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.

 

If One Photograph Is Faked From 9/11, Why Not All?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by hooper
 


Because it's happened before, on multiple occasions. I think that's called setting a precedent. If it happens once and it is proven then there are likely many other occasions where it happened and it went unnoticed and unchallenged. The fact that it happens is not in question. The BBC, the so called bastion of independent reporting, has been busted doing it so many times it isn't even funny any more, and to think they are the only ones at it, and it happens with such infrequency as to be a non issue is at best naivety.



First, please advise what "very possible" means. I am a little unclear about that. Something is either possible or not possible, there is no sliding scale. The only other proper response would be along the lines of insufficient information to make a determination. Unless you want to wander into quantum mechnics, re: the cat in the box.

So are you trying to argue that it is very likely? If so, again, how did you come by this determination?




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


They've used selective pieces of an Obama speech and spliced them together in a completely different order, basically creating a speech Obama never gave then broadcast it on national TV. They were forced to apologise the The Queen after using a bit of creative misrepresentation in a video of her. Tampering with photography , vote rigging, using BBC employees to pose as contestants on television shows, selective/creative journalism, and sometimes just completely making crap up. Not to mention their eco-fascist, politically correct and often completely government-biased reporting style... and if video fakery was used on footage of the events of 9/11 then they are complicit in that too. You see there's this little thing called credibility, and when that's gone it's gone. Everything you do after it's gone is, and should rightfully be, suspect. I'm sure you're aware of the story of the boy who cried wolf? If not, acquaint yourself.


Anyhoo the BBC's shenanigans is a bit off-topic

/end rant




Originally posted by hooper


First, please advise what "very possible" means. I am a little unclear about that. Something is either possible or not possible, there is no sliding scale. The only other proper response would be along the lines of insufficient information to make a determination. Unless you want to wander into quantum mechnics, re: the cat in the box.


Pedantic?


So are you trying to argue that it is very likely? If so, again, how did you come by this determination?


I'm not arguing, I'm stating categorically that it is likely. See above comment about the importance of credibility. Of course if you can prove beyond a doubt that fakery is completely impossible, well then you might actually have something worth contributing. Otherwise even you would have to admit that it is a possibility. If you cant prove its impossible but then cant admit the possibility, well, nuff said really.
edit on 17-2-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 



I'm not arguing, I'm stating categorically that it is likely. See above comment about the importance of credibility. Of course if you can prove beyond a doubt that fakery is completely impossible, well then you might actually have something worth contributing. Otherwise even you would have to admit that it is a possibility. If you cant prove its impossible but then cant admit the possibility, well, nuff said really


Oh, I am more than willing to admit when something is possible. It just that something being "possible" is rather meaningless unless you attempt to imply that possible is equal to probable. It doesn't.

Take for instance this proposition:

"It is possible that President Obama will attend my birthday party".

Is it possible? Of course. Is it likely? Of course not. But as an isolated statement someone may infer just by my public examination of the possibility that there is also some degree of likelihood.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


If Obama had attended your birthday before does that not mean he would be more likely to attend it again? Unless maybe he got steaming drunk, hit on your mum then made a fool of himself by throwing up in the pool the on previous occasion. The title of the thread simply asks the question if one is fake then why not them all? To that end, I say that if one is fake then theres a good chance that there is more than just one. Maybe not all, but definitely more than one.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 



The title of the thread simply asks the question if one is fake then why not them all? To that end, I say that if one is fake then theres a good chance that there is more than just one. Maybe not all, but definitely more than one.


Why definetly? How does figure? This kind of reminds of that tally board you see in Vegas at the roulette wheel where they list the last 30 or so spins. People think that if there are say, 10 blacks in a row then the next one is "more likely" to be white, not understanding that each and every spin of the wheel is an independent event and the results of the previous spins have no bearing on future spins.

Just because one doctored photo may or may not have made it into the media has no bearing on the other photo or videos. By the way you may consider my approach to be "pendantic" but words are important.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
sorry anok. i accept what you are saying somewhat.


