Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Killtown on 9/11

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
especially about some of the broadcast television anamolies on the day of 9-11

-groan-

PUH-LEEZ don't tell me you subscribe to the "September Clues" type of conspiracies? I had a higher opinion of you than that.
edit on 27-6-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
my experience of killtown from debating 9/11 subjects was that they made some very good points and observations
however there were also alot of stuff they would say and promote that had no evidence or was a stretch.
it almost felt like they were promoting facts to get people on side, but once on side trying to push disinformation.

in those days it got to a point where nothing killtown said could be trusted and he/she ran into many bans as a result. they would accuse you of being a shill if you questioned the evidence they were providing which like i said at first seemed sensible and based on facts, but mixed in with wild claims etc. if you questioned those claims you were a shill. the shill talk and accusations would lead to bans.

i no longer debate this subject i am just pointing out my experience from the past at a time when i did have questions.
edit on 27-6-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

The woman, Wendy Burlingame, 32, was discovered by firefighters in a short hallway between the kitchen and the bedroom of her 10th-floor apartment where the four-alarm fire began, said Edward DeFazio, the Hudson County prosecutor. Mr. DeFazio said the fire, which law enforcement officials are calling suspicious, began shortly after midnight in the apartment Ms. Burlingame shared with her companion and was still under investigation, as was the cause of Ms. Burlingame’s death.



Hmm, better? says drinking might have been involved but doesn't say it in this article.


Shortly before the fire erupted, Mr. Rojas said, there were “louder noises than usual” coming from the apartment upstairs, “like somebody running around up there, like somebody doing something up there in a rush.”

Then he said he heard a thud — “like somebody dropped something”— and three or four minutes later the building’s fire alarm sounded. Mr. Rojas said that within minutes his apartment filled with smoke. He then safely left the building.


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
my experience of killtown from debating 9/11 subjects was that they made some very good points and observations
however there were also alot of stuff they would say and promote that had no evidence or was a stretch.
it almost felt like they were promoting facts to get people on side, but once on side trying to push disinformation.

in those days it got to a point where nothing killtown said could be trusted and he/she ran into many bans as a result. they would accuse you of being a shill if you questioned the evidence they were providing which like i said at first seemed sensible and based on facts, but mixed in with wild claims etc. if you questioned those claims you were a shill. the shill talk and accusations would lead to bans.

i no longer debate this subject i am just pointing out my experience from the past at a time when i did have questions.
edit on 27-6-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)


When KT had his own forum I participated but was eventually banned for not swallowing alot of the bilge that was being pumped out - what was funny was that as the readership and participation was shrinking he and his associates would occasionally drag out one of my old posts, respond to it and then accuse me of cowardice for not responding, neglecting to tell the few readers there that I was banned and could not respond.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Killtown is a disinformation artist. He creates disinformation and mixes it in with a little truth to give his disinformation the illusion of truthfulness. He also aligns himself with the no-planers and "September Clueless" disinfo cult. He's been banned from all 9/11 truth forums including this one and under many different socks.

Needless to say, nobody is buying the disinfo that Killtown puts out. Nor is anyone buying the "September Clueless" garbage, including ATS as ATS has been moving the no-plane disinfo garbage to the HOAX bin where it belongs.

There are already Killtown threads, by the way. I'm surprised this one didn't get closed and route people to post in the already-existent one(s).



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by twitchy
especially about some of the broadcast television anamolies on the day of 9-11

-groan-

PUH-LEEZ don't tell me you subscribe to the "September Clues" type of conspiracies? I had a higher opinion of you than that.
edit on 27-6-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)


And You in a position of authority.

How many sheep will follow, i wonder?

I know you are not stupid so there is some other reason why you, and abovetopsecret
in general, continue to ridicule sites such as septemberclues, which present nothing
but clear, verifiable evidence to suppost their assertions. It is proven, beyond doubt, that
media fakery played a large part in the televisual hoax that was 9/11.

I hadn't any opinion of you, but it has definitely gone down.

Media complicity was a necessary component of the 9/11 hoax,
and this dirty secret must be kept hidden from the public, at all costs,
Special efforts in this endeavour courtesy of most media agencies.

Nearly forgot. ATS is a media agency, right?

9/11 TV Fakery Evidence


Fakery Forums


P.S. The usual herds are out in numbers on this thread.
TRUTHS LIE HERE, No Doubt!
edit on 27-6-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
And You in a position of authority.

Why would that preclude me from expressing a valid opinion?



I know you are not stupid so there is some other reason why you, and abovetopsecret
in general, continue to ridicule sites such as septemberclues,

Because their videos are wrong, making incorrect assumptions based on exceptionally poor-quality source videos downloaded from YouTube.



