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.

 

Please allow 911 truth .....PLEASE!!!!!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thank you BoneZ....... I'll watch. Always a benefit to get all the info a person can.

It seems possible I might be act as somewhat of a neutral between the two of you. As I said, I lean away from the NPT, so I can't claim impartiality, but I can claim and effort toward fairness.

A side note -- it's raining like hell here right now with distant T&L....... if I should happen to vanish............. it's just de weddah mon.
We loose power all the time.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I saw the rebuttal to the NINO presentation a coupla days ago. It seems well done and I thought it used a lot more science to refute the points.

Again, the biggest problem for me has always been the independent video. Yes, it's possible that all of the independent (non-network) videos were productions in themselves, albeit not very probable.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


I was just reading BoneZ's link -- truthaction.org. I swear to you I've never read it before, and the reason I'm saying so is they use very similar verbage as I did -- "begging the question". That was just my impression, I'm not a debunker or a plant, and aside from our secret level 7 commniques via encrypted Blackberry, I've never talked with BoneZ before.
kidding, I'm kidding

It's getting very wooly here weatherwise. I'm gonna do the smart thing and shut everything down before we get zapped. Surge protectors? You bet! half a million volts in a few nanoseconds on the power lines? = baaaad.

Will check back later after the deluge.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


My Blackberry PIN is ######. Glad you find the information I posted useful.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Cool. I think I watched it, before I really realized what it was all about, and went back to it a yearlater and realized it was mind-blowing how far advanced Simon was in regards to his insights and ideas.
Simon is a video editor, so when he watched the videos on tv on 911 he knew something was wrong. Then after careful investigation, he realized that ALL the videos shown to us on 911 are all CGI, animation. ADVANCED Animation, but nonetheless, completely animated CGI.

Now, I am the most serious skeptic around in most cases. I am such a doubter and distruster of anything I see and hear that I have to really be convinced and it takes a lot to convince me. I am completely convinced Simon is onto something BIGGER than most 911 truthers are willing to admit, and many are PAID to help cover up.

I will repost all the videos here and now, for everyone to scrutinize one by one.

For everyone interested, please watch them all, then come to your own conclusions. I do not proclaim to know the complete truth. I do know a few things about 911 that make me really question the planes.

1. The Hijackers passports were planted on the scene, and many hijackers were found alive and living in countries where they were completely unaware of their own alleged participation in the hijacking.
2. There are no plane parts anywhere to be found except for one that were planted on the scene afterwards, or at the time. None of the plane parts have been shown to be part of any plane that crashed that day.
3. None of the planes were on schedule to take off that day, in other words, there are no records of the flights or passenger lists.
4. The videos are ALL clearly fabricated, which leads me to believe the real videos, if any, were all confiscated by the FBI, or destroyed, most likely. For someone to have cuaght the second planes on video, they woul dnot only have to be in NY, near the scene, filming the damage, then also in position to see the second plane coming in. None of the angles match up, from where the videographers should have been if they were filming the building that day.
These are the main reason I feel that Simon should be more carefully listened to, and September Clues re-watched by all. Here are a bunch of relevant videos as well.

September Clues / (First Half) (41:45)
blip.tv...

September Clues / (Second Half) (49:59)
blip.tv...

911 Amateur (Part 1) (6:16)


(Part 2) (7:18)


(Part 3) (9:55)


911 Taboo (Part 1) (9:38)


(Part 2) (9:38)


(Part 3) (9:38)


(Part 4) (9:44)


John Lear - 911 Remote Controlled Planes & No Plane (9:18)


John Lear - Vanishing Planes & Holographs (3:41)


9/11 Witness: Jennifer Oberstein - No Plane (3:16)


Another 9/11 Witness - No Plane (:17)


9/11 Actor Gary Welz is Fake Eyewitness (8:54)


9-11 Fake Plane Eyewitness IDENTIFIED (10:40)


What If The 911 Plane Witnesses Were Really Only Actors? Part 1 (10:01)