Thank you!



if, for one minute, you could assume the photos were faked, then could not the pixilations and defects be attributed to bad quality photoshopping?


No, creating composite photos from other photos is not easy, due to light differences etc., unless you're a real talented artist. Photoshop is not magic. Pixelation is caused by compression, when a high quality pic is reduced in size to a jpeg, or gif, it loses data, the 'colour space' (amount of shades) is reduced, the detail levels of light and shade are reduced etc. This is what causes the oddities like blobby shadows and lack of detail etc.

This is why you need the original uncompressed files to do any real analysis.


goodolddave says that he wouldn't be surprised if some conspiracy conmen got hold of the photo and embellished it with fakery to further the cause. implicit in this statement is that the photographs do show signs of fakery to him. i do not care, as stated above by tommyjo if i am a laughing stock. these two photograph just do not add up to me.


I wouldn't put too much faith is what Dave says. How would anyone benefit from faking this pic? We know 'the spire' is real because there are vids and other photos of it. Why would faking the people benefit anyone?

IF it is a fake then what does it hide, or show, what was the point?


edit on 2/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Interesting thread. There's more than a few anomalies in photographic and video records of what happened that day. The technology required to produce these fakes is far from new, even in 2001. Here's a few of my personal favourites.

Fake Smoke

Have you ever talked to someone who was in NYC on that day? Well, I was. I can tell you, without any doubt the towers were really smoking and they really looked like that. I have friends and acquaintances who saw the second plane hit, they've never doubted any footage (I didn't see it until after both towers were burning). I worked for Marsh & McLennan, though I started there about 6 months after the attack. Marsh had two huge offices in New York - one in mid-town, where I later worked, and one in the Twin Towers. The first plane actually hit the Marsh offices in that tower and the company lost more than 300 people on 9/11, most pretty much instantly.

My friends who worked in the main office in Mid-town could see the towers burning from their windows. All of them knew dozens of people working in the Towers that day who all died (on average, my co-workers lost about two dozens friends each in the 9/11 attacks). They all saw the second plane hit, while watching and crying as their own friends were burning to death in the first tower.

I'm sorry, but saying this stuff isn't real and especially the follow-up below by another person questioning the photos of the victims is just profoundly offensive, personally, to me. My friends and co-workers at that job all suffered some pretty bad PTSD due to what they went through on 9/11. Also, one of my best friends was a First Responder there that day (he got there about 20 minutes after the towers fell) and he can personally attest to the number of smashed and burned bodies he saw and had to help sift through as they looked in vain for survivors. He still is still suffering PTSD from 9/11 to this day and probably always will.


The Moving Bridge

That's an effect caused by changing the zoom on a camera is the camera, itself, is simultaneously moved. It is used in movies all the time, traditionally in horror movies, but it has been used in many others as well. Watch this scene from Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas and pay careful attention to the background starting at the 00:27 second mark: as the camera pulls back, the background behind the actors' heads appears to expand. This is not a digital effect, this is done in-camera, on set by simply adjusting the zoom while the camera moves. If you have a video camera with a zoom lens, you can create this same effect yourself. I would recommend having someone stand in the foreground in a long hallway, then move to and away from them while you play with the zoom. Pretty quickly you'll get some good shots that are very similar to this effect.

This is exactly what is happening in the video you linked - the camera is moving (no doubt in a fast moving helicopter), while the camera man is very quickly adjusting the zoom. Realize, the cameras on those helicopters have EXTREMELY powerful zoom lenses, that can probably magnify everywhere from 1x1 (normal view) to 100x1, so if the guy on the camera is racking the zoom very quickly, you can easily see a massive object like the bridge in the background seemingly "move" at what would have to be hundreds of miles per hour. But it's not moving, the camera man is just trying to adjust his shot.
edit on 2/17/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

You say that because we observe the driver and passenger silhouettes (which for the life of me, i am having difficulty discerning) the car must be moving. I cannot see how you can definitively come to this conclusion based on photo1 alone. Also this would be strange, would it not? One of the most spectacular sights they are ever likely to see, and they just drive away. Also the black man in picture 1 seems strangely nonchalant about the whole event and doesn't even seem to be paying the catastrophe any attention.


