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.

 

Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Very good

One brick at a time.

I asked:
What was the purpose of your posting Part I of that video in you last post? It was relevant how?

You replied:
For reference sake and giving context.

But it did not mention the birds, the black-outs, the black streak, the speeding up of the film, the presence of jets or anything else at all that we were discussing....So I ask again...This was relevant how?


The PaxTV video.
I have never said there were birds in this video. I said there was a black streak which when slowed down appears to be two military jets.
Now we haven't gone very far into this 'brick' so there should not be enough to confuse you. What have I just said pertaining to this video that has anything to do with birds?

The only mention of birds in this particular video was your claim that they were birds moving so fast they produced only a streak on the film. I find this ridiculous. If you wish to argue for supersonic birds, feel free. You embarrass only yourself.

Now before we move on, if you believe I have claimed there are any birds in this 'brick' then go back and read it again. Only you talk of birds in regard to this video.

and finally:
The birds video. You have twice implied that I have hinted that these were jets. You have no problems putting my quotes up so please provide the lines where I suggested that anything in this video was a jet.
Don't simply tell me I did. Post it. Highlight my remarks. I can not find them.
The birds video is shown only to establish that film was sped up.
You argue this is an illusion. I counter, let the readers view the video and decide if a 400% increase in speed can be attributed to illusion.

So if your desire is not simply to confuse the question and distract from the idea of media complicity then it's very simple.
Show the lines from my previous posts where I said there were birds in the PaxTV video
Show the lines from my previous posts where I said, suggested, or hinted, that the birds in the bird video were jets.

There now, that wasn't too confusing was it?




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 





I asked: What was the purpose of your posting Part I of that video in you last post? It was relevant how?



I thought you might be interested in it as you are looking at some of the issues, and it gives context as I mentioned previously.




But it did not mention the birds, the black-outs, the black streak, the speeding up of the film, the presence of jets or anything else at all that we were discussing....So I ask again...This was relevant how?



Right, but I said Part-2 does mention the "black out"

The birds are easily explainable and the speed question, I didn't think that needed further explanation as it is pretty obvious.




I have never said there were birds in this video. I said there was a black streak which when slowed down appears to be two military jets.



You will have to be specific. You told me you didn't hint at them being fighter jets. I am not sure what you are getting at.




The only mention of birds in this particular video was your claim that they were birds moving so fast they produced only a streak on the film. I find this ridiculous. If you wish to argue for supersonic birds, feel free. You embarrass only yourself.


No in the end the only person who will be embarrassed is you. I have seen high quality versions of these films, I know these are birds. The speed is not what you think it is, it is the fact that they are closer to the camera then the distant shot the camera is focused on. It is that simple. It happens in sporting events, in a lot of live shots where you see "birds" or "rods" or "streaks" fly by.




Now before we move on, if you believe I have claimed there are any birds in this 'brick' then go back and read it again. Only you talk of birds in regard to this video.


Okay, you think they are fighter jets. So where is the "Sound" of the fighter jets or the eyewitness reports to back up your notion that the birds were fighter jets?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 




you might want to take a look at this from CNN during the presidential inauguration, where a "streak" flies by "very fast"

so fast that some people on ATS thought it was a UFO


edition.cnn.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Its the type of camera/zoom/lens that CNN uses and those objects sometimes look like they are moving at "SUPERSONIC" speeds.


Also, in some cases "INSECTS" can appear as "STREAKS"

EDIT: www.freewebs.com...

pics1.frozenbear.com...

[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]

[edit on 24-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I wish first to thank you. I have never had any real interest in this subject. My first post was just to point out possible connections in some random thoughts I had but my constant re-viewing of these videos to counter some of your arguments has resulted in quite a few more random thoughts. It is being to interest me. I am considering abandoning this particular thread since I pursue it just to establish that your intent is to confuse rather than to seek any facts, and to start a new one more focused on media complicity and the resultant implications.

But to tie up some loose ends:

Your final answer to my question as to why you had included a particular video which was not relevant to the conversation if not to distract from the specific questions being asked was:

I thought you might be interested in it as you are looking at some of the issues, and it gives context as I mentioned previously

So thinking I might be interested you inserted a totally irrelevant video?
This is not a pointless distraction from the subject being discussed?

