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.

 

A question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Naudet was in place to stage the first impact shot, as proven by Leslie Raphael, linked to in my 911 for Psychos thread.

Raphael is not a no planer, and he proved the shot was staged.

If Naudet was in place to stage the first strike, he was in place to take video BEFORE the first strike, making it an easy thing to use layering techniques to make a composite video sans missiles.

I invite you to 911 for Psychos for the link to Raphael's work, and the work of others.


Why didn't we have a fake film crew in place to capture AA 77 hitting the Pentagon ? All we have are those 1 frame per second videos.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Videos can be faked, and witnesses can lie, but planes cannot disappear into buildings like hot knives through butter, no matter how much you sputter.


Well everyone can see you did what I said Thanks!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Judging by the creduilty of the average American, it wasn't needed.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Eight months of around the clock efforts with over one thousand people? Try educating yourself about what they actually had to do to move some of that wreckage. Then get back to me.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Too hasty with my response. The problem I have with this holographic theory is that all you need to do is watch any single one of the hundreds of available videos from the day to realize that this theory seems a little silly. While I did say there was 'no video fakery' which is obviously incorrect, I don't see how people can put stock into any faked video, holographic plane or not and by putting theories such as this forward really detract from the overall argument here.

While I said there was no video fakery, I guess what I meant is there is no video fakery worth mentioning. I am sorry for such a dismissive response, do you understand where I am coming from here?

reply to post by Charizard
 


Incredibly informative post and precisely what I am after. I appreciate you taking the time to post that. Cheers mate

edit on 15-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)


What he said. No planers need to find a private video where no plane is seen where there should be one, as far as CGI goes. Or find a holografic projector that is capable of the kind of fidelity we have seen on 911. Good luck with that. However Id like to add, that thats what we are here for, to go through all the mud and theories and see what holds up irl, be it the one with a presidential seal, or one of the others.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kaya82
 


Page 10, 3rd post from the bottom, this thread.
you being serious? Madness



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Plane huggers need to stop chasing their tails and research all the hypotheses.

I am curious why most of the proclaimed truthers and all of the OS faithful refuse to do so.

If I was a criminal with unlimited resources, I'd just make sure I owned the TV stations, because that's all it takes.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 


And now, reality is considered madness......lol. Someone has watched Alice in Wonderland too many times.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Plane huggers need to stop chasing their tails and research all the hypotheses.

I am curious why most of the proclaimed truthers and all of the OS faithful refuse to do so.

If I was a criminal with unlimited resources, I'd just make sure I owned the TV stations, because that's all it takes.


Well nobody argues the point that the video feed was consolidated in very few hands, which is very curious.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kaya82
 


Page 10, 3rd post from the bottom, this thread.
you being serious? Madness


Kaya, he aint worth it, he is the epitome of a debunker, but he attempts to debunk claims with nothing....... I cant wait for him to explain away the thermite/thermate residue Steven Jones found from the rubble he tested....



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Kaya wondered why there was liquid metal in a hole that contained few hundred tons of aluminum, zinc, lead, and assorted other metals with a constant exposure to fire and oxygen. I cannot help it that you dont understand the facts.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


You mentioned the amateur photographers in our chat...

Here's an example of three of them, all with the same perspective and two with same point in time.



edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: added "two with"



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Kaya wondered why there was liquid metal in a hole that contained few hundred tons of aluminum, zinc, lead, and assorted other metals with a constant exposure to fire and oxygen. I cannot help it that you dont understand the facts.


The fire wouldnt of been hot enough to melt all of that, an office fire doesnt burn hot enough and its known that the majority of the jet fuel burned off upon impact with the buildings.... Please explain the thermitic residue Steven Jones found? Or how about the fact that we still havent seen a clip of a plane hitting the Pentagon? Not 1 camera in the whole city caught the plane going into the Pentagon? Its been 10 years and the only thing we have is a little clip that shows nothing but the fireball explosion...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Cassius666
 


You mentioned the amateur photographers in our chat...

Here's an example of three of them, all with the same perspective and two with same point in time.



edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: added "two with"


Last question for you tonight that you will no doubt avoid answering what about all the videos and pictures posted on the net and YouTube we can't even fake those videos in real time (you do know what real time means) now never mind 10 years ago.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

You mentioned the amateur photographers in our chat...

Here's an example of three of them, all with the same perspective and same point in time.




People living in the same apartment with an accessible roof took pictures from the roof that looked similar.

Definite proof of video fakery.
edit on 15-8-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


They grabbed the same point in time of the same 500 MPH object.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Last question for you tonight that you will no doubt avoid answering what about all the videos and pictures posted on the net and YouTube we can't even fake those videos in real time


Have you watched them all? I think I have...name a few and I'll give you your answer.

Now a question for you, or any "truther" or "truster" out there: Why would any single image or video be fraudulent?



edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by waypastvne
 


They grabbed the same point in time of the same 500 MPH object.


Robert Clarks is a photo Tina Carts is a video.

They/you/Simon took the frame from Tina's video that was the closest match to Roberts photo.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451


Have you watched them all? I think I have...name a few and I'll give you your answer.

Now a question for you, or any "truther" or "truster" out there: Why would any single image or video be fraudulent?


I have watched all of the known impact videos. Show me one that is fraudulent.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Or Robert Clark's shot is a still from Tina Cart's video whch seems more likely than to have three iconic photographers all sharing the same flat.

Here I find Luc Courchesne's videos were published on the Naudet Film:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why would the Naudet's include video of an amateur photographer's work before it was publicly available?




edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join