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.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 19
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



If we're relying on video to discern how WTC7 fell, we need to verify the videos are genuine...what if the images of the WTC7 collapse is a special effect; how effective would analysis of the videos be then?

I used to be a member of S911T, and watched from afar as Jones and Fetzer went their seperate ways. It was their interaction that made me suspect the both of them of being controlled opposition. Jones was pretty disparaging of any theory that didn't fit his Thermite one, and Fetzer was all over the place with exotic weaponry.

I don't trust anyone completely in the truth movement...especially those who are the respected experts with backgrounds at Los Alamos. Just saying...I know this will piss off some truthers, but pissing people off seems to be my forte.




posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


If the videos that we use to discern what happened that day are fabrications, then nothing anywhere can be used as evidence and anyone's claim is as good as anyone else's since nothing can be positively verified.

I'm afraid there has to be an assumption of reality at least somewhere in order to come to any kind of conclusion.
edit on 11-4-2011 by Varemia because: found the typo I was looking for, but not the droids



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 


If the videos that we use to discern what happened that day are fabrications, then nothing anywhere can be used as evidence and anyone's claim is as good as anyone else's since nothing can be positively verified.

I'm afraid there has to be an assumption of reality at least somewhere in order to come to any kind of conclusion.
edit on 11-4-2011 by Varemia because: found the typo I was looking for, but not the droids


Well, if they're fraudulent, they're fraudulent. It is what it is, but if you're assuming anything at all, is that a reasonable way to investigate? We all know what one does when one assumes.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Everyone makes assumptions. It's the only way we can think rationally. The first assumption is to assume that you are real and that reality is constant. The next assumption is that videos record reality well. Since video has accurately reflected the reality that we accept and assume is real, we tend to use it in the realm of evidence to determine why something happened.

The problems with your simple statement about videos being fraudulent are that:
A: You have provided nothing that actually shows that they are fake.
B: You are assuming that every video showing what you assume to be a fakery makes every video a fake, a silly assumption considering the volume of videos available. The odds of mistakes in video faking go up exponentially as you add more videos to the mix. Here we're talking not just a few videos, but dozens from a myriad of film and digital devices. There's even a collection of professional photographs which caught the planes, the damage, etc. In order to apply the same fakery to every single one, you would have to match the angle, lighting, camera settings, and resolution perfectly. In my opinion, that's pretty much impossible.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Everyone makes assumptions. It's the only way we can think rationally. The first assumption is to assume that you are real and that reality is constant. The next assumption is that videos record reality well. Since video has accurately reflected the reality that we accept and assume is real, we tend to use it in the realm of evidence to determine why something happened.

The problems with your simple statement about videos being fraudulent are that:
A: You have provided nothing that actually shows that they are fake.
B: You are assuming that every video showing what you assume to be a fakery makes every video a fake, a silly assumption considering the volume of videos available. The odds of mistakes in video faking go up exponentially as you add more videos to the mix. Here we're talking not just a few videos, but dozens from a myriad of film and digital devices. There's even a collection of professional photographs which caught the planes, the damage, etc. In order to apply the same fakery to every single one, you would have to match the angle, lighting, camera settings, and resolution perfectly. In my opinion, that's pretty much impossible.


If they're fraudulent is what I said; would it kill you to entertain a theory without turning it into a "prove it to me" fest?

If any single video or image has been proven to be fraudulent (they have), they all should be viewed with scrutiny, don't you agree? We're involved in three wars over these claims, so you'd think it would be pretty important.

If you're believing authority by virtue of their authority and if you're believing the TeeVee by virtue of the size of their megaphone, then I submit the criminals of the world would fall all over themselves to make sure they own the power in that authority and the voices coming from the megaphone. And it appears they've done just that. If you must trust, at least verify.

So no...one mustn't assume anything. I disagree with your attempt at the existential tangent as well...your perception of reality is not mine; what you are describing in not rationality, but rationalization. At least that's what I think, and I think; therefore I am.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Just in case you still want some proof, in Ben81's thread I offered up this stuff weeks ago regarding Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark's fraudulent images:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: and here's a great link containing the many examples of the 911 actors. They're counting on your credulity.

letsrollforums.com...
edit on 11-4-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia
 


Just in case you still want some proof, in Ben81's thread I offered up this stuff weeks ago regarding Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark's fraudulent images:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: and here's a great link containing the many examples of the 911 actors. They're counting on your credulity.