When I pointed out that Part I had no relevance to anything you replied:

Right, but I said Part-2 does mention the "black out"

But we were not discussing Part-2. Mentioning Part-2 explains the insertion of the irrelevant Part-1 in what way? It has what to do with my specific question
"This is relevant how?". Your answer was Part-2 was relevant? So? You have still not answered the question. You have simply changed the subject. You cannot find any reason for having placed the video there other than to attempt to confuse the issue so unable to answer you attempt to change the subject to another video.

As for the speed of the birds, you say:
I didn't think that needed further explanation as it is pretty obvious.

Obvious to who?
But this is the reason I have decided upon starting another new thread.
First they cannot be insects as someone else suggested as they appear from behind a building in the distance. I doubt black objects viewed from several blocks away could be insects.
But hey! Since they appear from behind that building can we not use it to determine a minimum distance?
Having established that can we then determine the minimum distance between the point where these object to come into view and the point where they disappear off the right hand edge of the screen?
Then perhaps we could observe the explosions in tower two, say the time between the alleged nose out phenomena and the time before the shadow of the explosion can be seen on Tower one to determine the time involved.
Well gosh golly gee. That should allow us to determine the speed of these objects.
If nothing else it might provide justification for us to abandon certain possibilities. I mean, if it turns out to be something in the range of 400+ miles per hour we no longer need to waste our time considering birds and insects

And finally, on my point that you are very deliberately attempting to confuse the issue of possible military jets on the scene you say:

You will have to be specific. You told me you didn't hint at them being fighter jets. I am not sure what you are getting at.

You constantly insist on confusing these two videos so

one more time but too clear to justify any claims of confusion

This is the video I say contains evidence of military fighter jets
www.youtube.com...
This is the site I have never said, suggested, or hinted at as having birds
www.youtube.com...
This site has nothing to do with my comments on birds being sped up
www.youtube.com...
Do you understand that I do not claim there to be any birds in this video
www.youtube.com...
Do you understand that this is the site with the military jets?
www.youtube.com...
Do you think you can avoid confusing this video
www.youtube.com...
with the other?

It was the 'other' video which I link in my previous post that have birds, no fighter jets, just birds.
If you attempt to confuse them again I will have no choice but to assume either
A) You are not intelligent enough to grasp what I believe is obvious to every other reader
OR
B) You understand exactly what I am saying but are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. But why?

So since this the subject has been derailed, since we are no longer discussing the presence of military jets on the scene at the time of the collapse but instead are discussing what I believe to be your deliberate attempts to confuse the issue I will leave now go to some truther sites and attempt to find those with the skills to professionally analyze these videos and make the measurements I have suggested. I will also continue to search for media complicity and eventually start a new thread. Wish me luck



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 





I wish first to thank you. I have never had any real interest in this subject


Good to hear.




My first post was just to point out possible connections in some random thoughts I had but my constant re-viewing of these videos to counter some of your arguments has resulted in quite a few more random thoughts


That's part of the problem here. Your rambling, your thoughts are not logically cohesive and your confused, which in turn confuses others.

You still never broke down (as I asked if you could) your arguments into logical premises followed with a logical conclusion.




It is being to interest me.


What do you mean "being" to interest me? Do you mean "beginning?" Well if your "beginning"--Maybe if you awoke and showed some interest earlier, then we could've got somewhere.




I am considering abandoning this particular thread since I pursue it just to establish that your intent is to confuse rather than to seek any facts,



Speak for yourself dude. I think your constant rambling is the most difficult aspect of this conversation. IF you think that is "my problem" then there is nothing I can do to help you.




Your final answer to my question as to why you had included a particular video which was not relevant to the conversation



Incorrect. The thread as you must have noticed is what? Let us read the title of the thread shall we?
I think we see something in the title pertaining to "NO PLANER PROOF"

So when you bring up video's with whatever you think is happening, I point to a VIDEO expert who has been through all the video's and knows a lot more about the subject then you or I and basically makes a No Planer look very foolish. This is completely relevant. If you don't understand how this is relevant to the conversation then I can't help you.

