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.

 

Netvocates: Our debunkers revealed

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta



So, you're going to tell me that video cameras of the sheridan hotel, a gas station, highway and pentagon surveillance all 'malfunctioned' except ONE ? which showed 5 frames dated sept 12th


There was none at the Sheridan.

You're the only one whos mentioning "malfunction".
The other videos will most likely be released. Why you think a gas station camera whos focus is aimed at the areas of a vehicles plate number will show what was going on at the pentagon is hard to grasp.

I think you're misrepresenting the video that WAS released by stating---5 frames-- like others were cut out.
No--- 5 frames is ALL the video that showed anything. At 2-5 frames a sec. any other video would simply show the pentagon sitting there--or a continuation of the explosion. The controversy was any footage that would show the object coming into the video frame and striking the pentagon.---5 frames is all there was.

I've seen captures of the video and sorry, if you can't make out a plane more than a missile you better get your eyes checked.



Pile of evidence = this entire forum, should i repeat it all now?


Thats not necessary--but it is a clever way of avoiding the point--how about just repeating ONE BIT of evidence for starters?


Such a typical exchange. The entire forum is filled with conclusive evidence.

The image I posted above is such evidence that eliminates/prempts any evidence in existence supporting the official story. The experts are too afraid to confirm it, but any American aho has watched televisio nhas seen quite a few detonations of high explosive under varying conditions. Some have seen news stories where structures have collapsed, they know the difference.

PEOPLE KNOW.

This is issue of fear. people have been so afraid they are now no longer focused on a fear of government, men in black and that sort of thing. Or even the earlier, "I love my Country but I Fear My Government" does not apply. People are afraid of their family, their friends, the community in general, and what they think.

vastas points are made as nails in the lid to that coffin of silence. Hollow pounding of a keyboard causing the faint of heart sitting by the TV to flinch as they vow to never utter another word of doubt about 9-11. Just wanting things to return as they were for those sleepy years we call, "back then".

The truth movement has massive evidence. It is conclusive and has been since the public shock subsided and it began to look at the evidence, after they saw media, academa and the rest of the capable entities fail to take a stand.

I get a sense of anger from those in denial. Something like. "You would impede our quest to destroy the Muslim world? to take all that we want from that place where they are? To doubt the power that made the dream "back then" we live that helped us to forget all that we need or how to get it? I see people taking it personal.

I see that they invested, and couldn't divest when it was appropriate. Now they are like angry junkies, "NO, I am not giving up my lie." As it still sustains a fragment of the dream they refer to for their existence, or self perception of it, so they cannot relinquish it of their own accord.


[edit on 25-6-2006 by Christophera]




posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   


This is issue of fear. people have been so afraid they are now no longer focused on a fear of government, men in black and that sort of thing. Or even the earlier, "I love my Country but I Fear My Government" does not apply. People are afraid of their family, their friends, the community in general, and what they think.


Sorry to pop your black balloon--but I'm not afraid of any of those things.
I think you're paranoid and transfering it to people at large.--



I get a sense of anger from those in denial.


--AND you're angry about it.



"NO, I am not giving up my lie." As it still sustains a fragment of the dream they refer to for their existence, or self perception of it, so they cannot relinquish it of their own accord.


You know yourself well---now admitting it is the first step to healing.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Nothing Personal

The topic is Netvocates, not each other.

Personal attacks are prohibited by the T&C (Item 2), and they are off-topic.

Let's please stay on topic and avoid the personal commentary.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Nothing Personal

The topic is Netvocates, not each other.

Personal attacks are prohibited by the T&C (Item 2), and they are off-topic.

Let's please stay on topic and avoid the personal commentary.


Good point. Thanks. I wondered if my post would be taken in the right vein so I added the winking smilie at the end. Sorry for the confusion or any offense taken.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Good points Vushta. I agree with your thinking. I guess, how can anyone be sure of anything anymore with this whole thrust by this administration to infilitrate everything. Even you have to concede that it's already been talked about, operated and continues to be done by this administration to infiltrate web sites, threads, blogs and everything else on the net. Who do you trust? Because "they" might be on your side and also my side. I might be paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid than complacent.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


How about the government trying to figure out how the buildings fell just for future engineers to know what not to do?

Short of designing buildings that magically have giant jet-liners pass through them, its not likely to happen.


