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: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The link seems fine to me and he does supply proof, and names names.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


You linked me to someone who cant even figure out the moving bridge shot and expect him to have some credibility? He is no smarter than Simon Shack.


Quote from link

Either this is the world's only suspension bridge capable of moving of its own volition, or someone has manufactured this piece of film — in plain English, faked it. Where did it come from ? Who produced it, and why ? Who thought burning skyscrapers weren't dramatic enough — that we needed bridges performing impossible stunts to bludgeon us into submission, and/or prove our gullibility ? What liar cooked up these pictures ?


One of the funniest Simon ever did was this:
On August 10 2009 Simon Shack posted this video






at the now defunct website 9/11 Truth Movement Fourm.


As simon sez


Just to 'clean' your eyes : Here's a normal video filmed from a helicopter - with REAL colors, REAL camera movements and NO silly chopper skids/landing gear obstructing the view
www.youtube.com...


Take note at 1:10

YES, that is the Verrazano Bridge drifting gracefully across the background behind the Statue of Liberty.




Leslie Raphael and Simon Shack are idiots calling for other idiots to join them.

You have answered their call.
edit on 15-8-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:07 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"


I think you should open a new thread with that material. This one is all over the place.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



I linked you to Leslie Raphael's critique of the Naudet 911 video, and to my own work regarding Luc Courchesne., not to Simon Shack.

I can see you're not here for a serious discussion, so I'll leave you to your devices.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


no problem, I was just leaving.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Listening to all these explanations of secret gov't agents, Jewish world orders, the Illuminati, the Masons, secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, whatever, it's as if the only ones in the entire world completely innocent of the attack is Bin Laden and Al Qaida. You tell me why these conspiracy proponents are suffering from a credibility problem.
I love it! I never get tired of the generalizations made by official story believers, it's always something along the lines of "You truthers with your mini-nukes, space lasers, and holographic planes can't be taken seriously".

Let's refine that list of yours: Controlled demolitions.

That is the important one, although it could be argued that Bin Laden was a "secret gov't agent" since I'm 99% sure he was a member of the organization that evolved into Al Qaeda which was funded/trained by the CIA, but that's a dead end because there's no solid evidence.


Now this is exactly what I've been saying all along- there's a gigantic amount of information that's freely available to explain how the events of 9/11 unfolded. It's just that you don't know anything about it because you're going to those damned fool conspiracy websites for all your information, and their goal is to stir up abject paranoia for their own financial gain. Engine parts, landing gear, and fuselage pieces were found in the wreckage but they're certainly not going to be honest about telling you any of that. They're almost certainly the ones who told you that lie about no fuselage or engine parts being found to begin with.
I've actually changed positions over the Pentagon, because there are many witnesses that describe a commercial aircraft, there is debris from a Boeing 757, and there is damage from both engines of a twin engine jet.

Also, could you post that image showing the damage left on the cement thing? Because I couldn't find it when I looked for it.

However there are still some things that have me skeptical, primarily the witnesses who describe a flight path that does not match up with the path required to cause damage to the light poles, as well as Lloyd England, the guy whose taxi was supposedly struck by the light poles that fell down admitting that 9/11 was planned by people with lots of money, he was used and involved in it but didn't want to be.

Then there were the dudes climbing out of a bus with duffle bags heading in the direction of the Pentagon, and the only explanation I have is they're there to scatter debris around. If that was the case, then the evidence backing up a Boeing 757 drops to damage from the engines, and witness testimonies. Still, how could they fake the engine damage, did they place a C4 charge that detonated in a circular explosion, causing a hole that looks like an engine hit it?

But then I think about the pilot who sucked at flying a single engine plane, but pulled of a clutch flight path by turning smoothly while descending, and then staying just a few feet above the ground without screwing up and hitting the ground. Then there were experienced pilots who said even for a pro, that would be very difficult to pull of. Who knows, maybe he toked up some opium beforehand and was really focused


A Boeing 757 hitting it makes more sense and is consistent with the engine damage as well as the debris, but I just wish there was a clear video of the Boeing striking the Pentagon so I could be 100% sure and my mind could be at ease in that area.


...and we're back to the fake editing of the damned fool conspiracy websites again. This whole "explosions in the basement" bit came from William Rodriguez, and he ALSO said that fireballs from the impact and the burning fuel came down the central elevator shaft with such incredible force that it pushed the elevator down into the basement and severely burned the occupants (who he subsequently rescued). If the force from an explosion is powerful enough to push an elevator down an elevator shaft like a bullet down a barrel. there's certainly going to be some form of concussion when that force reaches the bottom.