It is true that the link didn't mention the "black out" but the debate of those do mention it. You could have just asked for clarification, but you chose rudeness.






So thinking I might be interested you inserted a totally irrelevant video? This is not a pointless distraction from the subject being discussed?


#1. There is a quote function on top, try and use it to help clear up your posts as you without any quotes insert things I say then ramble on top. Thanks.

#2. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT NO PLANES! DO you understand this or not? It is about Tv fakery. So when you bring up stuff, I point to a debate where the issue at hand is soundly dealt with.

#3. It is up to you to follow up with a question rather then being rude. I took the time to post the link and indeed its the debate that does Mention the Black Out.






When I pointed out that Part I had no relevance to anything you replied: Right, but I said Part-2 does mention the "black out" But we were not discussing Part-2. Mentioning Part-2 explains the insertion of the irrelevant Part-1 in what way? It has what to do with my specific question "This is relevant how?". Your answer was Part-2 was relevant? So? You have still not answered the question. You have simply changed the subject.



I didn't change anything and it would help if you could learn how to communicate because reading what you just wrote is confusing.

I gave you two links with the information where the "BLACK OUT" was. Its in part 2. In case you didn't want to see Part 1.

But I am not physic, maybe you would still complain if I didn't point to Part 1! How the heck am I supposed to know what side of the bed you woke up.

There are two links there dude, look at the one that is relevant. End of story.




You cannot find any reason for having placed the video there other than to attempt to confuse the issue so unable to answer you attempt to change the subject to another video.



This doesn't make sense. It really doesn't. I placed what video? I placed the video for your reference, and you are ungrateful insolent and rude not willing to learn from what I posted.

I don't see a thanks for the link like most people would offer, I see nothing.

I posted a debate that deals with the false idea on the "BLACK OUTS"

I already explained why the first link was there, and indeed I told you where to find what you wanted.




First they cannot be insects as someone else suggested as they appear from behind a building in the distance. I doubt black objects viewed from several blocks away could be insects.




I am not going to proceed further because I know you don't know what you are talking about. Film is 2 dimensional, depth perception is often wrong.

Next the video I posted is relevant and I don' t think you bothered to look at them in any meaningful way.

So I am now CHALLENGING YOU.


POST THE SAME VIDEO OR LINK --- BUT MAKE SURE IT IS HIGH QUALITY.

Can you do that?

I want you to post that VIDEO IN GOOD QUALITY. If you can't do that but persist in trying to analyze compressed/bad quality footage then I have no choice but to think you are doing this intentionally.










[edit on 25-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Robin...

For what its worth, I have understood precisely what you have typed...
It is clear where you are coming from....

unfortunately some people here do use deflection to steer the issue away....

You may well be onto something with your unidentified flying thingies...I looked at the PAXTV footage and it does bring up some Q's....

But thats not my point...


You are lucid and clear Robin....dont be put off by quarrelsome types.....persue much further and namecalling will be directed at you next....!!!



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Thank you for the encouragement but I am forced to admit he does have some valid arguments.

I mean, my having used 'being' when 'beginning' was obviously the word intended does invalidate most of my points and I feel almost ashamed to continue.
Also, having no qualifications in the proper fields and therefore unable to say with any certainty that the building in question was two rather then three blocks away, how then can I label the objects which appear from behind that building as 'unlikely' insofar as the suggestion that they might be insects.
I have been crushed by his superior logic.

But seriously, I do thank him for having created in me more than a passing interest in the subject.

I do believe I have collected quite a few new anomalies which most have overlooked which prove media complicity. While the implications alone are incredible, the avenues for further research which would open up seem very interesting also.
If, for example, these can be proved to be delta-winged aircraft then someone with some authority and/or credibility can very directly ask PAX TV why they sped up the scene when they appeared.

Narrow it down. Who was the technician involved?
Who ordered you to do this or why did you do it on your own? etc. Will some small part of this house of cards collapse? What would be the result of just one person admitting "I was just following orders"?

But my critic is correct. This thread is for no-planers so I will piece my references together in a logical order, obtain some help from professional analyst and introduce a new thread. Wish me luck.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Orion7911
THAT is one of the best examples of video fakery and CGI out there...

