And that proves what exactly? It's debris from the building.

Found this on the "unofficial, double TOP SECRET" website

I don't appreciate what the last two posters have contributed in their last two posts, it is nothing more than childish, it has nothing to do with the subject in this thread. Could a Moderator moderate them please.

What did you find childish in my post? I haven't edited any of the pictures other than resizing them. One would be forgiven for thinking you don't like these rarely seen images being shown.

What was childish about the last two posters?

Agent Smith posted some photos to give us more insight.


The only reason why you would be offended by HRs post is if you indeed are the new incarnation of Merc.

Is this from that crazy photo analysis site?

While the still looks like a peice of an airplane, as it crumbles in the other pics it is clearly debris.

Interesting that he thinks the picture in which it's partly obscured by a whisp of smoke and in darkness is genuine evidence yet the other, clearer pictures without the obstruction and with more light that show it to be part of the building are fake..

So because AgentSmith's pictures prove that it's not part of a UAV and goes against what you believe it's a childish post?

Provide the source of your photo Agent Smith.
Was Merc from Scotland? I am.
I was not around when Merc was here, it sounds like he annoyed you a little. Sorry if i annoy you also. I quite believe Merc probally left after he said what he came to say, just as i will when i get around to asking it.
What is more important to me at the moment is pointing at a few things that have not been touched on at all yet.
This evidence of wreckage i show in this post only came to light as i studied closely an image for a matter unrelated to wreckage, the substance of that study will show the building was rigged to fall.

Anyway back to this thread, I.D this.

You provide an grainy image with no source (yet) that does look like normal building materials in the collapse from afar. Magnified we see a big blur, how do we tell if this is fake or not?

The image i provide has a high quality image with a source people say is genuine. It does not look like a piece of building wreckage.

Excuse me? How are those NOT high quality pictures??? Are you legally blind and took your glasses off or something?

Topical Ointment

The topic of the thread is "I.D. This", not "Which former ATSer do I remind you of?"

I'm sure AgentSmith can provide a pedigree for the photos he provided.

Not everyone has 20/20 vision.

Let's relax, be nice to each other and discuss the topic.

Distrust, But Verify

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Is that OK?

Sure, if you want to believe The Government.

Of course, the original photo was also apparently provided by The Government, so um...