Media complicity was a necessary component of the 9/11 hoax,

Can you explain how the necessary hundreds of people involved at all the networks and news agencies with cameras turned on have been prevented from blowing a whistle?
edit on 27-6-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Can you explain how the necessary hundreds of people involved at all the networks and news agencies with cameras turned on have been prevented from blowing a whistle?


It takes 'hundreds of people involved at all the networks and news agencies' to key up a "feed"? Who's feed?

Nobody has sufficiently explained the fade to black killtown discussed, it is dismissed as a fluke by skeptics but skeptics dismiss alot of things... nobody has sufficiently explained the BBC and CNN's 10 minute prophesy of WTC 7's collaspe or the prior warning of the collapses given to the Mayor and the OEM and hundreds of folks on the street around the complex... I dont want to get into a big 9-11 debate, but I will say that as long as we continue to attack the source rather than the information they present, in this instance Killtown, than we are going to have a hell of a time calling ourselves conspiracy theorists, that tactic is a disgusting last ditch kinda stuff we usually attribute to conspirators, mooks, and shills and it's shameful to see it permeate this site from the top down.

No, I'm not a 'no planer', and I don't 'subscribe' to any theory, but when someone asks an intriguing question it deserves an answer rather than ridicule, especially here. There's some weird stuff going on in the footage we were shown, and those anamolies exsist utterly regardless of your personal opinions about a person or group and IMO killtown deserved a better rebuttal than what he got from us. He might be a total fruit loop for all I know, but I know what a 'fade to black' looks like when I see one and CGI is well within the capability of the average six year old.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
ATS has been moving the no-plane disinfo garbage to the HOAX bin where it belongs.

I hope that isn't accurate, threads discussing this aspect of 9-11 are being 'Hoaxed' because you don't like killtown?!?
edit on 28-6-2011 by twitchy because: My Doughnuts Had Holes In Them



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Yeah, I saw those videos last night and that is odd. Especially, the fade to black, you can definitely see the fade to black, and the contrast and different backdrops. When doing graphics myself, you can definitely tell the different backdrops in the same scene and the one perfectly angled to the other building which is highly unlikely. Wow, you know at the time, I never really even noticed that. Thanks.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
It takes 'hundreds of people involved at all the networks and news agencies' to key up a "feed"?

The cover-up would need to involve much more than simply "keying up" an alternate reality feed. "They" would need to ensure the silence of:
1) camera crews who saw something different than what was eventually shown on TV
2) news anchors with access to more than one feed at one time
3) production room people getting all the live feeds from the field
4) police in the air
5) people on the ground
6) etc.



Nobody has sufficiently explained the fade to black killtown discussed



There are so many things that can go wrong in a live video environment... things which become exponentially more likely with shoulder-mount remote cameras... the number of which increases the more R/F interference is in the area... the number of which increases again when a busy/frantic video production room is trying to get the best live footage on the air.

A remote camera, in a helicopter, during an event with overwhelming R/F interference (from so many sources) and frantic production people provides so many more plausible explanation than the fantastical -- "someone" decided to inject an alternate reality video feed, for all news sources at the scene, at that precise moment.




nobody has sufficiently explained the BBC and CNN's 10 minute prophesy of WTC 7's collaspe or the prior warning of the collapses given to the Mayor and the OEM and hundreds of folks on the street around the complex...

That's not related to video fakery, and I admit that's the one aspect of 9/11 where I can entertain the possibility of some assistance in the demolition.

But then...
Progressive Review Archives

In the November/December 2001 issue of Designer/Builder, Mallot gives a deeply disturbing interview to Kingsley Hammet who writes: "Prior to the advent of the World Trade Center towers, high-rise buildings shared two vital characteristics. They were supported by a grid of steel columns, generally spaced about thirty feet apart, and each interior column was encased in a tough cladding of concrete to create a fireproof skin designed to withstand a four-hour inferno. (The four-hour fire rating is the code rule for the columns and major beams in any large building.) As designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, New York's Twin Towers incorporated neither of these traditional features. And as far as Malott is concerned, it was the failure of their substitutes - not the initial crash, not the exploding jet fuel, and not the subsequent fire alone -that lead to their collapse and the enormous loss of life


We need to keep in mind that the World Trade Center complex involved a different "just good enough" design sensibility because of the enormous size and cost of construction. When you combine that with the intensely corrupt construction industry in New Your during the time they were built -- fueled by organized crime and deep corruption in city, state, and federal building inspectors and permit agencies -- we most-certainly ended up with a sub-standard design being constructed with even more sub-standard materials and techniques.




