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.

 

9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Even if there was plenty of camera footage clear as day showing the impact of the airliner, it STILL would be suspect as faked, edited, hologram, planted, etc etc etc. So whats the point? Same old TM SOP: Deny deny deny facts. Suspect suspect suspect everything and anything no matter how remote or obvious.




posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
i haven't seen this before.....ps iv put this up as a separate thread but decided to put it here as well because it i believe contribute's to this thread also...







[edit on 9-8-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If their accounts are insufficient to convince you to drop these conspiracy stories, then why should any camera footage be enough to convince you?

I'll type it very, very slowly Dave. I don't trust people. I would like to see independant confirmations. Just because millions saw David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China doesn't mean it really happened.

But you do make a good point about video. Why should video convince us when we have shown already that so much of the 9/11 video was faked? Well, we'll have to make that judgement when we see the video.

This frame from the famous "five frames" released by the government is a case in point. It purports to show an airliner travelling approximately 500 mph. a second or so before it is supposed to have impacted the building.

Look at the smoke trail at the extreme right, just above the lawn. It's perfect for an aircraft traveling 30 mile per hour, nice and fluffy.



The guy who did the animation on this video didn't stop with the smoke. He also got the date wrong. 9/11 happened on Sept. 11th. not Sept. 12th. Whaddya gonna do? Hey, it's a small mistakes.

9/11 was an inside abortion of a job. Hey, whaddya expect from the Bush administration., architects of Hurricane Katrina relief, the financial meltdown and 9/11?



[edit on 9-8-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The guy who did the animation on this video didn't stop with the smoke. He also got the date wrong. 9/11 happened on Sept. 11th. not Sept. 12th. Whaddya gonna do? Hey, it's a small mistakes.



LOL!

The date is from the day after because that's when the tape was edited to grab the frames of the attack. The date, time and word PLANE (did you not notice that?) are from the AVID the editor inserted into the frames.

Why else would the word PLANE be there? Geez, you're really grasping desperately at straws.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'll type it very, very slowly Dave. I don't trust people. I would like to see independant confirmations. Just because millions saw David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China doesn't mean it really happened.


You are being intellectually dishonest. You and your fellow truthers here are so zealously protective of the eyewitness accounts at the WTC where people heard explosions, and yet when eyewitness accounts saw a passenger jet you start suffering spontaneous amnesia and claim "you don't trust eyewitness accounts".

When it gets to the point where eyewitnesses are only credible when they happen to agree with you, that's not a problem with the eyewitnesses. It's a problem with you. Either eyewitness accounts are credible or they are not.


But you do make a good point about video. Why should video convince us when we have shown already that so much of the 9/11 video was faked? Well, we'll have to make that judgement when we see the video.


This makes no sense whatsoever, given your previous complaint about David Copperfield. If by some unknown hocus pocus the conspirators are able to trick hordes of live eyewitnesses into believing some sleight of hand illusion, then it's a trivial matter to concoct the same illusion on film. Even if they did release some footage that showed a crystal clear image of the plane, you and I both know you'd be insisting it was faked.



The guy who did the animation on this video didn't stop with the smoke. He also got the date wrong. 9/11 happened on Sept. 11th. not Sept. 12th. Whaddya gonna do? Hey, it's a small mistakes.


It's only you conspiracy people who are making the claim this is the time/date stamp of when the video was taken. It was almost certainly the time/date stamp of when the video was analyzed, becuase I sincerely doubt any security camera is sophisticated enough to display, "PLANE" on its video, should one fly by.


9/11 was an inside abortion of a job. Hey, whaddya expect from the Bush administration., architects of Hurricane Katrina relief, the financial meltdown and 9/11?


Sarcasm is not your forte. It's blatantly obvious that you people are so much in love with this "inside job" paranoia that you actually WANT it to be true, so of course you're going to be grasping at any available straw that helps keep your conspiracy stories alive. Yeah, if I absolutely positively wanted to believe the 9/11 attack was staged by space aliens, I know I would see all sorts of "smoking gun" proof that space aliens were behind the attack, too. After all, the missing video would have likewise revealed the UFO hovering over the Pentagon, wouldn't it?