Why is it not likely to happen? It's already happened and as a civil engineer myself, I'd like to design my buildings against something like this happening again. Why is that wrong? As a civil engineer, I can't take the NIST report and find out how to design my buildings to be secure against something like this.

Obviously money is no problem, as we have paid more for dummer security measures, so why not building security? Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta



This is issue of fear. people have been so afraid they are now no longer focused on a fear of government, men in black and that sort of thing. Or even the earlier, "I love my Country but I Fear My Government" does not apply. People are afraid of their family, their friends, the community in general, and what they think.


Sorry to pop your black balloon--but I'm not afraid of any of those things.
I think you're paranoid and transfering it to people at large.--



I get a sense of anger from those in denial.


--AND you're angry about it.



"NO, I am not giving up my lie." As it still sustains a fragment of the dream they refer to for their existence, or self perception of it, so they cannot relinquish it of their own accord.


You know yourself well---now admitting it is the first step to healing.


You have purposely removed the context of the statement.

I have returned the context to what I said. Deception will be exposed and work against you. What I said supposes their innocent ignorance, your deception has cost you that.


Originally posted by Christophera
I get a sense of anger from those in denial. Something like. "You would impede our quest to destroy the Muslim world? to take all that we want from that place where they are? To doubt the power that made the dream "back then" we live that helped us to forget all that we need or how to get it? I see people taking it personal.

I see that they invested, and couldn't divest when it was appropriate. Now they are like angry junkies, "NO, I am not giving up my lie." As it still sustains a fragment of the dream they refer to for their existence, or self perception of it, so they cannot relinquish it of their own accord.


The disinfo agents deployed are incapable of making any sense. In reality they are forbidden to do such, or at least in any comprehensive way. They will only apply skills of observation and reason to something like analysing freefall, or what temperature steel melts at, or aluminum. Some are dedicated to keeping a focus on inconsequential factors such as whether or not cell phones work in jets or who had a passport or did the air terminal cameras see them or what did the pentagon parking lot cameras see, or what video was just pried from the FBI for us to see and what did it show?

Can we actually believe they would release anything of consequence??? None of those things are going to matter, to shift the trend away from fearful apathetic interaction empowering the infiltrators of our government. We can however, within this defined strategy of those set against us as we try to use our rights and skill of communication, be sure that anything of consequence will be visciousy attacked.

Nothing that exists in the popular discussion is of any real consequence and, it is totally confused, incapable of sifting out what IS of consequence becasue of the constant interference by people who have no evidence, profess only a belief that our evidence is no good, essentially rejecting and dismissing all evidence that threatens to create a reasonable explanation of events.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Good points Vushta. I agree with your thinking.


That's nice, if anyone who tries to punch holes into the official line and doesn't come up with an encyclopedia of links and pics and full analysis from three different sources, they're basically shot and 'debunked'.

when someone simply denies the existance of surveillance cameras in a good position by a cryptic 'This is a known fallacy' then everyone is supposed to regurgitate four and a half years of collective research on demand, so he can get a warning for posting OT.

just for the record, there was nothing invisible about the complete disintegration of three buildings in a row, although #7's collapse probably wasn't watched live by many because it was already late. why does the term 'explosions' attract many derogatory responses? with nothing to behind them, of course. people don't like to ask questions because they're afraid they won't like the answers, that's all.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I actually posted that in response to something Vushta said on the first page but forgot to quote Vushta. That was before I realized there was 4 pages on here. My bad...I certainly didn't mean that I agree with Vushta in total. Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   


If they had done the investigation properly we would have the evidence we need!


Thanks to Steven Jones we may just have that evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I actually posted that in response to something Vushta said on the first page but forgot to quote Vushta. That was before I realized there was 4 pages on here. My bad...I certainly didn't mean that I agree with Vushta in total. Sorry for the confusion.



k, my apologies, your post magically ended up under one of his, so it seemed only logical...but then again, not, when going by content...



========

back on topic.

It's quite humorous, you're RIGHT wrt the sheridan hotel
it's called te Sheraton hotel and it did indeed have a surveillance cam, according to many sources, such as this one, so i think my point will be salvageable



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   


It's quite humorous, you're RIGHT wrt the sheridan hotel
it's called te Sheraton hotel and it did indeed have a surveillance cam, according to many sources, such as this one, so i think my point will be salvageable



I think your point in general is salvageable, but the Sheraton vid has been excluded as having POSSIBLE frames that MIGHT show something. The ongoing FOIA by Judicial Watch excludes it for those reasons.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   


That's nice, if anyone who tries to punch holes into the official line and doesn't come up with an encyclopedia of links and pics and full analysis from three different sources, they're basically shot and 'debunked'.