/quote]

What's all the spamming for that forum? One of its administrator openly calls for hanging eyewitnesses because they spoil his conspiracy fantasy.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





What's all the spamming for that forum? One of its administrator openly calls for hanging eyewitnesses because they spoil his conspiracy fantasy.



If you or any of the Truster faithful will respond to the content of my posts rather than offer excuses to avoid that content, perhaps I'd only need to post this information once.

I believe I've also "spammed" this forum. It's the topic, not the messenger I'm asking for a repartee on...are you capable of addressing the subject of the post?

killtown.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Yes, viewed with scrutiny, but logically ALL the videos and images can't be forged. You insinuate that every single image and video is fake because a few might be fake. It has been ten years after all; there are bound to be kids on computers making fakes.

In regards to assumptions, don't you assume that you exist and that you are real? That reality around you exists? Those are true assumptions. Don't assume that I'm assuming absolutely everything. I'm just saying that my level of credibility placed on the sheer number of videos is higher than the level I have placed on other theories due to lack of evidence and lack of substance. That DOESN'T mean I believe every video is true (I imagine you would probably assume that after reading this).



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Yes, viewed with scrutiny, but logically ALL the videos and images can't be forged.


How do you figure?



You insinuate that every single image and video is fake because a few might be fake.


Negative, I am saying quite clearly that since some have been proven to be fake, when NONE should be fake, we should scrutinize all photographic evidence, every single picture should be verified since some doubt has already been cast. What I hear you saying is that it's beyond reason that ALL would be faked, without providing your reasoning for it. If some were faked, why not all of them? How can you tell unless you scrutinize each one? Which ones do you assume are good anyway? Do you have a list, or do you just choose a percentage?



It has been ten years after all; there are bound to be kids on computers making fakes.


I've been looking at the same pictures for ten years. They haven't changed, except when the government or a major media outlet release new footage. If they're fakes made by kids, then you can see how easily folks are fooled, no?



In regards to assumptions, don't you assume that you exist and that you are real? That reality around you exists?
Those are true assumptions. Don't assume that I'm assuming absolutely everything.


Reality is a concept best left for another thread, but if I catch myself assuming something it is usually when I'm admitting I'm wrong. I try to let the evidence lead me, regardless where it leads.




I'm just saying that my level of credibility placed on the sheer number of videos is higher than the level I have placed on other theories due to lack of evidence and lack of substance.


And I'm just saying that your credulity is too easily influenced by the flash and bling of the messenger rather than seriously listening to the message. Since I've been rubbing virtual elbows with you, I don't think you've had enough time to really read why I have come to these conclusions. 911 takes an investment of time most folks can't afford.



That DOESN'T mean I believe every video is true (I imagine you would probably assume that after reading this).


Well and good then, can you ask yourself why CNN or any of the alphabet soup outlets would have ever broadcast any fraudulent images?

If as you say, you don't assume every video is true, which ones do you think aren't?
edit on 11-4-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Negative, I am saying quite clearly that since some have been proven to be fake, when NONE should be fake, we should scrutinize all photographic evidence, every single picture should be verified since some doubt has already been cast. What I hear you saying is that it's beyond reason that ALL would be faked, without providing your reasoning for it. If some were faked, why not all of them? How can you tell unless you scrutinize each one? Which ones do you assume are good anyway? Do you have a list, or do you just choose a percentage?


I don't assume any are good, I just assume that all can't be bad. In that regard there are simply an overwhelming amount of videos and pictures to imagine that every one was faked, in my opinion.


I've been looking at the same pictures for ten years. They haven't changed, except when the government or a major media outlet release new footage. If they're fakes made by kids, then you can see how easily folks are fooled, no?


Could you please point out some of these fakes? I keep hearing you refer to them as if they're common knowledge, and I'd like to know if you have substance backing up your claims.


And I'm just saying that your credulity is too easily influenced by the flash and bling of the messenger rather than seriously listening to the message. Since I've been rubbing virtual elbows with you, I don't think you've had enough time to really read why I have come to these conclusions. 911 takes an investment of time most folks can't afford.


