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.

 

There Necessarily Ought To Have Been Shadows.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_
Dave,The man who never roams outside of the 9/11 forums since 2001.

There are and have been seismic reports that actually support the claims made.
released seismic charts included


Dude, did you even read what I just posted? That con artist Richard Gage is lying through his teeth by deliberately editing the footage of the WTC 7 collapse and snipping off the first six seconds that showed the Penthouse collapsing into the interior of WTC 7, all so he can say "mysterious sounds were coming from WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse". The point in time Richard Gage is claiming was the initial point of collapse WASN'T the initial point of collapse. The pre-molested-by-Gage video shows it was six seconds earlier, so of course there's going to be seismic activity six seconds earlier. This isn't a "gotcha" moment. It's still part of the same lie Gage is shovelling out.

Thank you for bringing this up, as I forgot Gage was using the seismic report along with erasing video archives to play his conspiracy three card monty.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Thing is, how would you keep those costs secret? It would be extremely easy to simply aid the "terrorists" and allow them to train in the flight schools (as they did) and then get onto the planes even after being checked (as they did). Some of them had knives, and some of them had boxcutters. If you believe the witnesses from the planes the day of (assuming you don't just assume it's all fake) then the terrorists killed people on the plane before taking the cabin and assuming control of the planes. Then, it was just a matter of reaching their targets. They weren't stopped or caught in any way along the way, so perhaps small secret portions of the government "helped" there too?

Point is, it's a lot easier to help and then deny once they're dead, than to engage in a multi-billion dollar secret conspiracy to create a false image of a plane and blow up the towers, attempting to keep quiet every single person who participated.


Exactly! And what NPT and other branches of mis/disinformation, such as no hijacker theories, achieve, is that when evidence of facilitation and obstruction of justice is brought forth, it is dismissed as "limited hangout", the messengers derided as "Sunstein infiltrators", NSA Q-group, "paid shills" or whatever sounds intriguing and ominous. The objective is to keep everybody in the treadmill... forever.

Same thing with JFK. Oswald doesn't have to be innocent, we know Jackie Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Jack Ruby and Madeleine Duncan Brown, LBJ's mistress, all think LBJ was at the apex of a group of reactionaries responsible for his assassination. Oswald knew he wasn't the only one involved, which is why he referred to himself as a "patsy".

But... we still see theories afloat suggesting JFK was shot by his driver, the Zapruder film was a complete forgery.... et cetera. Here's what we know: multiple crucial frames from the Zapruder film were coincidentally 'lost'. Nothing fancy... no inserts, fake shadows or retouching, just cut the incriminating frames out.

Why is nobody talking about this officially confirmed fact instead? Because the authorities would rather have us chase red herrings. Whatever the true origins and agenda behind NPT, it serves no purpose but distraction and time consumption, and achieves this goal admirably.
edit on 16-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Dude, did you even read what I just posted? That con artist Richard Gage is lying through his teeth by deliberately editing the footage of the WTC 7 collapse and snipping off the first six seconds that showed the Penthouse collapsing into the interior of WTC 7, all so he can say "mysterious sounds were coming from WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse". The point in time Richard Gage is claiming was the initial point of collapse WASN'T the initial point of collapse. The pre-molested-by-Gage video shows it was six seconds earlier, so of course there's going to be seismic activity six seconds earlier. This isn't a "gotcha" moment. It's still part of the same lie Gage is shovelling out.

Thank you for bringing this up, as I forgot Gage was using the seismic report along with erasing video archives to play his conspiracy three card monty.


The NIST report claims downward movement of the entire roofline, when the "entire building moved downwards as a single unit" is the initiation point of global progressive collapse. Yes, the East Penthouse collapsed earlier, however, when measuring the resistance of floors 7-14 to global progressive collapse, one measures the downward motion of the roofline, not the collapse of the East Penthouse. Otherwise, one might argue that the global progressive collapse of WTC 7 started when it was hit by debris from WTC 1, with the fall time of WTC 7 equaling about seven hours total. Amazing. Also: acceleration != velocity, something Richard Gage and others ignore when they use the erroneous term "freefall speed". "Freefall speed" does not exist. They are perhaps confused with "terminal velocity". The correct term is "freefall acceleration"

Again, NIST defines the initiation of global progressive collapse as when the entire building "moved downwards as a single unit". Analyzing localized floor failures is useful and interesting, but doesn't yield any quantitative information about the forces acting on the collapse front when WTC 7 moves downward as a whole. Have you read the NIST report?

Back on topic.
edit on 16-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


My point is Dave, they can't withhold information. Anyone with an inquisitive mind and the ability to type can search out the information needed to develop an informed opinion.


Not true. Con artists like Gage can and do withhold information to artificially get peopel to believe what he wants them to believe, with his deliberate editing of the video of the collapse of WTC 7 being a sterling case in point. True, anyone who is interested in true research can discover Gage is lyign with a simple 30 seconds of Google searching to see this themsleves, and in fact it only took me about fifteen seconds to locate the full collapse sequence that contains the missing video-



The problem isn't that people are forbidden from corroborating it. The problem is that they don't bother to corroborate it. When people start drinking the "gov't is plotting to murder us all" conspiracy Kool-aid like Gage is serving them, they start becoming so paranoid that they'll begin to think anything that refutes what they want to believe is "disinformation from secret gov't agents". All you need to do is read the OP's post once more to see he thinks the video showing the plane impact was photoshopped.


One thing we probably do agree on, Dave. Bull# sells a lot of T shirts.