Just because you say it is fake doesn't make it so. I assume you've obtained a copy of the original and had a scientific or professional analysis done so that you can show us all the proof? Oh you didn't obtain an original to have it analyzed? Then you're just expressing your opinion.

No facts here. No videos have been professionally analyzed to prove fakery. Move along...





I don't believe a word you say. Not one single word. Everything you posted is heresay and conjecture.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   




I wish you the best of luck, my friend. We need all the people working on this as possible. It is a good avenue for research into 9-11. I have watched and slowed down each and every video and found CGI added or used in each one. Sometimes real people are added in below and the footage on the upper half can be CGI only. I saw an excellent Utube video on the grassy knoll and JFK showing the Zapruder film was also edited in a major way.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 




Good, you can join him and take up my challenge.

The Video You refer to. The video he is refering to and trying to Say are Fighter Jets.

POST A HIGH QUALITY VIDEO LINK



You would agree that when one tries to identify something in a video they must try and do so with the Highest Quality Video if the result is uncertain and controversial?

Yes or No?


[edit on 25-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 




I see you ignored my challenge.

I challenge you once again.

POST HIGH QUALITY VIDEO

You are after the "TRUTH?"
"CORRECT?"

Okay, now start by looking at the best quality images you can find and while your at it, share those.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Let's see if I can throw a little monkey wrench in here...:-)

I agree with you 100%. Didn't see that coming did you.

When analyzing video we should, of course, always use the highest grade available.

I also agree that Youtube many not be providing the highest grade video but if you failed to notice there was a subtle change in the phrasing.

Youtube does not have the highest grade?
Perhaps, but do they have the highest grade available?

If better quality video exist it is meaningless if no one knows where it is or is not allowed access to it. It appears that most of the original Fox-5 video from that day is being hidden in a vault somewhere if not outright destroyed. Does this mean none of what is available should be examined since they are not the locked-away originals? Do you consider this a valid argument?

I do think what would be a valid argument would be to say, Here is a better copy of the video which shows something different and provide a link to a higher quality copy. But simply to point out that better copies exist? So? If no one can gain access to them do they have any practical value? Is there any point in mentioning them?
Do you claim all video research is invalid unless it includes analysis of video no one has access to? Are you for real?

I think the point has been sufficiently made that your argument is void and null.

Now the point that should grate on you.
Say what you want, rant as you will. The thread will be posted. People will read it. People will understand. You will attempt to distract with talk of better quality video. People will ask you, Oh? Better quality video? Where?
You will rant. You will stutter. People will see through you. The message will be out. You can not stop it.
Have a nice day.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The problem with planehuggers is that their sole purpose seems to be to dissuade and distract. How many planehuggers are actual activists or real people in the world? You can trace my threads on here. I have a thread on Urine Therapy, I have a thread on Sovereignty and the courts. I post my thoughts on all kinds of subjects, not limited to 9-11 or No Plane Theory. I don't even insist there were no planes, however, it seems likely that is the case, all I DO KNOW is the videos were faked, and so if you are going to fake the videos, then why use real planes at all? The idea of the fake videos was so they didn't have to use real planes and take a chance that everything, or any one thing could go wrong. It was a perfectly planned execution.

Now how many other threads have these planehuggers started, and what are their thoughts on other subjects?

by their fruits ye shall know them....

I suggest anyone who wants to decide who the disinfo agents are, just check out their threads on other subjects and see where they stand. Are they always towing the government line? Are they always promoting false truths and lies and twisting facts around? Are they genuine? Do they genuinely seek truth? Do they genuinely promote truth?

Take a look into the heart of the person and you will know. Any freedom fighter or REAL truth activist or researcher will be generally kind towards others and not disrespectful or mean and belittling or rude and provocative. The path to peace is a long one and those on this road, in time, learn that the best way to create a better world, is to set the best example possible. Most people I know who are interested in bettering humanity, do not take part in attacks on the internet or ganging up in a negative way towards an idea or person. The idea of freedom of expression is promoted, not derailed with intimidation.