What does it say to you when these damned fool websites are carefully picking and choosing what they want to tell you and what they're withholding from you, even when it's all coming from the exact same person?
....dude.....come on, these dozens of witnesses aren't all "William Rodriguez":

edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 
Tupac, you surprise me. It's one thing to be civil to the opposition, but how on earth can you say that there is ANY evidence of an airliner crashing into the pentagon? Say it aint so, tup. Say it aint so.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Also, could you post that image showing the damage left on the cement thing? Because I couldn't find it when I looked for it.


Bottom left.





However there are still some things that have me skeptical, primarily the witnesses who describe a flight path that does not match up with the path required to cause damage to the light poles, as well as Lloyd England, the guy whose taxi was supposedly struck by the light poles that fell down admitting that 9/11 was planned by people with lots of money, he was used and involved in it but didn't want to be.


The starboard engine also clipped off the top of a tree and left chewed up leaves on the ground around Lloyd's cab. The only way this could be faked is if a top secret team of US government topiary agents snuck in and did it without anybody noticing. The pole that ended up in Lloyd's cab stood just to the left of the tree. Llyod's Cab can be seen to the right of the tree,





Then there were the dudes climbing out of a bus with duffle bags heading in the direction of the Pentagon, and the only explanation I have is they're there to scatter debris around.


Really ? That is the only explanation you can think of ?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Tupac, you surprise me. It's one thing to be civil to the opposition, but how on earth can you say that there is ANY evidence of an airliner crashing into the pentagon? Say it aint so, tup. Say it aint so.
Come on dude, you have to admit that there is at least some evidence.

There is circular damage that appears to have been caused by both engines. I cannot see how that could have been faked. The next step is taking the measurements of that damage and figuring out exactly how far apart those are to determine whether or not it matches with a Boeing 757.

There are some parts of a Boeing 757 scattered on the lawn and some inside of the building, however the video of the guys with duffle bags suggests that they were planting those on the lawn.

Then there were several witnesses who described seeing a commercial aircraft, however some contradict that and say that it did not look like a commercial aircraft and provide a description that doesn't match up.

Then on the other hand we have several witnesses who describe a different flight path, making the light pole damage impossible.

Then the guy who was in the taxi can't get his story straight in an interview and looks stupid, then when he thinks the camera is off he admits that 9/11 was planned by people with money and that he was involved in it but didn't want to be, and also his wife works for the FBI.

The main piece of evidence that made me switch sides is the engine damage, however I'm still not 100% sure that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon since there is some contradictory evidence, but now I'm just leaning towards that side because of the engine damage.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 




The starboard engine also clipped off the top of a tree and left chewed up leaves on the ground around Lloyd's cab. [color=limegreen]The only way this could be faked is if a top secret team of US government topiary agents snuck in and did it without anybody noticing. The pole that ended up in Lloyd's cab stood just to the left of the tree. Llyod's Cab can be seen to the right of the tree,
The funny thing is you said that to make it seem crazy, but Lloyd actually vaguely says that in the interview!

But they used you, right?
I'm in it
You're in it?
[color=limegreen]Yeah we came--we came across the highway together
You and their event?
That's right.
Who does he mean by "we"? In the context of a discussion in which he desribes that the attacks were planned by powerful people with money, and that he was involved in it and used but didn't want to be, mentioning "coming across the highway together" as his involvement strongly suggests that him and whoever planned it came across the highway to set up the scene.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I see that there are chinks in the armor known as the Truth movement if you are finally admitting that the evidence at the Pentagon points to a jet.

Now, in the months following 9/11 I never thought that it could be anyone other than who it was expressed that performed the act. However, i have NEVER been comfortable with the explanation of 93. This is why I have looked into the 9/11 attacks with such intensity. The straw for me was John Lear and the suggestion of holographic planes. This to me is when the disinfo started to make people look at NY more than any other site that was touched on 9/11. Distraction and deflection. If you look at the threads on ATSNN, I will almost guarantee that they are 80% WTC 1,2 and 7, 17 % Pentagon and less than 3% for Flight 93. Why? This is what made me look outside of the 'normal' arguments and how I found the footage of 587.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look at the tool booth video and who was suspected of being on that plane. If this would have been linked to terrorists ALL flights would have been grounded and NO one would have flown. A disaster financially and to our country. That is what terrorism is by definition.