What If The 911 Plane Witnesses Were Really Only Actors? Part 2 (7:22)


911stealth Four Witnesses of Explosions No "Planes" Inside WTC1 & WTC2 (3:14)


9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You (5:15)


Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews (3:27)


9/11 inside job Prof Jim Fetzer dumps on Hannity and Colmes (6:02)


911 No Plane TV Video Fakery? Killtown Shows How They Did It (7:21)


Killtowns FIREBALL (2:39)


How NOT to Fake Plane Crash Videos - TinaCart1 (9:31)


9/11 TV Fakery: Smoke & Mirrors (10:00)


Theory of Ghostplane (5:06)


What's in Naudet 1? (:27)


9/11 Live Airplane Composite Theory (2:00)


WTC-2 Missile Strike on 9/11 (1:45)


911 It was a rocket - it was &*&%$@* fast (2:30)


There.....Now people can discuss some interesting materials.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by videoworldwide]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'm watching your vids now Video. Now that I've notice what a colossal gob of them you have here, I've started taking notes.

Taboo #1 and 2 I am unable to watch due to "copywright restrictions in your country". Back in a while.

....... and thanks!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Great videos, videoworldwide!

Interesting thing in the vid titled "9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You (5:15)" in the beginning a guy is flat out stating there's no plane, only explosions, and the reporter just walks away from him as if he's nuts? He is telling the witness what he was supposed to have seen, but when the WITNESS says different the reporter quickly loses interest and walks away! Classic!

Guys, think about what this tiny fact is telling you! Why in the world would a reporter not be interested in a conflicting account? What's a reporter trying to manipulate a witnesses testimony for? Isn't this at least suspicious? I'd really like to hear what the believers make of all these unusual reporting methods seen only this day? Little things say a lot, but first you must listen!



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
More Animation Proofs

19 Rector Street


911 Fake 19 Rector Street


New York Battery Park Statue of Liberty Tour (Proof 19 Rector Street is STILL THERE)


Watch the rendering of the bridge in this CGI It was done so poorly, the bridge floats across the bay.


9/11 TV Fakery: A Bridge Too Near (Has anybody seen the BRIDGE?)


9/11: Moving bridge compilation (Yes, is this 911, I'd like to report a runaway bridge!)



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



I don't know what kind of children's game you're trying to play, but to be frank, I really don't care.


If you don’t care, then why did you ask?


The purpose of this forum is for the exchange of information and the debate of the myriad conspiracy scenarios being passed around.


Oh, I am so sorry Dave I thought it was to exchange insults and disinformation.
Dave when are we really going to do a real debate where one exchanges sources, and links, to back up their facts? Because, you haven’t done that so far and that my friend is a FACT.
In a real debate one cannot use assumptions and opinions as facts.


I ask you questions and you give me an answer (if you can), and you ask me questions and I'll give you an answer (if I can).


No Dave you have to give your SOURCES! If you cant then you are NOT debating anything. Dave have you ever-debated anything in school? If not then you need to learn, because until you learn you are only rambling and no one is interested in rambling.


However, when you...yes, YOU...post blatantly prejudicial things like...


Tell me something, what is so prejudicial in what I wrote?



"I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers. In my opinion there were bombs planted in all the WTC.


Fist of all I was giving an OPINION! furthermore, this statement has nothing to do with this thread I wrote that months ago in another forum.
It is against ATS rules to post topics from other threads that have nothing to do with the OP thread.


...it's glaringly obvious you're not here for any honest discussion.


That is another lie! I am here for the same reason you are.


You're here to bludgeon others until they submit to what you yourself want to believe, which I find ironic becuase that is the very behavior the fellow who started this thread was complaining about to begin with.


Another lie! Looks to me, that it is YOU who is doing the bludgeon on others including me. If they don’t submit to you, you will continue to ridicule and insult them till they have to put YOU on ignore. That is a FACT!
Your logic is twisted beyond hope, that is not what the OP was talking about. The OP was talking about the kind of behavior that you are displaying to me and everyone else on this thread.


