It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I asked: What was the purpose of your posting Part I of that video in you last post? It was relevant how?
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?
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.
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.
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,
Your final answer to my question as to why you had included a particular video which was not relevant to the conversation
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Aren't you getting a little ridiculous now. Do you really think anyone is taking you seriously anymore?