No ones asked for "an encyclopedia of links or pics". No ones asked for " a full analysis from 3 different sources". People have asked for ONE bit..anything that could reasonably be construded as evidence by a rational person. Nothing has been provided. Zero.--except for things like."I looked at this picture--and have concluded THIS. There you have --proof positive". Nice red herring tho, with that "encyclopedia" rap.




when someone simply denies the existance of surveillance cameras in a good position by a cryptic 'This is a known fallacy'


You're mistaken.
I simply stated the fact that the Sheraton is off the list.
The "known fallacy" comment was in regards to the statement that all the evidence was disposed of before a proper investigation.




just for the record, there was nothing invisible about the complete disintegration of three buildings in a row, although #7's collapse probably wasn't watched live by many because it was already late. why does the term 'explosions' attract many derogatory responses?


Thats correct--there was nothing invisible about the collapses..no one implied there was. However there were no visible explosions---making them understandably
invisible" because they didn't exist.
"Complete disintegration"?? What do you mean?



why does the term 'explosions' attract many derogatory responses? with nothing to behind them, of course. people don't like to ask questions because they're afraid they won't like the answers, that's all.


Why?? because there is no evidence of explosions on ANY videos or pictures of the collapses. PEOPLE KNOW.

The people who don't like questions because they don't like the answers are the CTs. This is evidenced by the repeated comments by various people that one of the most distintive traits of CTs is to avoid questions and deflect or distract or change the subject or be vague and non-committal when asked one.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I really should repeat this.


Originally posted by ChristopheraThe disinfo agents deployed are incapable of making any sense. In reality they are forbidden to do such, or at least in any comprehensive way. They will only apply skills of observation and reason to something like analysing freefall, or what temperature steel melts at, or aluminum. Some are dedicated to keeping a focus on inconsequential factors such as whether or not cell phones work in jets or who had a passport or did the air terminal cameras see them or what did the pentagon parking lot cameras see, or what video was just pried from the FBI for us to see and what did it show?

Can we actually believe they would release anything of consequence??? None of those things are going to matter, to shift the trend away from fearful apathetic interaction empowering the infiltrators of our government. We can however, within this defined strategy of those set against us as we try to use our rights and skill of communication, be sure that anything of consequence will be visciousy attacked.

Nothing that exists in the popular discussion is of any real consequence and, it is totally confused, incapable of sifting out what IS of consequence because of the constant interference by people who have no evidence, profess only a belief that our evidence is no good, essentially rejecting and dismissing all evidence that threatens to create a reasonable explanation of events.


It is actually very important to understand what is information of consequence and what is not.

Does information of missing video tapes have any value. No, not if there is no authority that you can go to for complain and expect action. Meaning the video discussion is of no consequence, unless someone postin can produce the video.

A feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall is somethign of consequence only because no one has ever put one forth, except for this one.

algoxy.com...


[edit on 26-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   


Tell me this is caused by falling steel.


Something about that image you posted screams photoshopped.
Does anyone have that sort of Image from another angle?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
This, photoshopped?



That thing's been around for a while, ie at least as long as I've been interested in "alternate" 9/11 things, and I've never seen anyone object before. But nonetheless, here's a pic from another angle:



Notice the expulsions that the red arrow is pointing out. You can see those in first photo as well, if you look below the bulging-out part. The second image appears to have been taken just a split second before the image in question based on this feature that they share.

Both of them can be found on 9/11 Research's photo archive, which is Jim Hoffman's site.

Here's another, somewhat similar pic:



Maybe that helps? There are a good number of photos of both collapses showing insane amounts of spread, if that's what you thought was off.

I found this too while Google searching, and thought I'd share:



An expulsion is circled in red.



What I think is interesting, though, is that you can see many expulsions making up the immediate debris cloud:



Look back to the original photo to compare without all the red mess in the way. But I guess that's pretty off-topic. :-/



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
Does information of missing video tapes have any value. No, not if there is no authority that you can go to for complain and expect action. Meaning the video discussion is of no consequence, unless someone postin can produce the video.


establishing that intervention did occur does not equal a full blown proof ( like f-ex. finding one of the four planes on the bottom of the great lakes), but would still go a long way towards eroding the official version's credibility, wouldn't it? gotta use what you have, pics are preferrable, of course, but they're hidden in a sea of lies and fakes.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
What exactly looks like the collapse is the result of explosives? I think you are all trying to put out some misinformation here by not being at all clear about what it is you're claiming.
What exactly IS it you're claiming and where is the evidence.