From your own photo you can see that the back window of the vehicle shows an light gray section, then a dark gray section, then a light gray section, then some more dark and light gray sections. These are the sillouettes of the driver and passengers, and the radio antenna in the middle of the window means that it's the rear window. If the vehicle was still in the vicinity it would have been off camera somewhere to the right of the man in the white shirt on the second photo.


If you accept that both pictures were taken by the same photographer (see link below for equal sized photos), and that no more than 1 or 2 seconds could have passed between the shots, based on the distance the top of the spire has fallen and the dust dispersal difference, then you must accept that the photographer must be roughly in the same spot to have taken both shots almost consecutively, just zooming out for the second picture.


I accept no such thing. This is why I would prefer to see the original uncropped photos before that damned fool conspiracy web site you got this bit from had manhandled them. By the time of the collapse every camera in NYC and NJ was focused on the WTC, so odds are pretty good they were part of two independent landscape photos taken from two independent angles by two independent photographers, and they were intentionally cropped by some conspiracy con artist or another to get you all paranoid over nonsense exactly like this.

Ever since that conspiracy con artist Dylan Avery deliberately cropped a photo of a group of people carrying a triage tent into the Pentagon and claimed it was some mysterious tarp covered thing being carried OUT of the Pentagon, I'd demand proof from these damned fool conspiracy web sites even if they said night was dark and farts stink.


Both WTC background building perspectives appear identical. But this cannot be the case, as the foreground setting clearly indicatess in photo 2, with the large relative jump in position of the man in the white shirt/brown shorts, the absence of the black man in the shot, the absence of the car seen in photo one and the presence of the police SUV and three spectators nearby.


No they don't appear identical. There are two smaller identical looking buildings to the right of the taller building with the dome on it. You can see the lamp post switch from being in front of one building to the othe rbuildings, meaning they were taken from two different angles. The man in the white shirt appears to be the same angle becuase he's not in focus and the buildings in the background appear to be the same angle simply because they're gigantic.


So we are left with a dilemma goodolddave. The photographer could not have remained stationery while taking both shots, due to the foreground differences, and he could not have moved the 20-30? yards to his left in the 1 to 2 seconds available, which would also have altered the background perspectives.


The only dilemma I'm seeing is that if this is all "blatantly a conspiracy" then why do you need to resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel like this to find your evidence for it? If you genuinely have to resort ot arguing whether a car containing a driver and passengers would or would not be moving, this is a mark of desperation on your part in keeping your conspiracy claims alive, more than it is anything else.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by pshea38

You say that because we observe the driver and passenger silhouettes (which for the life of me, i am having difficulty discerning) the car must be moving. I cannot see how you can definitively come to this conclusion based on photo1 alone. Also this would be strange, would it not? One of the most spectacular sights they are ever likely to see, and they just drive away. Also the black man in picture 1 seems strangely nonchalant about the whole event and doesn't even seem to be paying the catastrophe any attention.


From your own photo you can see that the back window of the vehicle shows an light gray section, then a dark gray section, then a light gray section, then some more dark and light gray sections. These are the sillouettes of the driver and passengers, and the radio antenna in the middle of the window means that it's the rear window. If the vehicle was still in the vicinity it would have been off camera somewhere to the right of the man in the white shirt on the second photo.


If you accept that both pictures were taken by the same photographer (see link below for equal sized photos), and that no more than 1 or 2 seconds could have passed between the shots, based on the distance the top of the spire has fallen and the dust dispersal difference, then you must accept that the photographer must be roughly in the same spot to have taken both shots almost consecutively, just zooming out for the second picture.