Personally, I rarely if ever bother to "debunk" anything at all. It takes way too much energy to do that. It's not constructive at all. If I have an hour to spend online and I want to get the truth out, I will spread MY TRUTH. I will not go and spend that hour knocking someone else's truth. I may chime in on a thread that is the opposite of what I believe, but it's not my job to derail that thread in my personal direction. It's much more constructive to start my own and invite in the people who want to discuss it or debate it constructively. People who spend their time busting other people's theories make me highly suspect. It's as if they want to tear down the world and structures instead of creating their own. THAT ENERGY IS NWO. It reeks on CONTROL.

Even if all you want to do is get information out, there is a level at which you share it, then there is a level that you decide you have to convince everyone you have the final answer. Truth activists share information. I know this, as I have been one for over 20 years now. Con Artists and Agents seek to control and seek to manipulate for their own ends. They PUSH information on people saying, "if you don't believe this, then.....", or "anyone who says this, is ........", or "they create lots of hot air, ask you to invest your time and energy into it, and then debate you on completely different off topic subjects altogether. This is so damn common here on ATS and some other message boards too, that you can smell the bulls**t for miles away, if you have any brains to think for yourself and a heart to feel.

There are these people, who consistently make it their job to be there not really allowing open thought and info to be shared, without their dictates of what is truth and what is lies. These people come off with an audacity like you should know better than to question them, like they have been given this absolute unwavering truth. What BULLS**T!!! As time goes by, and people become more and more aware and study these things for themselves, they will realize that just because some moron posted a thread that says "September Clues Debunked" that it does not mean they actually debunked it at all. Then people will notice the tone, attitude, and intent of those supposed "debunkers" and it will become clear their true agenda. To spread lies and disinfo propaganda for the corporations and their government minions.

We know the disinfo agents are everywhere and working towards ending truth and working towards spreading lies. Now all you have to do is learn how to sniff them out a little better because they have become entrenched and they are at high levels of the intelligence agencies. They are here on ATS as well, obviously.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by nwodeath
 





The FBI confiscated the amateur videos that were done by people. ALL OF THEM. How do you think people could release them later on Utube if the FBI wanted them back then...but not now?


Um, no, the FBI didnt confiscate ALL OF THEM, they ASKED people to submit videos.

And they certainly didnt confiscate all the cameras that recorded the event. At 2PM CDT that day, my local paper was running an "EXTRA" with AP photos (and others) showing the second airliner hitting the tower. So again, what magic did they use to get those images onto cameras that were not even in their posession?


I wouldn't put absolute trust into AP photos. Back in the day I covered the Anaheim Ducks as a scribe for an affiliate of a cooperate news station, it gave me access to nhlmedia.com, which included access to the AP photo archive (www.apimages.com...) where all major media gets their AP photos.

I met the local AP NHL shutterbug, uploading pictures was as easy as using an FTP. AP images can be uploaded by just about anyone familiar with the protocol, and are assumed to be authentic by those on the receiving end.

I never thought too much about the no plane theory, until I started watching the generals videos.. hes a salty old retired US military general who tells it like it is.. he talks about being on guard to expect the unexpected, the weirdest most confusing / intimidating tactics including holograms... NOT in the below video. I cant recall which one..

Confusion & conflicting stories / videos / pictures, spontaneous or planted, add to the conspiracy, the mystery... keeps people chasing their own tail wondering & bickering HOW, rather than focusing on WHO.

This guy just might become your next hero:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Attention Please....

The word/term "TRUTHER" is an acceptable idiom.

However the bastardization of the word "Truther" is an insult and from here on will be treated as such.

I am not going to go back and take any action on past offenses, but any future instances and action will be taken.

Thank you

Semper



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Ah, perhaps, despite by being a 'plane-hugger' as you put it, I have found a kindred soul.

Looking for evidence of media complicity I, of course, check out everything claiming video or film tampering had occurred. This means I have viewed quite a bit of the evidence put out by the NPT people.

I had thought of pointing out to others that simply dismissing these people and refusing to look at their claims leaves one ignorant of the video and other anomalies they have spotted. So many people hear 'no planes' and decide the claim to be so outrageous they refuse to even consider it. I suggest, if nothing else, they should examine the offered evidence to see what has made these people accept these claims. Simply allow for the possibility that while their conclusions may be erroneous, the evidence that has caused them to reach these conclusions may be real.

