strange pictures from 9/11, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 25-9-2009 @ 02:37 AM by OmegaPoint

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
The alternative debunking explanations for this phenomenon, are only two, and neither seems to work I don't think, not in my opinion based on ALL the evidence, even including the evidence for controlled demolition of the towers, they are:

A bird
- which would have to be a HUGE bird, some have suggested a white abatross

ALBATROSS

There is just ONE other possibility...

That it was that hijackers passport. This would explain how it made it's way in tact through the flaming cataclysm to land in the street below and be gathered as evidence by the FBI.

Originally posted by SPreston
The Satam al-Suqami paper passport was allegedly found by a stranger and handed to a NYPD detective who of course neglected to get the stranger's name and address.

But of course there is no chance it was a 9-11 perp handing over the unblemished paper passport is there?

But the duhbunkers and government loyalists and shills all believe this is a perfectly normal way to gather criminal evidence from complete strangers, and would never suspect an unsinged unburned not even smudged paper passport which just survived an explosive fireball supposedly inside the pocket of an alleged hijacker inside the fuselage of a burning aircraft.

Isn't FAITH just grand? Aren't 9-11 MIRACLES just wonderful?

Larger version

Passport exterior cover

It is reported that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami has been found a few blocks from the World Trade Center. [ABC News, 9/12/2001; Associated Press, 9/16/2001; ABC News, 9/16/2001] Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”

source

[edit on 25-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply posted on 25-9-2009 @ 02:57 AM by OmegaPoint

There is more information and photo and videographic evidence which can be produced, more "strange pictures from 9/11" which support the contention that the planes WERE in fact remotely piloted drone aircraft like some sort of high tech, high precision version of an Operation Northwoods scenario, but for now, people really ought to take the time to research about the 9/11 War Games operations which were running that day, and how this served as a perfect smokescreen for the event to come off without a hitch and without interference.

And of course this backs out, like playing a tape back in reverse, from the evidence that the buildings were demolished with explosives, the plane impacts, the intended ruse and false causal connection and apparent Occam's razor style proof, that they alone were the cause of the destruction of the buildings ie: impact and fire.

So i think it's important to look through whatever you can find regarding the war games, to understand just how this was pulled off

letsrollforums.com...

But here's the thing, if the buildings were destroyed with explosives, then you can't depend on poorly trained islamist extremists terrorist pilots, of which Hani Hanjour was the most well trained..

to even make it TO target, let alone hit the target with 100% assurance. No. It just doesn't work that way. Thus, proof of CD proves remote controlled drones.

But is there evidence to support that contention?

The answer, regardless of whatever amount of ridicule it may have faced in the past, is, yes, there is.

reply posted on 25-9-2009 @ 03:04 AM by OmegaPoint

Here's a video presentation on it, from the laser interpretation perspective. It looks pretty good so far, but I certainly can't vouch for it.

YouTube Link

His analysis of the light spot on the building, is imho, accurate and valid.

Athought I have to say that the dark high speed object shown later and described as a UAV, is in fact, a bird and nothing more. Have looked at those also, and they are birds, flying through the frame.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 10:09 AM by micpsi

I suppose all the very similar dots of lights seen in the video that appeared after the explosion were laser lights as well?

No? Well, if you are willing to accept that they were merely sheets of paper and light debris scattered into the air, why on earth are you not willing to accept that the first dot of light was not also a piece of A4 that had come out of the impact hole or shattered windows of the North Tower?

Because you want desperately to find evidence of a conspiracy, that's why. So you dress up the long-discredited footage with lots of phony arguments that were considered by 9/11 investigators and rejected years ago.

Well, let me tell you something. WE have TONS of evidence to prove conspiracy by elements of the US military/intelligence/government. We don't need further evidence like this that is as flimsy as - er - a piece of paper.

reply posted on 27-9-2009 @ 09:22 PM by OmegaPoint

reply to post by micpsi

It passes across the building in the far foreground, that's why, and binks on, and off.

It's just something to consider. No one is hanging their hat on it, don't get your panties in a knot over it.

But it's interesting, and may warrent consideration, because flying piece of paper does not adequately explain it's behavior, relative to the south tower and the foreground building a kilometer away.

Relax.

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 08:19 PM by Rewey

Originally posted by micpsi
No? Well, if you are willing to accept that they were merely sheets of paper and light debris scattered into the air, why on earth are you not willing to accept that the first dot of light was not also a piece of A4 that had come out of the impact hole or shattered windows of the North Tower?

I believe all of North America uses 'Letter' sized paper, not A4.

Other than that, totally agree with you...

Rewey

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 08:21 PM by Rewey

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by micpsi

It passes across the building in the far foreground, that's why, and binks on, and off.

It's also paper turning over and over in the breeze/currents/updrafts. You see the face, then the edge, then the face, and so on...

This accounts for it appearing to blink on and off...

Rewey

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 08:47 PM by OmegaPoint

retracted

[edit on 29-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 09:01 PM by Orion7911

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I just want to make sure you guys fully understand this, then conclude whatever you like.