So I should have "faith" that everything is a lie rather than actually look at what's available. Why is it that I have seen like over 70 different angles, camera types, resolutions, exposures, shutter speeds, and sound qualities in JUST video? Why would the government go to such a ridiculous amount of trouble to fake a plane? Wouldn't it be WAY easier to use the actual plane and maybe just load it with an explosive? That way, you don't have to deal with covering as much up. The "official fairy tale" just creates itself.


Well and good then, can you ask yourself why CNN or any of the alphabet soup outlets would have ever broadcast any fraudulent images?

If as you say, you don't assume every video is true, which ones do you think aren't?


Because CNN is just a media news station? Believe it or not, the news is run by humans, and as humans who make their living off of reporting things first and most radically, the stations were trying to find the best footage as fast as possible, meaning that especially in a disaster like 9/11, they weren't placing a high level of scrutiny on what they were receiving. They sometimes report hearsay as fact until somebody proves to them that no, there was no anthrax, just some guy threatening to "wax" everyone (bad example and way more realistic than the crap reporting that really goes on).

I don't have a list of videos I see as true or false. I do have some videos which are misleading, such as the WTC 7 collapse videos with the beginning intentionally cut off. Also, there are videos of the WTC tower collapse which have been overlaid with huge boom noises, even though audio analysis reveals that the explosions were in stereo while the regular audio of the video was in mono. Same story with the guy's "reaction" to the explosion at WTC 7. The explosion was in stereo while the video was in mono, meaning that someone superimposed the sound onto it to make it seem like the guy was reacting to an explosion, when clearly you can see firefighters had just walked up right behind him and were yelling at him, asking him what he was doing there. Then the bad overall quality of the video and people's imaginations made them assume that the video was legitimate. It took a LONG time to prove to Truthers that it was a fake.

But no, I don't actually have many 'day of' videos which were visually altered ten years ago. I would love to know which ones you have so I could apply the same level of scrutiny to them that you have and see if I can come to the same conclusion.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




I don't assume any are good, I just assume that all can't be bad. In that regard there are simply an overwhelming amount of videos and pictures to imagine that every one was faked, in my opinion.


Do you see the point? You're assuming something that is absolutely necessary to verify. If all it takes is a large volume of footage to convince you and the rest of the masses, then what's to prevent someone with endless means from making a large volume of footage?



Could you please point out some of these fakes? I keep hearing you refer to them as if they're common knowledge, and I'd like to know if you have substance backing up your claims.


This is what frustrates me...I keep linking this information and then I get accused of spamming. From earlier in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




So I should have "faith" that everything is a lie rather than actually look at what's available.


I never said this, in fact I keep saying the opposite. You should have faith in nothing, no matter who presents it, until you verify it for yourself. You are the one who has the faith in the OS...I am the one who keeps saying everything should be suspect and should be verified.



Why is it that I have seen like over 70 different angles, camera types, resolutions, exposures, shutter speeds, and sound qualities in JUST video?


Have you seen that many different angles? Have you examined all the available images? Have you compared perspectives to see if they are consistent, and have you compared audio to see if they're tampered with?

You're still assuming.



Why would the government go to such a ridiculous amount of trouble to fake a plane?


I have answered this question multiple times for you...remember the ONI and the SEC investigations? It was because their goals were far more important than just demolishing the WTC and starting a war. Operation Code Angel and Operation Brownstone shed light on the real goals of 911. They couldn't use real planes because real planes wouldn't cause near the needed damage to guarantee destruction of the evidence, and real plane parts can be forensically identified.



Because CNN is just a media news station? Believe it or not, the news is run by humans, and as humans who make their living off of reporting things first and most radically, the stations were trying to find the best footage as fast as possible, meaning that especially in a disaster like 9/11, they weren't placing a high level of scrutiny on what they were receiving. They sometimes report hearsay as fact until somebody proves to them that no, there was no anthrax, just some guy threatening to "wax" everyone (bad example and way more realistic than the crap reporting that really goes on).


I can't believe you wrote that, but even if CNN was willing to throw obviously fraudulent footage on the air ten years ago, you'd think they'd have time since then to correct their mistakes.