So when it comes down to the WTC arguements, I will always ask the same question. Where is a piece, just one piece, of physical evidence that could be found or used to show explosives. Explosive charges and their equipment would not have burned up in the fires as they predicated the collapses. The components would be there. Something. There is no way that the FBI could have contained that site and since body parts and bones are still popping up, how about just one remote device and/or blasting cap, etc?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



I see that there are chinks in the armor known as the Truth movement if you are finally admitting that the evidence at the Pentagon points to a jet.
Um....that is just the opinion of one person, not the entire group of people who doubt the official story. I am not the leader of the "Truth movement", and I do not speak for everybody else, that is just my personal opinion on the subject.


However, i have NEVER been comfortable with the explanation of 93.
Same, I think Flight 93 was shot down by our military in order to save lives. They had heard about the other planes hitting the buildings and causing thousands to die, so somebody made the decision to shoot down the aircraft in order to save lives, or as Colonel Bob Marr put it:

The words that I remember as clear as day was [color=limegreen]'We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground'...United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington DC



This is why I have looked into the 9/11 attacks with such intensity. The straw for me was John Lear and the suggestion of holographic planes. This to me is when the disinfo started to make people look at NY more than any other site that was touched on 9/11. Distraction and deflection.
Yeah I've always thought the holographic planes theory was disinformation used to discredit people who question the official story and make them sound like insane conspiracy theorists.


So when it comes down to the WTC arguements, I will always ask the same question. Where is a piece, just one piece, of physical evidence that could be found or used to show explosives. Explosive charges and their equipment would not have burned up in the fires as they predicated the collapses. The components would be there. Something. There is no way that the FBI could have contained that site and since body parts and bones are still popping up, how about just one remote device and/or blasting cap, etc?
You are wrong dude. An explosive technician, Tom Sullivan, explains the flaw in your line of thinking in this interview:

Well you wouldn't have found steel casings to be left in the rubble, they haven't been used for years. What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and when they're initiated there is nothing left of those charges

edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Still would have wiring left. Demolition charges don't go boom all by themselves.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 




Still would have wiring left. Demolition charges don't go boom all by themselves.
I really, really wish you guys would look at the evidence I post.

From this interview that I've posted several times:

You wouldn't need miles and miles of det. cord, you could have used wireless remote detonators and they have been available for years....and of course the military has them as well. Contractors don't use them on the other hand because they're just too expensive.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I have seen the video that is presented and sorry, but Mr Sullivan is a loader and that is it. He may have knowledge but he is not the straw that broke the commissions back. This would be like taking the word of a janitor for the PANY over Steve DeMArtini. Get the analogy?

Sullivan is stating that the WTC was brought down with RDX or otherwise referred to as simple C-4. You still have to 'trigger' the explosion, just like the thermite theory. This stuff does not ignite and then disappear. Where are the other pieces. There were bomb dogs there before collapse because an early theory was that they would also hit first responders with secondary attacks.

I will humor you and state, that if 47 columns columns that were needed to sever in the interior since all would have to be severed to collapse and not a few as happened, then you would need to have multiple floors of explosives. So, if you only had remote det on 5 floors, you are still talking about the hardware for 100's of explosive packs. For a 110 story building I do not think you would rely on just a few floors.

I did not say you alone represent the truth movement just as I do not represent the Os'er but when two people from opposite sides can finally see clarity in even one issue it is only a matter of time before full disclosure to oneself is imminent.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



I have seen the video that is presented and sorry, but Mr Sullivan is a loader and that is it. He may have knowledge but he is not the straw that broke the commissions back
I don't think you have seen the video, because you just made the claim that blasting caps would have been in the debris when Tom disproves that claim by explaining the technology that's available. He's a loader, yes, and he has knowledge of controlled demolitions and explosives, because he was the guy that placed explosives in a building and prepared them for demolition.


This would be like taking the word of a janitor for the PANY over Steve DeMArtini. Get the analogy?
No, bad analogy. How about asking the janitor about the current level of mop technology, or the cleaning product that you use to remove stains, then it would be a good analogy. He has experience in the field, and he is using his experience to explain something that he is experienced in, I don't see the problem here.


Sullivan is stating that the WTC was brought down with RDX or otherwise referred to as simple C-4. You still have to 'trigger' the explosion, just like the thermite theory. This stuff does not ignite and then disappear.
But that's exactly what Tom Sullivan said. Here are his exact words:

What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and [color=limegreen]when they're initiated there is nothing left of those charges



Where are the other pieces.
They're gone.