I have watched a video (major media) which shows the hole in the first tower moments after the collision, showing damage all the way to the extreme right.
Yet there is quite a bit of archived major media footage showing this portion of the tower undamaged.

The NPT people offer this as proof of cgi. I agree. Where we disagree is that the NPT people believe the purpose of this cgi is to put a hole where none actually exist. I, however, believe it exist to make a 120 foot wide hole turn into a 160 foot hole to match the wingspan of the plane which was suppose to have hit it.

This answers one of the major arguments NPT people are often confronted with. What about all the people who say they saw a plane? Very simple. That's because they did see a plane.
But then the NPT people say 'if a plane did hit why the need for cgi?'
Because the claimed plane could not have fit through the hole.
They say the reason there were no major pieces of debris here was because the tower offered almost no resistance. It follows they cannot suddenly have the wings jammed back to allow passage through an undersized hole like they attempted at the pentagon.

I suggest everyone begin to analyze the rate of fall of all the debris. It exist in almost every video. Concrete and steel will increase its rate of fall by fifteen feet per second. This is not subject to debate. This is a fundamental law of physics.

Should the NPT people discover video where the debris hangs in space they will have proved that the picture is a frozen frame. It would therefore prove that any plane moving in that portion of the video was cgi. You cannot have planes moving in a frozen frame. You cannot have debris simply hanging in the air in an actual video. You see now how to prove your claims beyond debate. I support you in this. I do suggest though that you consider other possible motives for tampering with film. Perhaps to hide the actual type of plane that hit, perhaps to hide things which should not be there such as military jets. There are other possible explanations for the cgi besides the no-plane scenario.

The converse is also true. An object in free-fall can not accelerate at a rate faster than 15 ft a second. If one suspects a video has been sped up they need only reduce the speed of the video until the debris is falling at the only possible rate of acceleration which is fifteen feet per second square and they will then be viewing the video at the correct speed. No need to deal with vague concepts such as 'it looks right'

Once it is demonstrated that film has been either sped up, slowed down, or frozen, then somewhere a media representative will have to explain 'why?'

I think what all the truthers need is a shot in the arm. I think not only can 911 as an inside job be demonstrated and proved, it can be solved. Have a little faith guys. Simple logic, step by step and you will have it.

Once tampering of video has been established on all major media networks, we will be dealing with a whole new ball game. How did Bin Laden manage that?

It appears to be a mere house of cards. How hard can it be to knock it down.
Keep the faith.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 


Can you prove your assertion that there is NO HIGH QUALITY VERSION OF THE SAID VIDEO available?

If your not making that assertion, have you looked for a better more high quality version?




[edit on 25-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Don't you think that is a very silly if not outright stupid question?

I have looked for higher quality videos of all the videos I am examining. I have found better versions of some where I can download archived copies but others I have not been able to.

What are you suggesting?
That I should prove I've looked?
Should I hire a notary public to sit beside me as I search?
Should I video myself searching to prove I did?
What exactly are you saying?

Aren't you getting a little ridiculous now. Do you really think anyone is taking you seriously anymore?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 





Don't you think that is a very silly if not outright stupid question?


Not at all.




I have looked for higher quality videos of all the videos I am examining. I have found better versions of some where I can download archived copies but others I have not been able to.




Can I ask where you looked?




Aren't you getting a little ridiculous now. Do you really think anyone is taking you seriously anymore?



No it isn't ridiculous. The only thing ridiculous here is you asserting "fighter jets" where it is obviously birds.

What you think you are seeing goes against the testimony of the day and any other visual record. The fighter jets that came into New York that day, came later, not when the attack in question happened.

So the *BURDEN of PROOF* is yours. Not mine.

You are making a claim.

I am challenging your claim, and your ability to make that claim based on very poor quality video.







[edit on 25-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I am prepared to eventually prove all my claims in the form of a thread I will post.
You will simply have to wait like everyone else for my thread and like everyone else you are free to disbelieve me until I do post evidence to back my claims.
You don't believe me? I have posted no evidence. There is no reason you should.
I think its a bit silly to attack or demand justification for a thread that hasn't been posted yet, don't you?
You don't believe me. I haven't asked you to. So what is the problem?



new topics




 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join