Do you have anything other than innuendo, unsubstanciated accusations, and abject paranoia to back up any of these claims? There are too many credible eyewitness accounts to take any of your conspiracy stories seriously.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
[edit on 9-8-2010 by rival]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
From yet an other angle,,,,




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Why else would the word PLANE be there? Geez, you're really grasping desperately at straws.


I do so apologize for my desperation. I guess I must be overly agitated by the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the criminals who were so kind as to release five fake frames of video.

What about the fake smoke?



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

It's all about context and detail, Dave. Don't bother your head about it. It's thinking person's stuff. It's nice of you to take an interest.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Nioce video that shows nothing at all as suggested by the person who made it...the person who wrote all that text.

He saw examples of windows blowing out, because the building was on FIRE!!! Fire does that, ya know....

BTW....that was the North Tower, correct?? The one hit first?

In the video, we see the South Tower being hit by United 175.

MY POINT IS --- care to think, and tell everyone which buliding collapsed first??? And, what the time span was, from the video, and the "explosions" (windows breaking from intense fire and heat), and the actual collapse OF the North Tower?

Really...people on YouTube make these schlock videos, and expect people to lap them up without thinking??? :shk:



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
It's all about context and detail, Dave. Don't bother your head about it. It's thinking person's stuff. It's nice of you to take an interest.



I absolutely agree, it's all about context and detail. Namely, by your own words, you insist all the eyewitnesses are lying and/or have been fooled by some grandiose open air illusion, that all the wreckage has been planted, the black box was manufactured, and that the released Pentagon footage has been faked...and yet you're supposedly going to seriously believe whatever these unaccounted for videos are going to show. You, sir, are a complete idiot if you genuinely think your children's game is fooling anyone.

You want some thinking person's stuff? All right, here's some thinking person's stuff- it's blatantly obvious you think you're being funny with this stunt of yours, but what you don't realize is that you're not hurting us. You're hurting your fellow truthers, becuase we the public will read your bizarro world "no planes" claims and we'll naturally think you're all lunatics by association. So please, don't change a thing. You're doing more to destroy the conspiracy mongers than I ever could.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You want some thinking person's stuff? All right, here's some thinking person's stuff- it's blatantly obvious you think you're being funny with this stunt of yours, but what you don't realize is that you're not hurting us. You're hurting your fellow truthers, becuase we the public will read your bizarro world "no planes" claims and we'll naturally think you're all lunatics by association. So please, don't change a thing. You're doing more to destroy the conspiracy mongers than I ever could.


I am not a no planer. I don't know how to make it plainer. I am not a no planer. It couldn't be plainer. I am not a no planer.

On a side note, do you know if Plains, Georgia is named in honor of the local airport?

Here's a quiz for you: Is ipsedixit a no planer? Read above. The answer couldn't be plainer.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I am not a no planer. I don't know how to make it plainer. I am not a no planer. It couldn't be plainer. I am not a no planer.


You are either a fool or a liar, becuase I am going by YOUR OWN QUOTES when you said;

"I don't think a pasenger jet hit the Pentagon." -ipsedixit

"I'll type it very, very slowly Dave. I don't trust people. I would like to see independant confirmations. Just because millions saw David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China doesn't mean it really happened." -ipsedixit

"This frame from the famous "five frames" released by the government is a case in point. It purports to show an airliner travelling approximately 500 mph. a second or so before it is supposed to have impacted the building." -ipsedixit


When you say things like "you don't think a passenger jet hit the Pentagon" and "you don't trust any of the eyewitnesses" who "supposedly" saw the plane hit the Pentagon, it necessarily makes you a no-planer, regardless of whether you find the label distasteful. Here's another shocker, so pinch yourself, it's true- it also means you're a conspiracy theorist becuase you're saying that something different happened and the organizers pulled some (in YOUR OWN WORDS) David Copperfield magic to cover it up.