It passes in front of (or on) the brown building in the foreground, and therefore, must not be confused with the ejecting debris material from the explosion way over at the south tower. If paper, it would have to be first HUGE, even at any appreciable distance between the camera and the foreground building, and second, travelling no where near the south tower, and it actually binks on and OFF thorugh the frames, appears to move in and out, or "flutter", on the fireball (even though it can't be anywhere NEAR the south tower) and is otherwise unmoved by wind or turbulence, since it moves steadily and horizontally, relative to the south tower, and then half way across the foreground building, before disappearing.

One would be fored to conclude, that it's near horiztal movement across the face of the south tower, it's jumping around on the fireball, and finally it's movement on the foreground building, as well as the appearance, briefly of an identical phenomenon on the building with the green copper spire (Woolworth Building I think it's called) - that these things are merely coincidence.

To the person who is unaware of the proximity of the brown building in the foreground, it would appear to have been moved by impact turbulence and explosion over near the south tower, and even confused (as the past poster interpreted it) with some of the debris ejected there during the impact, but that is not the case and can't be, give the relative location of the building in the far foreground. It would then have to be three pieces of paper, one on the south tower, another debris from the fireball, and a third, several blocks away, at the far foreground building - but it's not and is the same phenomenon throughout.

A GIANT piece of debris floating in the air, on that path, is the ONLY other explanation for it - but it's behavior is consistent with the path of a targeting laser light spot, and it fits the profile, it moves around on the fireball, to suddenly appear across the face of the brown building at Liberty street in the far foreground, a kilometer or more from the south tower and the explosion. It also blinks on, and off, through the frames.

Please consider that, before making a final assumption - the movement across the south tower, blinking on and off, the jump to and movement around the fireball, and then finally, it's downward movement across the far foreground building, blinking on and off, to disappear, half way across the building in the foreground.

these so-called debunkers only cherry-pick what they address and attempt to explain.

They stay away from what doesn't fit their agenda of disinfo and never answer ALL the questions not to mention they ignore the CONTEXT to give a totally different impression and conclusion... and then claim its skepticism. LOL

Its truly sickening.... even more sad is how many are fooled and never hold these perp defenders accountable.

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 09:14 PM by OmegaPoint

I'd like to know what other people honestly think about this, after analyzing it themselves with all information available to them.

I honestly think it's a targeting laser light spot.

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 09:24 PM by OmegaPoint

retracted

[edit on 29-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 09:41 PM by Orion7911

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Is that because I WANT it to be a laser light spot?

Or based on the actual phenomenon itself, am >I< insane because they, the debunkers MUST show, prove, or exclaim, that it is a piece of paper, and cannot accept anything otherwise, in spite of evidence to the contrary? Since we're down to an either/or proposition here, because it's not a bird. Thus, even if there were additional evidence in support of the notion that this is a targeting laser and the plane a remotely piloted military type B-767, that would be rejected out of hand, because no other explanation, than that offered by the MSM and the 9/11 Commission, is allowed - such evil cannot lurk within our own gate, say the sceptics. That is no foundation for an argument, or, rational analysis however. That's just hyperbole and conjecture, based on a strongly rooted conviction, nothing more.

I've offered my anaysis of why I think what I do, which includes what I've discovered about the destruction of the twin towers and building 7.

What is their reasoning, their logic,

I've seen BOTH sides of this "argument"... the EVIDENCE, facts and logic for that being an infared LAZER, far outweighs the evidence, facts and logic against it.

a simple search on ATS will pull up several great threads on LAZER targeting and UAV etc, which end up validating what i've just claimed.

here's one interesting doc on the lazer weapon/targeting debate.
www.youtube.com...

but whats more interesting is that this visual evidence and physical evidence exists, and the debunkers ignore it or deny it.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Orion7911]

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 10:11 PM by Rewey

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
A GIANT piece of debris floating in the air, on that path (between camera and foreground building), is the ONLY other explanation for it

Or maybe that the paper is closer to the camera than it looks, thereby appearing larger in context with the building? You can't say that it being a giant piece of paper is the ONLY explanation for it.

Look... all I'm saying is track down the full clip which goes for a few minutes. The paper floats across the river to where the camera operator is standing. It lands all around them. They even grab some out of the air and hold it up to the camera.

I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade. I'm just saying look at all the video evidence first. If you still think it's a laser after that, then let's try and find some concrete evidence that proves that...

That's what our truth movement needs to really get hold of...

Rewey

reply posted on 28-9-2009 @ 10:57 PM by OmegaPoint

retracted

[edit on 29-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 02:24 AM by waypastvne

YouTube Link

reply to post by OmegaPoint

It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper.

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 02:43 AM by OmegaPoint

reply to post by waypastvne

Fair enough, thank you for posting that.

I was wrong.

That clears that up. Thank you.

I'll admit when I'm wrong about something.

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 05:13 AM by Orion7911

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by waypastvne

Fair enough, thank you for posting that.

I was wrong.

That clears that up. Thank you.

I'll admit when I'm wrong about something.

wrong about what?

none of those who addressed your question, conclusively debunked or fully answered ALL the questions and anomalies posed.

and you're conceeding to waypastne when he's put forth some of the most bizarre and unsupported claims here to date? 2 funny.

reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:31 AM by OmegaPoint

The last video he posted was a continuation of the video in quesstion, that's why.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^