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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 2
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
911 people get the bad wrap again! I didn't see a single picture that I hated. The only thing I really hated about going to that site is how he arrogantly explains away everything 911 with basic ad hominem attacks and ridiculous theories, which he claims are beyond question or reproach.

I have shown this picture to thousands of people on the street. Perfect strangers. And asked what they saw.

1. Looks like the building is exploding

2. Looks like one of those controlled demolitions

3. Looks like an implosion

4. Looks like a Volcano erupting

5. Looks like an atom bomb going off

And a variety of other answers. These answers were pretty much 98% of the replies. While maybe 1-2 % said otherwise, but very seldom did even they say; It looks like what they told us happened.

I actually love this picture; One of the best single shots showing the complete obliteration of the WTC by God only knows what.



Cheers-
Phil


[edit on 12-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
A plane hit the Pentagon as evidenced by debris such as landing gear.

Every piece of debris at the Pentagon was easily plantable.


Shanksville smoke plume consistant with plane crash, not air to air missile.

The photo is fake. Canadian truther "Shure" called a local Shanksville resident and witness who confirmed it was fake. The original photo didn't have a mushroom cloud she said.


Hundreds of volunteers combed the Shanksville crash site and found items such as seatbelts.

A weathered-looking seatbelt. Yeah, no way that couldn't have been planted.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor G
 


Good post.


Originally posted by Doctor G


In the late 90s the twin towers were told by the city of New York that they wound have to come down by 2007 because of structural degradation. The EPA banned the use of explosives and the Towers had to be manually deconstructed.



Do you have any links to back that up as that is the first I have ever heard of this? If this can be corroborated then it could be massive.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
911 people get the bad wrap again! I didn't see a single picture that I hated. The only thing I really hated about going to that site is how he arrogantly explains away everything 911 with basic ad hominem attacks and ridiculous theories, which he claims are beyond question or reproach.

I have shown this picture to thousands of people on the street. Perfect strangers. And asked what they saw.

1. Looks like the building is exploding

2. Looks like one of those controlled demolitions

3. Looks like an implosion

4. Looks like a Volcano erupting

5. Looks like an atom bomb going off


"Looks like" is a perfectly normal reaction to something never seen before.

We perfectly well know that a volcano wasn't erupting, or an atom bomb going on, or controlled demolitions start from the top. But people naturally look for comparisons.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
When were these pictures made available and under what conditions? The plume picture above looks altered. And, what about the money??? Too many people made money when that building went down.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I think we need to add a thread of the top 100 photos people that believe the official story hate and cannot debate.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I think we need to add a thread of the top 100 photos people that believe the official story hate and cannot debate.


There is no reason for anyone to hate photos. Why would you think so?

Photos can tell us something or nothing at all. I have yet to see any photo from the 9/11 attacks that is not consistent with the evidence and results of the investigations, or that has no value whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I have yet to see any photo from the 9/11 attacks that is not consistent with the evidence and results of the investigations, or that has no value whatsoever.


Problem is people just post photos without sources to prove that they really are from 9/11 and from where they claim to be from.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Show me an actual video of a plane hitting the pentagon, not some #ty 8 frames of god knows what and then we can discuss what happened on 9/11. Oh wait, there are no videos cause the government has them tucked away? Truth stands in the light, if you are going to argue that 9/11 happened just as the government said, you may need your head examined.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Vicious Jones]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicious Jones
you may need your head examined.


Thats for the people who say they can see a 757 in the Pentagon video.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicious Jones
Show me an actual video of a plane hitting the pentagon, not some #ty 8 frames of god knows what and then we can discuss what happened on 9/11. Oh wait, there are no videos cause the government has them tucked away? Truth stands in the light, if you are going to argue that 9/11 happened just as the government said, you may need your head examined.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Vicious Jones]


We've been over that many times over many years. It is really a red herring since no photos or videos are needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. All of the other lines of evidence already tell us that.

There's no point in continuing to try to use that crutch.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
I have yet to see any photo from the 9/11 attacks that is not consistent with the evidence and results of the investigations, or that has no value whatsoever.


Problem is people just post photos without sources to prove that they really are from 9/11 and from where they claim to be from.



Examples, please.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
"They didn't even need "planes" to help the buildings come down, I guess they were "added" for effect."

Also, the other main purpose of the alleged airplanes was to frame 19 cave dwelling Muslims. Without the alleged planes and some fake cellphone calls thrown in, you would have a rather difficult time framing these guys now, wouldn't you?