Get your head out of the clouds- if you're going to lie down with the dogs you shouldn't complain when you wake up with fleas.


On a side note, do you know if Plains, Georgia is named in honor of the local airport?


Dunno. Would YOU know why hordes of eyewitnesses who don't know eath other and who are all reporting the same thing wouldn't be, "independent confirmations"? The answer *I* have is, "when they're all reporting something that contradicts what you want to believe".

What's *your* answer?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
When you say things like "you don't think a passenger jet hit the Pentagon" and "you don't trust any of the eyewitnesses" who "supposedly" saw the plane hit the Pentagon, it necessarily makes you a no-planer, regardless of whether you find the label distasteful.


Please elaborate. I don't follow your logic.

I thought "no planer" meant one who believes that no plane hit the WTC.

The appellation "no planer" has nothing to do with the Pentagon since everyone on all sides of the debate believes that there was a plane at the Pentagon.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
As for what happened at the pentagon the numerous video tapes
would clearly show it.

Here we are Almost 9 years later and we cannot see the tapes
from even the gas station or hotel nearby.

If that does not scream cover up, then nothing does.

It has been proven the government has lied many times about
many things, why is now any different ?

Actions speak louder than words.

Them refusing to release the tapes for forensic verification and
public viewing makes their case look very weak.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 



Here we are Almost 9 years later and we cannot see the tapes
from even the gas station or hotel nearby.


I've seen them, they don't show anything. The cameras at those locations were not installed for the purpose of recording a random side of the Pentagon.


If that does not scream cover up, then nothing does.


To some folks, and I'm not pointing fingers here, everything screams cover up. After a while all that screaming becomes just more background noise.


It has been proven the government has lied many times about
many things, why is now any different ?


It has also been proven that the government also told the truth more times, so why should now be different?


Actions speak louder than words.


Actions get more attention, but only words can accurately communicate complex ideas.


Them refusing to release the tapes for forensic verification and
public viewing makes their case look very weak.


To whom does it look weak? Not the public. They are satisfied. They are rational and understanding. Their case only looks "weak" in the rarified atmosphere in which conspiracist dwell.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




Here we are Almost 9 years later and we cannot see the tapes
from even the gas station or hotel nearby.


I've seen them, they don't show anything. The cameras at those locations were not installed for the purpose of recording a random side of the Pentagon.


Excellent! Where can we see them as well? I have always supposed they
didn't show anything, so I've always wondered why they hadn't been
released. Anything at this point would be a revelation...



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Please elaborate. I don't follow your logic.

I thought "no planer" meant one who believes that no plane hit the WTC.


Said who? You're claiming that a passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon despite the hordes of eyewitnesses who say they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, not to mention that they found the black box from AA77 in the Pentagon rubble, and not to mention that flight AA77 is now missing. In fact you're using literally the exact same "it was all some massive gov't 'David Copperfield' sleight of hand" explanation to justify your position that the "no planes hit the WTC" people are using.

How does that not make you a no planer?


The appellation "no planer" has nothing to do with the Pentagon since everyone on all sides of the debate believes that there was a plane at the Pentagon.


Not true. The whole conspiracy bit over the Pentagon got started when some paranoid dope over in France wrote a book claiming that it was actually a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Try judicial watch for the hotel and I forget who had the other one from the gas station. Some conspiracy website where somebody was trying to prove the path of flight 77 from the gas station video.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
As for what happened at the pentagon the numerous video tapes
would clearly show it.


...so according to you, unless there's an actual photo or video of an event, it necessarily means that it never happened...?

There were plenty of eyewitnesses who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, so if their accounts are unacceptable to you, then why would photographs or video be acceptable to you? A single video would be easier to fake than the eyewitness accounts of dozens of people who don't know each other.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join