It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S cameraman has proof 911 was a lie - you decide

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:37 PM
I looked through the slide show of Sonnenfeld's images. Based on what I saw, I don't think he has anything new or startling. Obviously, it is impossible to be categorical about that without examining everything he photographed.

I saw some beams which appeared to be angle cut but which on closer examination with a carpenter's square, I concluded were not angle cut. I saw a very small number of beams that I believe were indisputably angle cut in areas which were not likely accessible by cleanup welders.

There should be more. Unless another means of cutting large beams was employed than shaped charges.

Virtually all of the "wheatchex" assemblies that I saw had their bolts and welds sheared off square. That doesn't mean that they weren't subject to explosive pressure but rather that the typical "angle cut" employed during controlled demos on large interior beams of a building was not employed to cut those exterior sections of the WTC.

Only detailed study by experts could come up with a believeable comprehensive explanation of how these controlled demolitions were carried out. To date we've had piecemeal explanations on all sides of this topic. Nothing thorough and complete.

The truth movement is trying to put the jigsaw puzzle together and has had some hypotheses that haven't proved fruitful. NIST and FEMA have published discredited reports that don't address all the issues.

Sonnenfeld implies that he has relevant testimony which might be based on his observations, rather than photographs.

What I saw at certain moments and in certain very frightening, I don't know how to put it in words, what I saw leads me to the terrible conclusion that there was foreknowledge of what was going to happen. The precautions that were taken to save certain things that the authorities there considered irreplaceable or invaluable. For example, certain things were missing that could only have been removed with a truck, yet after the first plane hit one of the towers, everything in Manhattan collapsed and no one could have gotten near the towers to do that.

Not impressed. Surely those valuable things would have been removed prior to the attack, if there was foreknowledge. And even if they could not be removed prior to the attack, even the most convinced truther could hardly fault the government for taking special precautions to remove especially valuable material from the site using whatever means they could command at the earliest possible moment.

I would love to see all of Sonnenfeld's photos and hear his story. If interrogated by a knowledgeable 9/11 truth expert, he might be a trove of useful information.

He should dump his bag of tricks on the table without further delay.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by vipertech0596

Well...for a start he was a FEMA photographer/videographer and the ONLY one authorized to be at ground zero at the time. complete and total BS, he was ONE member of a team.

My mistake. I had read he was alone, thanks for putting me right.

(although, you could have left out the 'BS' remark, and just said i had it wrong, no?)

It turns out he was a FEMA public affairs officer and photographer, together with 3 other FEMA photographers, in the 3-4 weeks after 9/11.

Although he said the FBI questioned a co-worker about his tapes, does this preclude any possibility that he was asked personally by the authorities prior to them asking another person?

Is it normal in the USA to be arrested on suspicion of murder, charged for 1st degree murder, held in solitary confinement for a number of months, then have the charges dropped ONE day before his trial for murder was to start?

The police had apparently decided that a suicide note (or at least a note that reads as such) was not 'important' enough to enter into evidence!

Only for subsequent inquiries about Kurt to be apparently centered around whatever tapes and images he may or may not have of ground zero?

Wouldn't he at least be required to surrender his passport, and more likely, forbidden to leave NYC?

Thanks again for the team update, but even so, don't you think this whole thing, on the face of it at least, sounds rotten?

I'm not saying he's been/being set up as such, just that to my mind, it really looks that way.

[edit on 30/8/2010 by spikey]

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by digby888
i think its a bit funny that he did not mention the murder charges against him

and did not once try to deny them. you think if he was beeing framed he would want to put his side of the story across but no nothing and if he is a murderer

he should be tried for it video or not

What *I* find interesting is that he never mentioned anything about any inconsistancies in his photos for years, not until skipped the country and faced extradition for the murder of his wife, not to mention, how quickly he got remarried as soon as he got there. Also, as other people already mentioned, he hasn't produced even a microbe of any of the suspicious evidence he says he has, nor has he shown why his photos are any different than any of the other blizzard of photos taken of ground zero.

Methinks that the truthers had better keep their distance from this guy, as it's blatantly obvious he's only using them and their movement to get away with murder. Referencing him in their zeal to prove conspiracy is stretching things pretty badly, even for them.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by spikey

More a comment on the fact that HE claims he was the only one. Yes, the whole thing smells....and by the whole thing I mean HIS story. He has been shown to be a using his own words.

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:34 PM
just a thought, what if law enforcement and this guy are both telling the truth. it is possible...

second line (is this still a requirement?)

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Shark VA84]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by Newbomb Turk

So, what are the chances that this guy did kill someone, and the United States government wants to prosecute him?

He is a nobody to me. Why should I care?

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Section31]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:25 AM
That dude doesn't even look like the type that would kill someone. He does seem a bit nervous though in his interviews always speaking in two's. I noticed his crime was in Denver and isn't the CiA headquarters in Denver?

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by dragnet53
That dude doesn't even look like the type that would kill someone. He does seem a bit nervous though in his interviews always speaking in two's. I noticed his crime was in Denver and isn't the CiA headquarters in Denver?

It's in Langley, Virginia.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:25 AM
Interesting case I guess, why hold on to the video for all this time?

If he thinks it's a bargaining chip? He is in for a shock.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
This has been well covered before.

But if you think he - and the 911 conspiracy - are genuine, ask yourself this: if a shadowy organisation is capable of carrying out the 911 attacks what are the odds of it being unable to bump off some random guy in a foreign country?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in