There were bomb dogs there before collapse because an early theory was that they would also hit first responders with secondary attacks.
Are you referring to the Twin Towers or WTC7? Because I don't think bomb sniffing dogs were in building 7, however the explosives that Tom is discussing could relate to both the towers and WTC7.


I will humor you and state, that if 47 columns columns that were needed to sever in the interior since all would have to be severed to collapse and not a few as happened, then you would need to have multiple floors of explosives. So, if you only had remote det on 5 floors, you are still talking about the hardware for 100's of explosive packs. For a 110 story building I do not think you would rely on just a few floors.
Who is saying that only 5 floors were wired? Not me.

Who is saying that the shaped charge would burn itself out leaving no evidence? The guy who is experienced in this subject and knows more about explosives and controlled demolition than you and me: Tom Sullivan.

edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Ah yes, the ever ready wireless remote detonator. In the RF hell that is Manhatten? Now THATS a bright idea. Using a method of detonation that could be set off accidentally by any one of a number of RF sources .



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Ah yes, the ever ready wireless remote detonator. In the RF hell that is Manhatten? Now THATS a bright idea. Using a method of detonation that could be set off accidentally by any one of a number of RF sources .
What is your point? First your stance was there would be evidence of wires, now you go to saying a detonation method that wouldn't require wires (which you were previously unaware of) wouldn't be used because somebody sending a text message or changing the channel might detonate it?

There is a method of demolition that would not leave evidence in the debris, that is the important thing to understand.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I have seen the video that is presented and sorry, but Mr Sullivan is a loader and that is it. He may have knowledge but he is not the straw that broke the commissions back. This would be like taking the word of a janitor for the PANY over Steve DeMArtini. Get the analogy?

Sullivan is stating that the WTC was brought down with RDX or otherwise referred to as simple C-4. You still have to 'trigger' the explosion, just like the thermite theory. This stuff does not ignite and then disappear. Where are the other pieces. There were bomb dogs there before collapse because an early theory was that they would also hit first responders with secondary attacks.

I will humor you and state, that if 47 columns columns that were needed to sever in the interior since all would have to be severed to collapse and not a few as happened, then you would need to have multiple floors of explosives. So, if you only had remote det on 5 floors, you are still talking about the hardware for 100's of explosive packs. For a 110 story building I do not think you would rely on just a few floors.

I did not say you alone represent the truth movement just as I do not represent the Os'er but when two people from opposite sides can finally see clarity in even one issue it is only a matter of time before full disclosure to oneself is imminent.




But you know nothing about construction. If you did you would (a) be willing to lie for the us gov or (b) stay quite because theoretically you'll gain nothing by going public. I'm sure many have found evidence of explosives in ground zero,but most were workers contracted by the government's many agencies. And what would they gain by yapping away,by going public about some newly discovered explosive components. Were there any free-lancing private investigators combing the seen after the disaster?,,,,really,,,I doubt it..Same reason there isn't a major outcry by certified professionals(turning a blind eye). I am a general contractor and my venting will only stay here in ATS. I would never go against my Government publicly because regardless I'll lose more than I will gain. Simple as that.


The true storyline is actually really simple:

Two 116tons jets carrying 23k gallons each cannot pulverize 1,200,000tons(included WTC7) of mild steel and concrete.

If you know anything about construction you will dam well know the current story is impossible... It just doesn't happen.. 3 demolished buildings in one day,,, impossible. Unless controlled demolition was present.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Construction or Controlled Demolitions? Get it right dilly..It does not take a degree in mechanical engineering nor structural engineering to see that the towers collapsed without explosives. Why is this so hard. You are also correct in stating Two 116 ton jets carrying 23k gallons each cannot pulverize 1,200,000tons(included WTC7 which it did not hit so not sure why this is included) of mild steel and concrete. I am not sure who says this happened. Events led to the eventual collapse which included two planes striking the buildings, igniting fires that weakened the structure and then collapsed.

As far as blasting caps, I watched the video. I am not reviewing the video I am telling you that there has to be some type of evidence left. I do not think I said blasting caps either. You see, If not, everyone would use it and there would be no evidence for any crime. Your statement as well as Mr Sullivans makes no sense. Car bombs would be a dime a dozen if it cannot be traced with your secret technology.





edit on 16-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join