If that's what floats your boat, fine, it's a free country, but don't insult my intelligence by pretending to be something you're not.


If anyone is insult anyone intelligence it is not me, because I haven’t been able to have a discussion with you yet about 911 or anything else for that matter. So what’s you problem anyway?

Now, who am I pretending to be?


At the end of the day, YOU are still the one who's avoiding ME. I'm not the one who's avoiding you.


Yeah, its at the end of the day and I am confronting you. Yeah, look who is avoiding who.


You have no credibility. Have a nice day.


Whatever you say Dave, but your creditability will never be as strong as mine. You lose!

Dave do you have anything constructive to add to this thread than to personally attack me?

It is my “opinion” that this kind of behavior is what keeping people from having a real discussing it is also a well-known method that is used by disinformationist when they can’t debunk the truth. People who support facts and the truth do not need to play games or tell lies as you have been confronted time after time of doing so. Have a nice day.




[edit on 7-8-2009 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Ok first- My opinion on this matter means nothing as no-one here knows me at all. Briefly I will say that I believe that all the facts about 9-11 were definately, and still have not ever been brought into light. I will also say boldly, that I also belive 9-11 was an inside job. Some may call me a "thruther" but I've never gone along with the "no-plane" theory. I can look at this objectively as a "truther" so to speak myself. I really did not like this thread at first, BUT then I saw a couple arguments from two "truthers" (which is rare) So I took it upon myself to analyize both arguments. I was also interested in the videos posted by videoworldwide.


First I viewed all of your videos videoworldwide, and thank you! I applaud willingness to post so many videos! I did not expect to be impressed, but I *was* and that was a shock. I had seen some of those videos in the past. Some of them were pure speculation and particularly did not enjoy the ones that included "reactions" by said views as they were passed off as mere actors. More specifically the one with the girl screaming. Everyone is different and we all react differently, no-one has the right to judge based on pure reaction alone.

However, the ones that really impressed me were the CGI videos. Showing that 9-11 could all be CGI. I've always HATED CGI "debunkers" Methods by only assuming it's CGI without any proof. *Most* of them (said CGI debunkers involving ufos etc) cannot show any clips that produce anything that resembles their argument as a means of "debunking" the "truth". 2 different people have stepped up to the plate in an impressive fashion to show that, it's "possible" that the *msn* have completely fooled us all by EXAMPLES. Those two videos are these:

www.youtube.com...

and

www.youtube.com...

I was also REALLY impressed by this one which still has me stumped because unless the maker of the video cgi-ed it him/herself the copy of the smoke was incredible and quite worth the watch. The video I refer to is this one:

www.youtube.com...


So, I see your point videoworldwide! Perhaps we need to focus more on this.


Now to move on I also see _bonez_ point of view. The video posted here:

www.youtube.com...

clearly indicated to me at least, there is a group at work, who tend to add to personal attacks. This is not helpful in any case trying to find "the truth." I will add, that the initial tone of this thread has been nothing more than that *exact* tone from both parties. I have to be honest by stating that I think videoworldwide almost intentionally picked a fight here. This kind of bickering does not help the cause at hand.

Also I have to note that in _bones_ video posted here:

video.google.com...

There are some good examples proving that the "fade-in" effect does not help the "no-plane" theory. It also seems biased as to dis-credit a lot of potention for real *truth-seekers*


All in all, a lot of good points have been raised. What I have seen here is two people on the same side of the fence but certain technicalities have led to a separation of truth. To continue any such debate regarding 9-11, it is imperative that both parties remain objective and willing to provide INPUT, not personal blows etc to get to the bottom of things.

Perhaps if we were all just willing to present said evidence without the un-wanted garbage in the form of arguing/personal attacks/opinions, we could have a much better result in terms of finding "truth". Thanks for the thread!


*edit to add*

I want to point out that CGI debunkers always have a case, and most the time they cannot clearly re-produce what they claim to be GCI, which is why in fact I was impressed by a few of videoworldwide's links.