Layscience. Is this science for people who want to get laid?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Vicious Jones
Show me an actual video of a plane hitting the pentagon, not some #ty 8 frames of god knows what and then we can discuss what happened on 9/11. Oh wait, there are no videos cause the government has them tucked away? Truth stands in the light, if you are going to argue that 9/11 happened just as the government said, you may need your head examined.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Vicious Jones]


We've been over that many times over many years. It is really a red herring since no photos or videos are needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. All of the other lines of evidence already tell us that.

There's no point in continuing to try to use that crutch.



I don't give a flying f***. IF ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE STATES IT WAS A PLANE SHOW ME A VIDEO OF A PLANE. I know there is footage seeing as I lived in DC for 9 years and have seen plenty of cameras around the pentagon. Until I see that video, I don't know what hit the pentagon.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I find it funny that people actually believe a nuke brought the buildings down LOL. Why aren't people sick from the fallout?? where is all the radiation??

Sad thing is, no matter how much we gather we can never prove exactly what happened. Loose Change 2 I think is pretty spot on. But that is just my opinion. I really hope before our lifetime is up that this gets 100% figured out.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
I have shown this picture to thousands of people on the street. Perfect strangers. And asked what they saw.

1. Looks like the building is exploding

2. Looks like one of those controlled demolitions

3. Looks like an implosion

4. Looks like a Volcano erupting

5. Looks like an atom bomb going off



Now why don't you take the Naudet video from the base of the towers as the first one collapsed complete with audio and play THAT for "thousands of people on the street". Then ask them what they hear. I'll bet it goes something like :

1. It doesn't sound like a building exploding
2. It doesn't sound like a controlled demolition
3. It doesn't sound like an implosion
4. It doesn't sound like a volcano erupting
5. It certainly doesn't sound like an atom bomb going off.

And ask them why in the world if there were all these explosions, implosions, volcanoes, and atom bombs NOT knocking the film crew down from the concussive force any one of these would surely produce that close.

This is akin to showing someone a picture of your grandfather sleeping. Sure, he may look dead in the picture, but in the video he's obviously snoring and very much alive. Giving "thousands of people" half the evidence is giving them nothing.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We've been over that many times over many years. It is really a red herring since no photos or videos are needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. All of the other lines of evidence already tell us that.

There's no point in continuing to try to use that crutch.


How have you already concluded, without photos or video, what hit the Pentagon?

What evidence do you have?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I particularly hate photos/pictures/videos like these...

Overhead view of where the jet had to be in relation to the released video footage.



Flight trajectory to coincide with the clipped lamp posts and the focal radius of the CCTV



Quick reminder of what a jet engine is capable of (taxi`s included), when vehicles get to close.




Which for some strange reason (even though most are very basic examples of evidence) have the ability to induce responses and explanations ranging from.......

1). These came from one of those nutjob websites, therefore any aspect of science, physics, ballistics, reality, common sense they cover, is null and void.

2). The guy who took them is a registered pedo, misinformation spook, anti government activist, cousin of < insert random truther related person here>.

3). They are fake.

4). They prove nothing.

5). They have been debunked.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicious Jones
I don't give a flying f***. IF ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE STATES IT WAS A PLANE SHOW ME A VIDEO OF A PLANE. I know there is footage seeing as I lived in DC for 9 years and have seen plenty of cameras around the pentagon. Until I see that video, I don't know what hit the pentagon.


Who cares if you don't know what hit the Pentagon? The numerous witnesses at the scene state it was a plane, the debris was from a plane and the passengers aboard that plane are deceased. I'll take the word of more than 120 people who were there over someone on a conspiracy forum who "doesn't know what hit the pentagon" any day.

We all know there are plenty of cameras around the Pentagon. So what make you so in the know that you "know there is footage" ? Where were the recording devices of the cameras in the vicinity of the impact? Did they get destroyed in the explosion/fire? Were those cameras pointed at the sky in order to get a nice long shot of a plane coming in? Do you *really* know this?

I doubt it.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
And ask them why in the world if there were all these explosions, implosions, volcanoes, and atom bombs NOT knocking the film crew down from the concussive force any one of these would surely produce that close.


I take it you have not seen the interviews of men from their hospital beds explaining that they were injured by heavy explosions that accompanied the "collapses." One witness in a video interview said it sounded like there were rapid gunshots, and then three big explosions.







There are scores, possibly hundreds of testimonies like this, many from people that were fortunate enough to escape without injury.

I assume you have never seen this before and so are simply ignorant of these things. But now that you have been shown them, hopefully you will reconsider your arguments.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join