I dont want to get into a big 9-11 debate

I hear you.




but I will say that as long as we continue to attack the source rather than the information they present, in this instance Killtown

You need to rewind to what was actually happening at the time, and realize we were given no choice. He would be posting ever more absurd 9/11 notions on ATS in a highly confrontational tone, then not participating in the follow-up discussion, and instead posting the responses of ATS members to other "safe harbor" 9/11 discussion venues and responding there with the kind of vitriol and insults not allowed on ATS. He injected himself into the situation, and forced us to deal with the source.




There's some weird stuff going on in the footage we were shown, and those anamolies exsist utterly regardless of your personal opinions about a person or group and IMO killtown deserved a better rebuttal than what he got from us.

Why have we never seen anyone researching those anomalies using the raw footage rather that YouTube sources? So many of the "anomalies" can be explained away by the simple fact of multi-generational digital videos being used as the source.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 





but I will say that as long as we continue to attack the source rather than the information they present, in this instance Killtown, than we are going to have a hell of a time calling ourselves conspiracy theorists, that tactic is a disgusting last ditch kinda stuff we usually attribute to conspirators, mooks, and shills and it's shameful to see it permeate this site from the top down.


i can only give me experience although i am sure others have had a simular one. people did not use to attack killtown, they would simply question his/her evidence and claims, when killtown could not provide the answer they would accuse the people questioning their information as being a shill or if on their own site they would be banned.

killtown caused all of their own problems by attacking anybody who disagreed with their conclusions. i even see you are mentioning certain things to be linked to shills, that is what killtown would do all the time. if you disagree your a shill, if you do this that or the other your a shill, thats was the way it was all the time.

if you did not believe what was presented you were a shill and attacked for being one, when in reality i am just a normal person who disagrees with the evidence presented and have pointed out the flaws in the information.

so my experience is the only people who were attacked were those who looked at the information, but did not agree with the conclusions.

edit on 28-6-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Face facts, the buildings are an explosion MANY of them, nothing looks like a collapse.


So you claim the buildings exploded, and did not collapse....

It's not really a claim, but a physical fact, that the buildings exploded and did not "collapse".



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Who's feed, it was a rhetorical question, the answer to which was supposedly WABC, an ABC affiliate using a WESCAM... Military technology.
www.911closeup.com...

Hardly seems the norm for a news crew, and as I said, it only takes one camera crew to provide a feed to your hundreds of news agencies, just one.

As I said, I'm not a 'no planer' and holograms seem a bit farfetched to me considiering that the US military spent alot of time and money designing and creating missiles made specifically to resemble commercial jet airliners prior to 9-11, and one of the teams from MIT responsible for developing that technology were supposedly onboard and perished on one of the planes involved. I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'm sure some of our weapons saavy members sould probably give more details, but the entirety of the 'no planer' movement based it's conjectures on the anamolies of the footage shown that day. I think they jumped a little ahead of themselves with the whole hologram bit and that was latched onto and was promoted by nefarious insiders to discredit those who questioned the very real oddities in the footage. I think the 'no plane' school of thought was a straw man used to cover their asses, otherwise we would be forced to lend some creedence to dozens of witnesses, many unimpeachable, who claimed the jets didn't 'look right' to them as well as a holy host of pilots who seem to think the manuevers made by those aircraft were next to impossible for the aircraft involved, especially given the piloting was done by Pakistani ISI weekend warriors who attended and performed poorly at the same batch of CIA funded flight schools we get the likes of Oswald and Barry Seal from.

The fade to black you're so quick to dismiss, happens at a critical and arguably convenient moment, the nose cone of an aluminum jet airliner makes it all the way through the WTC tower, impossibly, and the moment of the exit wound fades to black, either that nose cone was diamond tough, or it was simply a boolean add to a CGI animation keyframe, realized and covered up at the last moment by a quick fade. And yeah, good luck finding the raw footage from any source, alot of it was literally confiscated, and alot of it never surfaced to begin with. A Fade to black, at that critical moment, as a result of RF interference? If that helps you sleep I guess...

We have a different memory as to what happened to killtown here on ATS, I recall him presenting a great thread, something to the effect of TV Fakery during 9-11, and was pretty visciously attacked as a no planer despite a compelling thread that went into great detail. If you have a link to that thread, I'd like to read it again. I hope ATS isn't deleting that material out of hand because it was presented by someone controversial, are they?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
It's not really a claim, but a physical fact, that the buildings exploded and did not "collapse".

I don't think it's a "fact," in that sense. I can be a "fact" that there was the appearance of explosions and rapid collapse, but not a fact that there were explosions.