This in part is what I mean.

On the one hand some say those pics show evidence of explosions. Sorry I don't see it. The column of smoke rising from the crashes and fuel burning continues to rise as it had--even and undisturbed over the "mushroom cloud" as some have put it, of the debris cloud. Things remain even and undisturbed. There are no random or uneven ejections or upward blast waves throwing some material with a far different pattern than the uniformity shown in the pics. This is simple one minor point but I'd like to explain why its important.
One school of thought states that only massive well placed explosions could have "pulverized" all that material. Another school of thought is that the building were rigged and the pics show signs of a controlled demo..evidenced by expulsive "squibs".

On the one hand it would seem reasonable to expect to see the "massive explosions"of that magnitude throwing material out in a much more chaotic and random manner.
Some say it MUST have been massive explosions to "pulverize" or "disintegrate" or even "vaporize" all that material--theres no other explaination for the amout of dust created.

There is no visual evidence of this in the pics.

On the other hand a conventional controlled demo, which some even reference others to vids of other controlled demos as comparative "proof" of the similarities, are the result of carefully failing a building by blowing out key structural members so the building falls in a predictable manner.

If this is the case, the resulting debris cloud would be a natural product of the failure and not "massive explosions" as controlled demos use the least amout of explosives needed for obvious reasons. In effect-- an artificially induced "pancaking" of the floors falling in and the physical effect of that in no way could be seen as an anomoly. CD advocates even claim that the floors were progressively blown out ahead of the collapse ("pancaking") allowing for "freefall" times.. Yet many of the controlled demo folks will still point to the dust cloud as evidence of----something?

So which is it folks? If its CD then the dust cloud has nothing to do with it and the only real disagreement between the CD people and the offical "pancake theory" people is one side claims it was artifically induced by explosives and the other side states it was a natural byproduct of physics. The only visual evidence to CD would be the manner in which it fell--straight down-- which it DIDN'T at all fall straight down into its footprint. But artifical or natural--they would look the same.

If its explosions massive enough to "pulverize" or "vaporize" the structures, wheres the visual evidence..let alone auditory evidence..of that degree of explosion? Which brings up another question..was there ONE massive explosion..or were there more? If only one--how would THAT work?--if there were many--wheres the visual and auditory evidence?

Do you guys realize that you don't even agree with yourselves?



[edit on 27-6-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Explosives can be used with sufficient precision for use in shaped charges compared to these, blowing a few floors out every second is child's play.

But that's not the point, is it? these buildings were turned into dust and steel beams, nothing in the official story can explain that fact, explosives are just the most reasonale explanation, because you don't have to venture into exotic weapons territory.

PS: your implicit claim


Originally posted by Vushta
What exactly looks like the collapse is the result of explosives?


doesn't make it so. it doesn't look like a mere collapse, ever seen those squibs? compressed air, right? no evidence, right? what about the temperature readings after 9/11? all irrelevant, i presume. the mechanism for turning two 500kton buildings into concrete powder? gravity. anyone using grinders must be a complete fool.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Christophera
Does information of missing video tapes have any value. No, not if there is no authority that you can go to for complain and expect action. Meaning the video discussion is of no consequence, unless someone postin can produce the video.


establishing that intervention did occur does not equal a full blown proof ( like f-ex. finding one of the four planes on the bottom of the great lakes), but would still go a long way towards eroding the official version's credibility, wouldn't it? gotta use what you have, pics are preferrable, of course, but they're hidden in a sea of lies and fakes.


I understand your point. What I meant was different tho. If we found planes at the bottom of a lake it presupposes having proof. Once an authority is informed they must do their job. In this case the authority took the tapes and to expect them to produce them is not realistic.

The issue of images is more secure, but subject to authority questioning our interpretation.

I have only seen one image faked for sure. An image of the tower lobby photoshopped to look wider than it actually was.

Here is a zoom showing the alterations.



It was posted here (full size). The grandma of all disinfo threads.

forum.physorg.com...




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join