Here is an example of this claim. A recent UFO video in an attempt to be debunked by "Necati" tho I greatly respect his/her efforts, it is not quite what we saw in the above mentioned videos.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 7-8-2009 by Wookiep]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Still going through alllll your youtubes, VideoWW, taking notes, which of course, leads me off onto side investigations, as much of the claims presented seem unsupported. Sometimes I find things that support the claims, but most times, they are unaddressed.

Gotta get some work done, but will type out my impressions later today(I have seven pages of handwritten notes so far, and not but 3/4 of the way through your vids).



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Oh, I am so sorry Dave I thought it was to exchange insults and disinformation.
Dave when are we really going to do a real debate where one exchanges sources, and links, to back up their facts? Because, you haven’t done that so far and that my friend is a FACT.


What do you mean, "when are we going to do a real debate"? That's what I'm trying to do. I keep asking you whether or not you really do believe a statement that YOU made, and after asking you SIX TIMES, you still can't give me a simple yes or no answer. It's obvious why I'd want to know- if you really and truly don't care what other people tell you, then the whole reason why you're on these debate forums is suspect, not to mention, that it'd be a gigantic waste of my time talking to you any further.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you chose your words undiplomatically and I'm trying to give you an opportunity to rephrase it. I'm doing this becuase I *do* care about what other people tell me.



No Dave you have to give your SOURCES! If you cant then you are NOT debating anything. Dave have you ever-debated anything in school? If not then you need to learn, because until you learn you are only rambling and no one is interested in rambling.



It's "put up or shut up" time. Just WHAT are you demanding that I provide a source for? I did give you sources, many times. The problem is that you don't want to look at them. I even gave you a link and the exact page number on the link, and you refused to even read it. I've done everything but mentally beam it out to you.

So who is refusing to engage in debate here, me or you?



Fist of all I was giving an OPINION! furthermore, this statement has nothing to do with this thread I wrote that months ago in another forum.


So what? It still came from you. Besides, it's perfectly fine that this is your opinion. Everyone has their opinions. It's the "I don't care what other people say" part that concerns me.


It is against ATS rules to post topics from other threads that have nothing to do with the OP thread.


...and since the moderators aren't deleting it, it's a de fact statement they agree with the reasons why I'm posting it- the type of overly zealous favoritism you're displaying is a key to understanding why self declared honest researchers of the events of 9/11 would indulge in censorship to stamp out opposing viewpoints, which definitely IS relevent to this thread. You forget I am not subject to your rules of debate. You and I are both subject to their rules of debate.

...and I will ask AGAIN: Just what have I ever posted that was a lie? Getting a straight answer from you on THAT is like trying to nail jam to the wall, as well.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're starting to show the characteristics of a spammer. This forum doesn't like spammers. Please post evidence of no planes and stop spamming "there were no planes" BS. Put up or shut up. We're still waiting...


Just becuase Bonez and I disagree on some things, it doesn't mean we disagree on everything. Case in point- I fully agree with Bonez, here. It would be one thing if you claimed the planes were remote controlled aircraft, or even aircraft that were mocked up to resemble passenger aircraft. However, claiming that no aircraft hit the towers *at all* is being intellectually dishonest and only invites a non stop procession of circular logic and runaway speculation. What the heck did we all see, then? Holograms?

I must tell you that elevating the conspiracy scenario to outright science fiction does nothign to advance the discussion of the events of 9/11. If you're gonna go that route then you might as well claim the terror attack was commited by alien vampires...though I suppose it *would* explain why so many people were able to survive the fires. Wouldn't alien vampires be fireproof?

Whatever. "Put up or shut up" is about as crystal clear as the request gets.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
We'll I guess, the supposed Truthers have to ignore the videos I posted.
God forbid they should watch them and comment on them.
Well, I rest my case. There were no Planes on 911 and the truthers like BoneZ have now stipulated that I am completely correct.