Extending such a theory to its logical conclusion involves several dozen (if not hundreds) of people involved in putting the explosions in the buildings, then staying quiet once the collapse occurred.

It's much more plausible to consider that the poor structure design of the building, combined with the very-high probability there were corruption-inspired shortcuts and material substitutions in the construction, resulted in buildings that were much more fragile than expected. And the end result of the intense kinetic energy aircraft impact weakened much of the structure such that a rapid collapse was imminent.

But that only places the focus of a government conspiracy (at least as it relates to building collapse) into a different area -- the rampant corruption that is known to have existed in city, state, and federal building projects at the time, and the resulting cover-up of bad inspections, bad materials, and collusion with mob-infested construction companies.

And, this is certainly not intended to be taken as an implication there were no conspiracies related to why those planes targeted those buildings.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Who's feed, it was a rhetorical question, the answer to which was supposedly WABC, an ABC affiliate using a WESCAM... Military technology.
www.911closeup.com...

But not exclusive to the military...
WESCAM for sale
WESCAM for sale
WESCAM for sale
One simple search on Google reveals it's not exclusively military technology, and is indeed used by local news outlets.



it only takes one camera crew to provide a feed to your hundreds of news agencies, just one.

But how does that reconcile with the dozens (if not hundreds) of people who will realized the "feed" happening is not what they're seeing on their cameras and monitors?




I hope ATS isn't deleting that material out of hand because it was presented by someone controversial, are they?

Nothing was removed.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I don't think it's a "fact," in that sense. I can be a "fact" that there was the appearance of explosions and rapid collapse, but not a fact that there were explosions.


Wow, I hadn't come across the 'no explosions' theory yet. After seven years here on ATS and a great deal of time and research devoted to the 9-11 topic, why do I feel betrayed by that?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
why do I feel betrayed by that?

Oh don't get all worked up and start running around your room yelling "COINTELPRO SHILL!!!"


I think you know me well enough by now that *I* can have a specific opinion about conspiracy theories, that may contradict much that is on ATS, while still fully supporting, embracing, and promoting what our members post and think -- regardless of how it might conflict with my opinion.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
sites such as septemberclues, which present nothing but clear, verifiable evidence

Have you obtained any copies of the original videos and had them professionally tested for fakery, CGI or anything along those lines? No? Then you have no verifiable anything.



Originally posted by twitchy
the US military spent alot of time and money designing and creating missiles made specifically to resemble commercial jet airliners prior to 9-11

That's a mighty big claim. Got any evidence to support it?



Originally posted by twitchy
I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'm sure some of our weapons saavy members sould probably give more details

Not pressed for time enough to type that large post and not able to post a simple link to an outrageous claim. Convenient.



Originally posted by twitchy
The fade to black you're so quick to dismiss

There was no "fade to black". It was sufficiently debunked in the video that Skeptic Overlord posted.



Originally posted by twitchy
the nose cone of an aluminum jet airliner makes it all the way through the WTC tower

Yet another no-planer lie. There was no exit hole, and the pixels of the "nose-in/nose-out" disinformation don't come close to matching. Therefore, there was no real nose that exited the tower, and there was no CGI nose that accidentally got moved past the tower.

And if they were trying to cover it up with that debunked fade-to-black, why are there lots of other shots which show the fake "nose-out"? None of the other "nose-out"s got "faded", so why only one?


No exit hole:




The nose-in/nose-out hoax:




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
but not a fact that there were explosions.

Over 100 firefighters out of the 500 interviewed, reported explosions in both towers. Many other firefighters, police, bystanders, and survivors reported timed, synchronous BOOMS as the buildings were collapsing. Several firefighters even saw flashes "going up, down and around" the towers in the lower and middle floors while the building was collapsing above. These several firefighters also reported popping or exploding sounds with those flashes.

And all of that on top of the audio and video evidence of explosions. I'd say that's about as close to fact as you can get without the physical pieces of the explosives.

I've asked and asked for somebody, anybody, to produce evidence of a fire-induced collapse that exhibits flashes with popping or exploding sounds, and timed/synchronous BOOMs. Nobody to this day, has yet to oblige. But you sure can watch videos all day long of controlled demolitions that exhibit flashes with popping or exploding sounds, as well as timed/synchronous BOOMs. Now why is that?

I'm producing a sort of documentary about the World Trade Center and hope to prove conclusively that those buildings were brought down with explosives. I hope to change your mind after viewing that video, S.O.




Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
resulted in buildings that were much more fragile than expected

If those buildings were so fragile, then we would've seen more damage from the plane impacts. Don't forget, the "official" reason for the collapse of all three buildings was due to heat from fire. And as we are all well-aware, fire doesn't cause steel-structured highrises to globally collapse.



