It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Out of Place Cloud before towers fell

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by jprophet420

That looks like five or six stories of smoke to me. The photograph in the original post seemed to be quite a bit larger and looks more like dust than smoke.

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by jprophet420
i posted evidence to support the OPs claim.

Just show me the huge dust cloud and WTC2 standing in the same image. Surely you can at least do that for such a massive and hard-to-miss dust cloud rolling through Manhattan before either tower had fallen.

The "evidence" you posted is something at least I already knew: there was smoke rising from the basements of the towers and WTC3. That's something completely different than what's in the OP's image. It's on a completely different side of the towers, and it's orders of magnitude less smoke.

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by billybob
[unsupported heresay]well, torlough, your brother in law may have been close, but my cousin twice removed told me his mother's sister's cousin's kid actually planted the bombs and set up the radio beacon that the plane's autopilot locked onto for precise targeting.[/unsupported heresay]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by billybob]

Cute, nice disinformation, face it I am getting my facts from what I saw that day and what I witnesses told me.

The crap here is armchair quarter backing, by people only seeing it on the news, and then overanalizing the photos and U-Tube videos.

I am relating what I saw with my own eyes and what I know from close relations.

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 07:01 PM

The crap here is armchair quarter backing,

this is becoming standard procedure.
Someone makes claim.
evidence is posted completely contradictory to claim.
evidence is ignored.
claim is made again.

like i said, if multiple people witness an event, and some people present do not witness the event, that does not mean the event did not happen.

I find it perfectly acceptable for you to come here and tell your eyewitness accounts or eyewitness accounts given to you by others. However, to say that your word is law is utter poppycock.

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Torlough
Cute, nice disinformation, face it I am getting my facts from what I saw that day and what I witnesses told me.

you're wrong. you didn't see anything, and none of your imaginary friends did either.
because you are not a 'you', but merely words on my screen.

unlike my CAR!! insurance rates(in canada) that went up as a result of the loss the insurance companies suffered on BUILDINGS!!(in america).
unlike my half brother who is in a real wheelchair, because he took a real bullet (in the throat and spine) from an afghani, trying to get "revenge" for 9/11 in afghanistan.
unlike my scientifically trained mind, which finds that gravity is not sufficient to do all the work done during the collapses.

funny how EVERY SINGLE LIVE radio and television broadcast mentioned secondary explosions(and other explosions... a whole lot of explosions were reported) which brought the towers down, yet none of your imaginary friends could hear them.

p.s. i'm sure you have real friends, and you and they may have seen it all yourself, but that doesn't change MY stance which is not based on "armchair" evidence, but rather, real research.
you have proven nothing. you have only appealed to authority(your own) and emotion. two classic "disinfo" tools.

prove to me that you and your friends can hear everything that happens within a one mile radius. prove to me that your mind does not rationalize sensation after the fact, to compensate for what your mind believes 'should' have happened. it is predictable for witnesses of extraordinary events to remember what they saw and heard the way they expect what they saw and heard should look like and sound.

i must rely on the "weak" evidence of measurable photographs and videos, and the 'unreliable' testimony of people who are saying what they saw and heard while they were seeing and hearing it.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in