What's really funny, is that they asked, asked, and begged, for proof. Now that I have posted the proof, what happened, they disappeared! Poof! like a cloud of smoke, gone with the wind.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by videoworldwide]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What do you mean, "when are we going to do a real debate"? That's what I'm trying to do. I keep asking you whether or not you really do believe a statement that YOU made, and after asking you SIX TIMES, you still can't give me a simple yes or no answer.


Dave, your question is irrelevant and has nothing to do with 911 you are playing a game.
Dave, I have ask you plenty of question and YOU refuse to answer them, why is that Dave?

Dave if you want to debate me about 911 you ask a question that you believe is true AND you must show a creditable sources to substantiate your claim. Opinions and assumptions are not aloud in a factual debate.


It's obvious why I'd want to know- if you really and truly don't care what other people tell you, then the whole reason why you're on these debate forums is suspect, not to mention, that it'd be a gigantic waste of my time talking to you any further.


Dave you are still playing your silly little game, are you scared? If you feel I am a waste of your time them put me on ignore and move along.


I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you chose your words undiplomatically and I'm trying to give you an opportunity to rephrase it. I'm doing this becuase I *do* care about what other people tell me.


I stand behind my comment and I am NOT going to change it, get it!


It's "put up or shut up" time. Just WHAT are you demanding that I provide a source for? I did give you sources, many times.


Ok Dave, time to put up! Show me your alledge sources that you claim you have shown?
Dave, you are doing your best to pick a fight, you’re not interested in debating 911.


...and I will ask AGAIN: Just what have I ever posted that was a lie? Getting a straight answer from you on THAT is like trying to nail jam to the wall, as well.


IF I have accuse you of lying, I meant it and you and I know what lie you have told so stop playing stupid! You just want to play tit for tat baby games that little children play in Romper room

Dave, lets start fresh, the topic on this forum is “Please allow 911 truth… Please!!!”
Dave, this is an open topic because of the title of this thread but let’s discuss the OP topic



Originally posted by videoworldwide
I ask with noble, and honorable admission, I do not know the truth about 911.....

Please ...PLEASE!!!!! ALLOW, truthful discussion......??? PLEASE!!!!!!

Let us admit we do not know whether or not september clues is correct... ... or not!!!???
Please let us admit we do not know what the absolute truth is....
But PLEASE!!! PLEASE!!!!! --- --- --- Allow the truth to come forward.....
Please ... PLEASE!!!!!!
Allow the truth to come out once and for all..........
I beg of you all.....please ask yourselves the important questions.......
What happened to the remains of the airplanes that could not have physically broken through the trade center columns? Where are they?

Also, how come there are at least a few different angles of approach for the airplanes in the various videos? That at least, proves there is some subordination with regards to the released video. There are numerous angular approaches.....
How can that be explained?
There are approaches from high on, low flying....across the channel.....every which way you could imagine, .....which one is correct?
Which one is real?
One of them must be real, and few of them must be fake....
Which one is real?
Isreal........??????
Is real ???
Is- Rael ???
Which one is IS-REAL????????
Several are fake!!!!!
Which one is IS-RA-El?
Then you will know which one is REAL?
IS-RA-EL is the false God.
There is only one real GOD. that is truth.



Let us admit we do not know whether or not september clues is correct... ... or not!!!???


The debate in on. Dave, do you agree with this OP question, or do you disagree if so please explain why and show your sources to support your facts, thank you.

We will not move on to the next question until we have debated this one first.
Dave, let be civilized and a little more respectful of one another and leave out the bickering.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Don't get your hopes up. Some of us have real lives outside of the internets. Count on a response shortly.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Don't get your hopes up. Some of us have real lives outside of the internets. Count on a response shortly.





I suppose it takes some time to consult your disinfo training manual, contact your higher ups, get new permissions to post new lies, then you have to construct a whole new fake reality, counter each video with confusion, find ways to distort true facts, make it appear I said things I didn't, twist simple logic into confused gibberish....

These things take time, so please take your time.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Well, that took literally HOURS to watch all those vids; most of them I've seen before. At best, you have evidence, and much of that driven by inference and hyperbole. I realize that this all took someone quite a bit of work, and from a production standpoint, I appreciate their efforts. I wouldn't, however step too far out on a limb of calling it "truth".

