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

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
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.




Its 1,200,000 tons of steel and concrete. Its common sense that it would be around the clock 24/7. Duh!!!!


And your point?. 8 months is still incredibly fast.


*****
But stick to the main point of you answering my question that is constantly being repeated ..




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Dear readers.

Do you see a pattern here?

All of the OS faithful spend most of their time ridiculing. Go back over this thread...look at the constant mocking.

Think for a moment how the truth would be treated if someone did stumble upon it.

Would they be ignored? Ridiculed?

I'm not saying my hypotheses are correct, but I am saying that if they were correct, this is the sort of treatment I"d expect to receive. I guess I might be on the right track.


And here I thought I was being civil about this and clearly labeling my ideas as theory with no backing in personal experience.

What am I, chopped liver?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGod
 


hehe...I stand corrected.

You're being quite civil, my bad.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   






Sorry if I was rude. Debunkers refuse to use there own brains so I mite get bit irked. Don't know where you stand. You sound somewhere in the middle . My advice is to learn about construction ,high-rise construction, as much as possible. Not that it will make a difference in the outcome of the fake 911 storyline, but you will have a clear idea in how your government thinks of your intellect. Again sorry for being a bit aggressive.



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

Originally posted by Yankee451
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.



All of them lived in the same building and had access to the roof.

Which video is fraudulent ?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

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....
you are right my friend



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankee451
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.



All of them lived in the same building and had access to the roof.

Which video is fraudulent ?


From fthe same post you grabbed my quote from, I show another example.




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?




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankee451
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.



All of them lived in the same building and had access to the roof.



What did you expect, someone to admit they were all photographs taken from the same footage?

"we all lived in the same building and all shared the same roof...that's our story and we're sticking to it"



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451


"we all lived in the same building and all shared the same roof...that's our story and we're sticking to it"


Here is some more footage from the Tina Cart video, The video was called Tina Cart because of the Youtube account it was posted under. The actual names of the people who filmed this were Chris Hopewell and Carol Wells. Some of the other people who can be herd in the back ground are an Australian Kevin Robertson and Robert Clark. At 2:30 when a girl ask "did you get the second one on video" you can here Robert Clark reply "I caught it on stills". At 3:48 you can see the ledge of the roof they have ferns growing there, indicating a common area on the roof for tenants of the building.




What is the best evidence you have for video fakery ?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


That's just the beginning, and I invite the readers to do their own homework and make up their own minds.

Care to comment on Luc Courchesne?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I find it curious that three of the most iconic photographs all appear to be taken by the same "team" if not the same camera, I mean, where are all those thousands of photos? Three of the allegedly amateur photographers were sharing the same footag...er...rooftop in just one building.

There should be hundreds of simiarly shared rooftops, so boy, weren't those three the lucky ones?

It appears from the Naudet footage, which contains the footage from other "amateurs", that there were teams of photographers deployed to document the event, and they swapped eachother's footage.

They then continue to leak it to the public as "newly found footage", to keep the dream alive.

Hoax Maintenance, you understand.


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



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

That's just the beginning, and I invite the readers to do their own homework and make up their own minds.

Care to comment on Luc Courchesne?


Originally posted by Yankee451

I'm using the Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition, released in 2002.

I went over the Luc Courchesne WMV, and although it's really small and hard to see, it appears the footage in the Naudet DVD was pulled from early in the Courchesne footage.

The Naudet's footage was released in 2002, but the Courchesne footage doesn't appear to have been released until 2004, although that's not cast in stone. That's when the CBC aired it. However, note the quality of the footage in the Naudet film as compared to the WMV file. If the CBC version had the full footage, I could get a better screen shot of it to compare.

Compare the little whisp highlighted below:






By the way, like many of the amateur photographers, Luc is another 3D animator. His work can be found here:

www.youtube.com...


Comment on what ?

The whisp is a chunk of falling fire proofing.

The top shot is a 3x4 the bottom shot is a 7x19 widescreen with the bottom and top cropped, giving a different look because the aspect ratio is different.

Where is the proof of video fakery ?
edit on 15-8-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It is the same footage which has gone through formatting changes.

The significance of this is that the Naudet film was released two years before the Courchesne footage, which, combined with Leslie Raphael's revelations are damning indeed.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Here is more testimony of inside partecipation to carry out the operation. Testimony that would stand up in court I would say, but judge for yourself. The interesting bit is around the 6:00 mark and I would watch part 2 as well. That the terrorizers were trained in America and not in some hydropowered cave in afghanistan is a fact nobody disputes I think.


edit on 15-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It is the same footage which has gone through formatting changes.

The significance of this is that the Naudet film was released two years before the Courchesne footage, which, combined with Leslie Raphael's revelations are damning indeed.



Is there any thing in this huge pile of

Truther Crap

that isn't innuendo.

If there is I couldn't find it, Please copy paste the proof of video fakery for me.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Did I stutter?

You do know Leslie Raphael's work don't you?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


You mean the link in my post labeled Truther crap is that the work you are talking about ?

Innuendo is not proof.

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



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


That's an old link but I linked to the updated version:

www.frankresearch.info...



Congratulations ! You are reading the one 9/11 website with a hope in hell of getting us somewhere : one with some actual hard documentary (literally) evidence behind it —and one that names names. You won't find the Illuminati in this one ; you won't find the claim that no planes ever hit the Trade Center, because I don't believe that ; you won't find your time wasted with "proofs" of demolitions carried out by folk who are never identified, even by speculation.

Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not.


The question was, are you familiar with his work?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Your link doesn't work.

Does he have any proof at this new link that isn't innuendo ?

If so please separate it out and copy paste it.

If it has any merit I will read the rest of it.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join