers. Next morning, whaddyaknow...


Someone else may have pointed this out later in the thread, which I have not completely digested yet, but Rupert seems to fairly debunk this apparent mis-statement by Kenney.

www.fromthewilderness.com...

That said, clearly the buildings were demolished with explosives. The govt's lack of interest in that reality is the best evidence of their complicity. How frustrating that they're getting away with it!



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
My question then is if you are being deceptive or duped? Did you know that is not original material or were you fooled?


Those screenshots are from the video that was linked at the beginning of the topic that everyone has been basing their comments on? Maybe you have a different video?



Also, your sequence above is reversed. The lowest frame being the first, as the building goes down the debris goes up. The top of your video is cut off so as not to show the effect, but the enlargement of the cloud as one views your "evidence" starting from the bottom going up, it is plain to see. It is quite clear in the DVD and I highly recommend getting it.


Wow a detective is in the house! Well done Sherlock, and your point is? The video plays it both forwards and in reverse at certain points, so what? It's purely for making the point, same reason I guess they do it in the video, do you want me to put them in reverse order to keep you happy? It really doesn't change the point being made..



Perhaps if you wish to really be efficient in your research you would use
the proper materials or not mislead people? I assume that when you said Unedited frames direct from video you did not refer to the 911Eyewitness video, but one you fabricated or altered to your argument here, therefore you were misleading as this thread is about that 911Eyewitness video. Providing frames from "only you know where" and making it "seem" to be evidence on that DVD is provocative at best.

Mr. Smith, you do need to do better work.



As I said, I am referring to the video that was linked at the beginning of the post, are you some sort of shill for the 911Eyewitness people to try and get people to buy the DVD? I've seen that in operation on other sites.
No-one else here has questioned that the frames came from the video, in fact if you go onto Rick Siegels' site he himself has a (rather lame) rebuttel to my post and uses screenshots of my posts here on ATS, inclduing those frames. Funnily enough he doesn't say at any point that they are not from his video..
When he was on this site (before his posts were removed) he never said they weren't from his video. Everyone else here, including those who argue my point, all accept they are from the same video they watched as I did.
It looks like you're the one with the phoney evidence, next time you try and bluff some sort of argument to try and make it look like I'm deceiving people, at least do some research first, like read the posts before.

Perhaps you should get your eyes tested, way to go trying to defend your team and you practically scored an own goal. I say practically because you didn't even manage to do that, you missed.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by ChapaevII
My question then is if you are being deceptive or duped? Did you know that is not original material or were you fooled?


Those screenshots are from the video that was linked at the beginning of the topic that everyone has been basing their comments on? Maybe you have a different video?


I have the DVD. I was not fooled by your video. I got the real one.


Were you duped, or deceptive? You are using materials that have nothing to do with this DVD, anything I can find on their site, nothing. Nada. Where do you make these things up from Mr Smitt?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Well the guy who filmed it seems to believe they come from his video, so I guess we'll just have to go with that?

Otherwise, you may like to explain why Rick failed to mention this crucial point when rebutting my argument both on his site, and as posted here by Narc.

You may also like to explain how over the last 21 pages the other members who watched it seem to be happy to accept they are from the video.

Even Mister_NArc who hates me and is a friend of Rick (the guy who filmed it) hasn't even stooped to the level you are.. So well done, Mister_Narc and co have now gone up in my book at your expense. You just defined a new low


[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

As I said, I am referring to the video that was linked at the beginning of the post,

go onto Rick Siegels' site

he never said they weren't from his video.

Everyone else here, including those who argue my point, all accept they are from the same video they watched as I did
.


I just went to the 911eyewitness site and registered so I could PM him. He said he was globally banned and never saw them. "The posts on the 911eyewitness site is from the researchers on the team to debunk ATS material including Agent Smith, not to authenticate it as our material."

So, if as you say Everyone else here, including those who argue my point, all accept they are from the same video they watched as I did perhaps you need to get your material checked. Cause you are passing bogus information and material. Why did you post that link then?


I know there are others here on this forum that have the DVD, take it out and look. Go look at the

www.911eyewitness.com...

You can clearly see this is an entirely other angle and you have been pushing your agenda and evidence with bogus files.

Were you duped or are you supplying false video on purpose?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

You may also like to explain how over the last 21 pages the other members who watched it seem to be happy to accept they are from the video.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]


Perhaps you were "brow beating" them into your interpretation?


I don't know why you use bogus frames and set it all up when the real stuff is there? Were you duped or are you duping?


I read over pages, and the people who said they had the DVD were all very impressed. I ordered it and was also. I see you and a couple others, who hammered this thing out, but I was not here at that time, and I just got the DVD. I had no reference material.

I see you put frames up I cant see on that DVD. So???? How did a Hoboken NJ video end up with your NYC frames? Simple question.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Maybe you should go back to page 1 of this thread, I used the same video everyone else did and all the conspiracy believers don't deny that it was from the same video - why do you think no-one is rushing in to back you up?

Why does he not deny it in his analysis of my post?






From his site, check the link. You would have thought his first argument would have been 'They are not frames from my film' wouldn't you? But I guess if you assume everyone else has the same common sense as you then you can find that acceptable. He talks about them as if they are from his film...

An extract from his forum:


Originall posted by ricksiegel
ATS, being one of the largest conspiracy sites on the internet, is naturally home to a nest of debunker agents. Some like "Agent Smith" proudly announce their status and set about looking for anything that can be misrepresented or misconstrued to confuse, obfuscate and distract from the incriminating evidence in plane view.

Carefully avoiding all other aspects of the scientific analysis that proved bullet-proof, and ignoring the narrative that directs viewer attention to the non-horizontal nature of the projectile ARC, the disinfo agent claims to have debunked the entire program with the use of two carefully chosen screen capture frames.

He claims that when overlaid, these two frames explain, beyond a doubt, how the very top debris collapsed outward 600 feet. He states that the documentary has falsely determined the origin of the Winter Garden debris. This is necessary to distract the viewer from the non-horizontal debris ARC that verifies upward movement during a downward collapse, which can only be explained by the use of explosives.
www.911eyewitness.com...


Note the analysis of the 'explosive puff' in the combined frames (as clearly shown).

Note the statement "ignoring the narrative that directs viewer attention to the non-horizontal nature of the projectile ARC", yes... I said at the beginning the droning, hypnotic narrative and the techniques used to put ideas into people's heads was odd and designed to influence..

Thanks for confirming it sir..

You really should stop digging, you won't be able to get out soon and I'm not tossing you a rope.

If that's what he replied to you then it just proves he lies even more, like me 'proudly announcing' I am a disinfo agent
Bit difficult when

1) I'm not
2) I rather angrily deny it due to this

I think it's pretty obvious you are a sales shill..

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
the disinfo agent claims to have debunked the entire program with the use of two carefully chosen screen capture frames. "

Again, no mention is made of whose screen captures other than YOURS that they were debunking.


Did you see the spirefinish file? Do you want to tell me that is the same video shoot?


For being 2 miles away that is pretty extreme angle differential.


I cant use that file you offered, it does not download to my computer and play



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join