911 Amateur 1 -

So, it begins by focusing on Denin - a self-avowed motion graphics person. Then demonize him as a horrible person and then want to use his films as evidence that the primary video shot was faked? What??? It can't be both ways. the "moving building" sequence is interesting. On a 400% enlargement, the building appears to be exactly the same, no matter where it appears. Now did Denin create this? I can find neither of the sequences that is claimed are from established news sources.

Following that are a series of parralax views, complete with false perspective lines, just in case we can't see ourselves. Now, I don't excell as an investigator, but what I do excell in is abstract reasoning and spacial relationships. All but one of the perspectives are entirely plausible, IMO.

Then the video finishes by debunking Clark, when they've hinged on the authenticity of his videos? Intentionally confusing, I think.

911- AM. 2

Yep, I have to agree, the plane folding into the building, or perhaps melting would be a better word -- it IS miraculous-like. Have you watched other crash/explosion video? It often defys explanation. Note: So far, the many different angles of the second strike agree with each other as far as angle, direction, the way the plane sliced into the building, the side explosions.

The "painted-in tear"? Look at 6:01 - 6:17..... the "gash" moves. I think there's likely another explanation for this --- possibly part of the darkness is a shadow of the smoke. The sun is to the left of the explosion where the plane strikes.

911- AMA. 3
About here, the feature focused on Connie Chung and the distinction between "jet" and "plane", trying to infer that Connie [who is obviously in on the whole conspiracy] is trying to supplant the word "plane" for "jet", which the witness reports. Is the distinction important? To me, this is reaaaaly reaching. Jet. Plane. Jet Plane. Jet Airplane. Sounds nothing like missile.

Oh, man. Simon goes a tweak adrift with the "iris recognition concealment", huh? whoof! This is for a purpose though, I think. I think it's meant to get us to accept that when a video is zoomed in, the pixilization is really a "cover-up effect". This pops up again and again later, where a frame is frozen, zoomed in, and then we are told what the pixilization really means.

The reflection in what is called a car window (I'm not completely certain) is interesting, I'll give you that. Not that it's upside-down -- that should be the case if the reflective surface is convex. It's interesting because of the perspective that the light from the plane strike would have to have reflected off something behind or to the side of the photographer and then onto the surface. I'm uncertain that is a car window, as it appears to have a fold or angle in the middle of it, and I've never seen that.

At 6:45 -- A slo-mo big deal is made out of the cameraman almost soiling himself, his reaction, and allowing the camera to move away from the target. So what?? Professionalism aside, I would've probably ran like hell.

Then, more zoom, telling us what the pixilized boxes mean and what we see. I watched this section several times, once without sound. It becomes uninteresting and very difficult to see anything wrong without someone telling us what we see. Try it. Everything changes.

Here, Simon tries to suggest that Tina Cart is hysterical because she saw something impossible. OR, could it be because she saw something merely horrifying?? I hate to rely on subjective experience, but I recall screams in our household very much like that, and we weren't seeing it in person, we were watching on TV.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


911 Truth - 01

"This video is not available in your country due to copywright restrictions."

911 Truth - 02
Unavailable also.

911 Truth - Part 3

Bill Pitts of NIST agrees that it's the same in the 15 vids he's seen. "It's still amazing. It's miraculous." And it is.

Here we have a montage of damaged aircraft and crashes, showing over and over how easily they are damaged and how fragile they are. this hurts your case, IMO, as it supports how an exploding airplane might just appear to fold up into a building it struck. Good music during the crash montage; I used up about 1/2 hour at this point, trying to figure out the band.

Here's a possibly ironic segment, where the Project Manager for the construction of the towers assures us that the towers were overbuilt to withstand a large aircraft impact, even "multiple impacts of jetliners." hmmmm. Apparently not. He doesn't mention anything -- at least in this cherry-picked clip -- about any aging of the structure, rusting, any retrofitting of fireproofing, any of that. This is an interesting section, as the PM lets us know the Twin Towers were built with the potential of large plane impact in mind, and I don't doubt him.