I accept no such thing. This is why I would prefer to see the original uncropped photos before that damned fool conspiracy web site you got this bit from had manhandled them. By the time of the collapse every camera in NYC and NJ was focused on the WTC, so odds are pretty good they were part of two independent landscape photos taken from two independent angles by two independent photographers, and they were intentionally cropped by some conspiracy con artist or another to get you all paranoid over nonsense exactly like this.

Ever since that conspiracy con artist Dylan Avery deliberately cropped a photo of a group of people carrying a triage tent into the Pentagon and claimed it was some mysterious tarp covered thing being carried OUT of the Pentagon, I'd demand proof from these damned fool conspiracy web sites even if they said night was dark and farts stink.


Both WTC background building perspectives appear identical. But this cannot be the case, as the foreground setting clearly indicatess in photo 2, with the large relative jump in position of the man in the white shirt/brown shorts, the absence of the black man in the shot, the absence of the car seen in photo one and the presence of the police SUV and three spectators nearby.


No they don't appear identical. There are two smaller identical looking buildings to the right of the taller building with the dome on it. You can see the lamp post switch from being in front of one building to the othe rbuildings, meaning they were taken from two different angles. The man in the white shirt appears to be the same angle becuase he's not in focus and the buildings in the background appear to be the same angle simply because they're gigantic.


So we are left with a dilemma goodolddave. The photographer could not have remained stationery while taking both shots, due to the foreground differences, and he could not have moved the 20-30? yards to his left in the 1 to 2 seconds available, which would also have altered the background perspectives.


The only dilemma I'm seeing is that if this is all "blatantly a conspiracy" then why do you need to resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel like this to find your evidence for it? If you genuinely have to resort ot arguing whether a car containing a driver and passengers would or would not be moving, this is a mark of desperation on your part in keeping your conspiracy claims alive, more than it is anything else.


As you say yourself, if i or any other conspiracy nutcase were to tell you that farts stink or that night was dark, you wouldn't believe it. I will leave it there. By the way i just noticed your signature. You quote, seemingly with pride and confidence, one of the most corrupted, twisted, contemptible, despicable excuses for a human being alive in America today. Sleep well, goodOLDdave.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


As already explained to you get on a photography course and see for yourself? You are the one making all these claims in regards to photography, so why don't you come here armed with all the evidence? Nothing will make it more apparent by actually taking images yourself and experimenting within a photography course. What did you really expect when creating the thread? Did you really think that photographers were going to come on and star and flag your evidence? Until you understand basic photography then you will forever be lost.

TJ



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by pshea38
 


As already explained to you get on a photography course and see for yourself? You are the one making all these claims in regards to photography, so why don't you come here armed with all the evidence? Nothing will make it more apparent by actually taking images yourself and experimenting within a photography course. What did you really expect when creating the thread? Did you really think that photographers were going to come on and star and flag your evidence? Until you understand basic photography then you will forever be lost.

TJ


I may do. The photos didn't make sense to me and still don't. I couldn't care less for stars and flags. Not everyone who commented on this thread disagreed with me. How about the point mentioned that the yellow boat seen on the river didn't come into operation in new york until 2002? How about my own point that some of the building shadows are in contradiction with the human shadows, in terms of the direction from which the sun is shining. I know, i know. Understand basic photography or i will be forever lost. I have seen plenty of 9/11 photographs which have been proven faked and photoshopped and by people with expert knowledge in photography. Another question i have is why the pixilations are concentrated around the individual figures, objects and buildings and not widespread throughout otherwise clear photographs? I know, i know...enlist in a photography course and find out else i will be forever lost. In what sense will i be forever lost tj, if i don't understand basic photography? In life? In love? In resolving the issues of my existence? We can't all know everything about everything, or even anything about most things. But at least i know i don't know. But i do thank you for responding.

pshea.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by taters2468
did nobody read what sphinx just posted? thats definately the water taxi, its a blatantly obvious shape, and it didnt begin operation until a year after 9/11.


Not a New York Water Taxi, but a Liberty State Park boat.