But no, I don't actually have many 'day of' videos which were visually altered ten years ago. I would love to know which ones you have so I could apply the same level of scrutiny to them that you have and see if I can come to the same conclusion


ALL the live footage used the same feed. Just watch September clues. The evidence is stuck right before your eyes.
septemberclues.info...




edit on 12-4-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper
 





What's all the spamming for that forum? One of its administrator openly calls for hanging eyewitnesses because they spoil his conspiracy fantasy.



If you or any of the Truster faithful will respond to the content of my posts rather than offer excuses to avoid that content, perhaps I'd only need to post this information once.

I believe I've also "spammed" this forum. It's the topic, not the messenger I'm asking for a repartee on...are you capable of addressing the subject of the post?

killtown.blogspot.com...


Sorry, but I do reserve the right to consider the messenger as well and consider it in the context of other "message" that messenger has spewed. And don't get so high and mighty, you constantly dismiss anything that was seen on "teevee" as you so often point out.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Sorry, but I do reserve the right to consider the messenger as well and consider it in the context of other "message" that messenger has spewed.


Oh I know Hooper, I am well aware of your "debating" talents and how sensitive you are to my terminology. When boxed into a corner you'll fabricate a tall tale or accuse me of being someone Jews hate.

In this case the messengers are Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehle and Richard Clark, whose images were used by mainstream media and which are still considered genuine by same. Observe their work below:



Which one is real and which is false? They can't all be real, but can they all be false? How will you know unless you investigate?




And don't get so high and mighty, you constantly dismiss anything that was seen on "teevee" as you so often point out.


And again, your inferiority complex is not my doing.

Perhaps you should take more offense at what the TeeVee is telling you, rather than the word I use to describe it. Why do you take it so personally? Do you spend too much time with the TeeVee?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Oh I know Hooper, I am well aware of your "debating" talents and how sensitive you are to my terminology. When boxed into a corner you'll fabricate a tall tale or accuse me of being someone Jews hate.

Oh I don't think the Jews hate you....


In this case the messengers are Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehle and Richard Clark, whose images were used by mainstream media and which are still considered genuine by same. Observe their work below:

Prove - mind you prove - that any one of them is fake. Its your assertion, the burden rests with you.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Prove - mind you prove - that any one of them is fake. Its your assertion, the burden rests with you.


I just did.

Now is your chance to examine my proof and rebut it, or if it's not wrong, you will have a chance to reconsider your position...or you can just use the last slur of the incompetent...you know the one, Babushka.


edit on 12-4-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I gotta say, I don't see where you proved them to be false.

The image you posted is pretty low resolution, do you have a better copy to show what is the apparent problem?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by hooper

Prove - mind you prove - that any one of them is fake. Its your assertion, the burden rests with you.


I just did.

Now is your chance to examine my proof and rebut it, or if it's not wrong, you will have a chance to reconsider your position...or you can just use a the last slur of the incompetent...you know the one, Babushka.


Let me see if I got this right you "proved" that one or more is fake because you don't think they can all be real? I don't think that qualifies as "proof". I am not sure thats even valid as an opinion.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Sorry, Hoop has blown me off so many times I stopped bothering to add the links...

Here's a more in depth conversation with better resolution images:
letsrollforums.com...

Here's another forum from which the smaller image you refer to was borrowed:
killtown.blogspot.com...

Here's Lelie Raphael's piece about the Naudet's 911 film where he referenced Staehle:
www.frankresearch.info...

And other examples of frauds as well:
www.frankresearch.info...

And then there's September Clues for a long video of examples:
www.septemberclues.info...



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by exponent
 


Sorry, Hoop has blown me off so many times I stopped bothering to add the links...

Here's a more in depth conversation with better resolution images:
letsrollforums.com...

Here's another forum from which the smaller image you refer to was borrowed:
killtown.blogspot.com...

Here's Lelie Raphael's piece about the Naudet's 911 film where he referenced Staehle:
www.frankresearch.info...

And other examples of frauds as well:
www.frankresearch.info...

And then there's September Clues for a long video of examples:
www.septemberclues.info...

Wow, five conspiracy websites. One of which I already told you I won't deal with because of their advocacy of violence. Try and use your own words.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join