Then we are told that it is virtually impossible for a 757 to exceed the speed of 503 mph. Not a chance. I didn't realize that there was any definative proof of how fast the plane was going, however even if there was..... so what? I understand that the angular momentum and stresses upon the frame, wings and body of the aircraft are not designed to withstand that, but is that the same as "impossible?"

See, by now, I was getting a bit pissy. I can see the spin being pushed, over and over. I'd rather things be just pointed out, and resent being fed hyperbole. My b.s filter is getting plugged at this point, and needs a backflushing.

911 T - part 4

ELO in the background; I'm temporarily happy.

Pilot Evidence at this point, and good points made. I was unable to verify the person making the points as a pilot, but by this time we're hearing Patsy Clyne in the background singing "Crazy", so that's good.

Overlay interlude ........... mind-numbing, followed by more unrelated plane crashes. So many lives lost. Sad.

John Lear interview series

John begins this interview using two anecdotal experiences to tell us that amazing holographic technology exists. I can't refute this in any way, other than to say that I've never seen any example of it. I used to drive the Freeway from Redwood City to S.F., past San Bruno. It would be an extremely frightening thing to even see and airplane that far away from the airport. SFO is in the area, but the airplanes don't fly low over the hills. That doesn't refute or debunk John's testimony in any way. I spent about an hour searching for examples or evidence of amazing holographic technology. Nothing I found that suggests it's even possible, let alone common.

Okay, at this point, I'm very confused. Either you believe in remote-controlled planes, or no planes/holograph, but they both can't be part of your "truth", or at least not in my mind. I remind myself to suppress preconceived notions, having watched one of Mr. Lear's interviews previously. John claims that they "dumped the wrong engine" [street - NYC]. Why would "they" do that? The same "they" that utilized holographs so amazing that they fool the entire world, including ground witnesses, but ooops, grabbed the wrong pre-burnt and pre-damaged wheel? pffffffffft. That's absurd.

J. Lear - Planes and Holograms

Right at the start, there's an entertaining moment when JL turns into a pixellated reptoid before my very eyes for 2 seconds!!!! OMG!!! lol. I don't know if it means anything....... John looks to the left an awful lot during the interview. He is interesting and engaging; I don't find this interview to be persuasive, though. There's no nuts and bolts, no measurable or verifiable evidence. We are expected to believe on the strength of John's character.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


BTW, I keep using this post of yours to reply to, however, I'm not a truther, nor a debunker, nor a supporter of the OS. Just doing what I told you I would -- watch your vids and tell you what I think. I don't pretend to consider my impressions as a "debunking" of the vids. I also don't think they're very persuasive nor conclusive at ALL regarding the NPT.

Onward.

Jennifer Oberstein vid.

Jennifer obviously can barely hear herself with all the noise. She heard a boom and saw an explosion, and I hope she has been able to recover psychologically from the trauma of that day, and yet still honors the memory of all those lives lost. It must have been horrible.

unknown or unidentifed witness

He says that there was "no second plane. It was a bomb." Opinion noted. Next.

Gary Welz series.

No support or even a hint of the caller being an imposter. Then the vid goes on the smear Mr. Welz. Well, WTH, is it an imposter giving false testimony attributing it to Mr. Welz, or an attempt to discredit Gary? I don't think this video does your case any good. Perhaps I'm missing something.

In the "Actor's" video, Mr. Welz (or so he claims) refutes the call-in. Okay. I don't know what that proves. there were no shortage of people who witnessed the second strike.

__________________________

I think I'll leave my impressions of the next dozen vids until later. If you'd like to address any of these points or ideas, I'll respond. I have to say, I'm kind of disappointed. I expected there would be more "guts" to these videos, something that was verifiable.

I have no problem with the idea of a Shanksville shoot-down. I think it's possible, maybe even likely.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join