See images of LSP boat with WTC in background from 2000.



www.abouttwintowers.info...

newyorkstockphoto.photoshelter.com...

TJ





edit on 18-2-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Yeah that's it. The image I found was on a site about the NY water taxis, so I made an incorrect but understandable assumption.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I wouldn't put too much faith is what Dave says. How would anyone benefit from faking this pic? We know 'the spire' is real because there are vids and other photos of it. Why would faking the people benefit anyone?


How can you possibly ask that question, Anok. How much money did that con artist Thierry Meyssan make from inventing the whole, "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" hoax and how many different languages has his book been translated into? Doesn't it strike you a little odd that every time Alex Jones hosts a get together that everyone is wearing those black, "Investigate 9/11" T-shirts with the magnifying glass that HE sells on his web site for fifteen dollars a pop? It was your own fellow conspiracy theorists posting videos of his gatherings that showed that to begin with.

The OP all but admitted this "faked photos" bit came from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which means some con artist or another rigged this whole spiel together specifically to push the idea of "faked photos" into people's heads...which even YOU admit is an unlikely claim. How did these conspiracy con artists NOT pull a fast one here? If you don't want to believe anything I say, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean you have to shovel all your money to every fringe conspiracy lunatic coming along with marginal web development skills simply to spite me.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah that's it. The image I found was on a site about the NY water taxis, so I made an incorrect but understandable assumption.


Yes, it is understandable. The OP wants there to be a conspiracy so he wants to think the yellow thing in the middle of the river was a garbage can, which he in turn uses to show impropriety. YOU want there to be a conspiracy so you want to think the yellow boats only showed up after 9/11, which you in turn use to show impropriety. At the end of the day, you WANT there to be a conspiracy and you will grasp at any paper thin straw you come across without thinking in order to keep them alive.

Do the rest of us REALLY need to explain to you conspiracy people that you're going to need more than some uber-magnified photo of a pixilated guy with a chunk of his head missing to prove these "controlled demolitions", "Lasers from outer space" or whatever conspiracy it is you're swallowing.
edit on 19-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


They've used selective pieces of an Obama speech and spliced them together in a completely different order, basically creating a speech Obama never gave then broadcast it on national TV. They were forced to apologise the The Queen after using a bit of creative misrepresentation in a video of her. Tampering with photography , vote rigging, using BBC employees to pose as contestants on television shows, selective/creative journalism, and sometimes just completely making crap up. Not to mention their eco-fascist, politically correct and often completely government-biased reporting style... and if video fakery was used on footage of the events of 9/11 then they are complicit in that too. You see there's this little thing called credibility, and when that's gone it's gone. Everything you do after it's gone is, and should rightfully be, suspect. I'm sure you're aware of the story of the boy who cried wolf? If not, acquaint yourself.


That's crazy. There's a bit of a difference between selective editing to give a slightly different impression in a promo, and spending millions of dollars, setting up hundreds of witnesses and knowingly broadcasting a staged mass murder. It's a bit like saying that because you once got a parking violation you are likely to be complicit in genocide.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah that's it. The image I found was on a site about the NY water taxis, so I made an incorrect but understandable assumption.


Yes, it is understandable. The OP wants there to be a conspiracy so he wants to think the yellow thing in the middle of the river was a garbage can, which he in turn uses t/o show impropriety. YOU want there to be a conspiracy so you want to think the yellow boats only showed up after 9/11, which you in turn use to show impropriety. At the end of the day, you WANT there to be a conspiracy and you will grasp at any paper thin straw you come across without thinking in order to keep them alive.

Do the rest of us REALLY need to explain to you conspiracy people that you're going to need more than some uber-magnified photo of a pixilated guy with a chunk of his head missing to prove these "controlled demolitions", "Lasers from outer space" or whatever conspiracy it is you're swallowing.
edit on 19-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


What are you waffling on about? It's not me who said those boats were not available until after 9/11.

In fact if you read my posts I was the first one to point out it was a boat. I was the first one to mention the hole in his head was in fact reflecting light. I have done nothing in this thread but disagree that the photos were faked.