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
And the end result of the intense kinetic energy aircraft impact weakened much of the structure such that a rapid collapse was imminent.

This is completely false information. I don't know if you are just expressing your opinion, or actually read this stuff from somewhere, but it couldn't be farther from the truth.

First and foremost, as I've already stated, if the structures were so weak and fragile, we would've seen alot more structural failure on impact than what we did. I don't know if you've ever worked with steel and aluminum, but I work with them every single day and have for the better part of the last decade. All you have to do is look at aluminum and it will dent or scratch. It is extremely soft, but when assembled and formed in a certain way, it can be fairly strong.

The cores of those towers were constructed into a fortress of columns assembled vertically, horizontally, and diagonally:




The only parts of a jetliner that could do any damage to the core columns would be the engines and landing gear. Those are the strongest parts of a plane. The aluminum bodies would do no damage to any of the core columns.

To put the above to the test, let's look at the trajectory for the second plane impact:




Looking at the above image, most of the fuselage and the whole starboard side of the plane missed the core of the south tower. And yet we see no exit holes, and virtually no damage to the outer columns of the other side of the tower. The "poorly constructed" and relatively light-duty outer columns survived the brunt of the plane impact on the other side of the south tower, let alone the massive fortress of core columns assembled vertically, horizontally, and diagonally. That proves that the aluminum bodies of those planes did zero damage to the massive fortress that was the core of the towers. And thus putting to rest the claim that the towers were poorly constructed, or that the planes did significant damage to the structures.

To keep it "official", NIST's original "calculations" showed that 32 outer columns were severed or damaged, and 6-10 core columns (6 for the south tower, 10 for the north tower) were severed or damaged due to the impacts of the planes. That only amounts to 15% of the structure in the impact zones as damaged. That leaves 85% of the structure intact in the impact zones, and 100% of the structure intact above and below. That can be construed as minor structural damage.


And don't forget, NIST used guesses, made-up computer models, and their own "calculations" to make up their report. They guessed and calculated just as well as anyone else can. In other words, their report is not factual. It's hypothetical. A theory on how the towers collapsed. It even says at the beginning of the NIST report that it cannot be used in a court of law. It's not factual and it's not evidential. Just theoretical.

One day, S.O., I hope to convince you that what we were "officially" told is not what really happened.






edit on 28-6-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: spelling



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Over 100 firefighters out of the 500 interviewed, reported explosions in both towers...

I know.

I also know that sequential structural failures of a very-large building, under intense load, can sound like explosions.

Imagine -- for a moment, following the thought of shoddy construction -- that many welds of all the major external load-bearing steal were sub-standard, and less than "good enough" as the design originally dictated. As upper welds failed, and more stress was suddenly applied to lower welds, the breaking of the welds will sound explosive.

I'm just tossing this out there as an explanation that's more plausible than the complex explosives/demolition conspiracy theory that requires a great many people to do the work, then stay silent.



I'm producing a sort of documentary about the World Trade Center and hope to prove conclusively that those buildings were brought down with explosives. I hope to change your mind after viewing that video, S.O.

I hope so to. I look forward to it.




If those buildings were so fragile, then we would've seen more damage from the plane impacts.

I think we saw quite a bit. In fact, if you believe Fetzer and other "no-planers," the planes should have bounced off.





Don't forget, the "official" reason for the collapse of all three buildings was due to heat from fire.

There's a lot within the "official story" I don't believe, and that's one of the items.

However, following the chain of thought represented by my poor construction direction, "fires" as the official reason for collapse would indeed still be part of a cover-up... just a more long-ranging cover-up that dates back to the construction of the towers.




The only parts of a jetliner that could do any damage to the core columns would be the engines and landing gear. Those are the strongest parts of a plane. The aluminum bodies would do no damage to any of the core columns.

Assuming the core is as strong as it should be.

Much of my "thinking" along these lines is related to a brief comment from a contractor doing work on our floor in our building (when I was working in NYC) at the time of the attacks. We were all watching the news monitors in our office lobby, and he said something very close to: "That tower's comin' down, maybe even the other one. Those buildings are pieces of ----, I worked on 'em." This was before the second plane, and everyone there thought he was nuts. Back in 2002, I looked into some stories about the construction issues, none of which were online, but in newspaper archives in the New York City Library. The New York Post ran a series of articles on the corruption and cost-cutting rumors as the construction of the first tower was ending.




One day, S.O., I hope to convince you that what we were "officially" told is not what really happened.

As I've mentioned, I need no convincing of that.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join