You just want to discredit people not matter what they say, when have I EVER mentioned 'lasers from space'? IN ANY THREAD, let alone this one!

Once again Dave you show your true colours and your willingness to lie. What is wrong with you?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

How can you possibly ask that question, Anok. How much money did that con artist Thierry Meyssan make from inventing the whole, "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" hoax and how many different languages has his book been translated into? Doesn't it strike you a little odd that every time Alex Jones hosts a get together that everyone is wearing those black, "Investigate 9/11" T-shirts with the magnifying glass that HE sells on his web site for fifteen dollars a pop? It was your own fellow conspiracy theorists posting videos of his gatherings that showed that to begin with.

The OP all but admitted this "faked photos" bit came from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which means some con artist or another rigged this whole spiel together specifically to push the idea of "faked photos" into people's heads...which even YOU admit is an unlikely claim. How did these conspiracy con artists NOT pull a fast one here? If you don't want to believe anything I say, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean you have to shovel all your money to every fringe conspiracy lunatic coming along with marginal web development skills simply to spite me.


Again what are you on about? Are you also claiming these pics are fake? You think 'truthers' faked the spire? They faked the people in the pics? What Dave?

I'm confused as to your position here. I EVEN admit? I will admit to whatever I find to be true, I don't make things up to suit my argument, unlike you debunkers. I don't see anything fake about those pics, regardless of whom was supposed to be the faker. I don't see a motive to fake them, as there are plenty of other pics and vids showing the same thing.

I think you're here to just confuse the discussion Dave, or you are simply confused yourself.


edit on 2/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

How can you possibly ask that question, Anok. How much money did that con artist Thierry Meyssan make from inventing the whole, "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" hoax and how many different languages has his book been translated into? Doesn't it strike you a little odd that every time Alex Jones hosts a get together that everyone is wearing those black, "Investigate 9/11" T-shirts with the magnifying glass that HE sells on his web site for fifteen dollars a pop? It was your own fellow conspiracy theorists posting videos of his gatherings that showed that to begin with.

The OP all but admitted this "faked photos" bit came from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which means some con artist or another rigged this whole spiel together specifically to push the idea of "faked photos" into people's heads...which even YOU admit is an unlikely claim. How did these conspiracy con artists NOT pull a fast one here? If you don't want to believe anything I say, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean you have to shovel all your money to every fringe conspiracy lunatic coming along with marginal web development skills simply to spite me.


Again what are you on about? Are you also claiming these pics are fake? You think 'truthers' faked the spire? They faked the people in the pics? What Dave?

I'm confused as to your position here. I EVEN admit? I will admit to whatever I find to be true, I don't make things up to suit my argument, unlike you debunkers. I don't see anything fake about those pics, regardless of whom was supposed to be the faker. I don't see a motive to fake them, as there are plenty of other pics and vids showing the same thing.

I think you're here to just confuse the discussion Dave, or you are simply confused yourself.

i have to agree with goodolddave here anok. its not on. it is simply not on. since when have unsuspecting tourists ever actually wanted to parade down the river in a trashcan. sure if there is nothing else around, what are you going to do. god knows its offensive olfactorially-wise and expensive to boot but given the alternatives wouldn't you and i do the exact same. i know that i would anyways. again its not good anok and again, simply not on. i know what you're going to ask. how was it? well i will tell you how it was. it was rubbish!


edit on 2/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

I was browsing through this article concerning the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11

xenonpup.startlogic.com...

I clicked on 'earlier article about the spire' detailing the strange disintegration of the spire and some things seemed strange to me regarding these two photographs.






The second photo was taken by photojournalist Ray Stubblebine: raystubblebine.com...



As you can see from the first sequence (photos are cropped), he remained pretty much in the same position. There is no evidence that the photos are fake.

Another photo by Stubblebine later but still in a similar position:

edit on 22-2-2011 by brainsandgravy because: correction



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join