Yes, I do agree on that. Falling for the line that "everything we know is false and they'll only share the REAL truth with us if we give them our money" takes a special kind of gullibility.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Rafe_
Dave,The man who never roams outside of the 9/11 forums since 2001.

There are and have been seismic reports that actually support the claims made.
released seismic charts included


Dude, did you even read what I just posted? That con artist Richard Gage is lying through his teeth by deliberately editing the footage of the WTC 7 collapse and snipping off the first six seconds that showed the Penthouse collapsing into the interior of WTC 7, all so he can say "mysterious sounds were coming from WTC 7 six seconds before the collapse". The point in time Richard Gage is claiming was the initial point of collapse WASN'T the initial point of collapse. The pre-molested-by-Gage video shows it was six seconds earlier, so of course there's going to be seismic activity six seconds earlier. This isn't a "gotcha" moment. It's still part of the same lie Gage is shovelling out.

Thank you for bringing this up, as I forgot Gage was using the seismic report along with erasing video archives to play his conspiracy three card monty.



Dude? did you just refer to me as dude?
It doesnt matter i guess its just that i am not all that much in this teenage lingo coming from grown men,


Frankly i dont care about your points about some guys video and how you believed he faked it,i heard you the first time you dont need to repeat it in a response to me.


I do however care for the seismic reports made and released by the seismic centres around manhatten that day,Which is why i posted it.

Me pointing to the seismic reports support the claims made about pre-collapse explosions wether they were made by the man you mention or not.Why you are still rambling on on your disbelief of that man in response to my post is beyond me? In other words you evaded the post entirely with a meaningless rant repeating yourself .You may have been better of responding to someone else ,randomly.

No matter what you 'claim' the seismic data remains


Sleep well,....dude




edit on 16-12-2011 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

I'll give you that. I believe 7/7 (the London bombings) were carried out that way.
Hire a few British Muslims and tell them you are making a anti-terrorist training film.... the rest is history. I do not believe that was the case with 9/11 though. Nowhere near.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Why the hell did this end up in the HOAX section?

Can a mod please tell how it was proven that this is false information, let alone deliberately false. I haven´t seen anyone debunk the actual point made in the video, so what is up with that.

So far only one poster seemed to actually get the point, there should´ve been a shadow on the plane as it flew in the buildings shadow side, but there wasn´t it was lit up wich is clearly visible.

This was not debunked, or even spoken about except by CaptChaos, so why is it labeled a HOAX ffs?

And why the hell is this put in HOAX without any explanation at all, mods what the F?

And why am I the only one asking about this?




edit on 17-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Ok so out of the almost 10 minutes of clips showing a plane hitting the building you manage to use one clip to de-bunk it all.. Try harder.
In which the video you posted shows nothing at all.

I said it before and I will say it again.... GET REAL.

I won't go any further on debunking your argument, as anyone with half a brain can see the holes in it.

Your one singular point (and or video) does not explain away the vast amount of other points in the argument.. Again try harder next time!

edit on 12/17/1111 by GR1ill3d because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 



Maybe you could stay on topic, you know rthe one presented by the OP, and explain how the plane was lit by sunlight while it was flying in the shadowside of the building.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 



Maybe you could stay on topic, you know rthe one presented by the OP, and explain how the plane was lit by sunlight while it was flying in the shadowside of the building.


Maybe because the side that was illuminated (the wing) was on the same side the sun was shining at?
Maybe if you had seen the video (in full) and known anything about lighting you would have seen this.

Maybe you should put some thought into your rebuttals before posting them?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Hah, funny you should say that, because the video shows that sunlight couldn´t hit the plane at that angle, and it also shows a shadow from the explosion that should not have been there.

I don´t know if this is correct or not, but I sure haven´t seen anyone debunk or even mention it in in this thread, so it is a mystery to me why this is labeled a HOAX.

It´s also clear that you haven´t seen or understood the video, otherwise you would´ve have known this or at least had tried to debunk this particular bit, since this was the point made in the vid.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   


Yea @ 9 am in the morning the sun isn't in the middle of the sky. You don't even have to watch the whole video to know that. The first video they show the sun is on the other side of the building, how exactly would the plane on the dark side of the building make a shadow?
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Here, this is your initial reaction, you obviously don´t understand what the vid was saying, are you sure you watched it entirely and do you know about lighting?

Maybe you should put some thought into your rebuttals before posting them?

The vid was obviously talking about the lack of shadow on the plane, not the other way around.

Take your own medicine boy.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban



Yea @ 9 am in the morning the sun isn't in the middle of the sky. You don't even have to watch the whole video to know that. The first video they show the sun is on the other side of the building, how exactly would the plane on the dark side of the building make a shadow?
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Here, this is your initial reaction, you obviously don´t understand what the vid was saying, are you sure you watched it entirely and do you know about lighting?

Maybe you should put some thought into your rebuttals before posting them?

The vid was obviously talking about the lack of shadow on the plane, not the other way around.

Take your own medicine boy.


Sure it was! Good try but you still fail.....You think it was talking about shadows on a plane.... OKAY! I will stop here. Any other argument you have from now on is null and void.

Even if you were being sarcastic.. your logic fails I was never EVER talking about shadows on the plane.. I was only talking about the shadows on the building...



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   


Even if you were being sarcastic.. your logic fails I was never EVER talking about shadows on the plane.. I was only talking about the shadows on the building...
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Exactly, you weren´t, but the vid sure was, that didn´t stop you from trying to debunk that same vid with talk about shadows on the building.

Meaning you didn´t see or understand the vid at all.




You don't even have to watch the whole video to know that.


I rest my case.




Good try but you still fail.....You think it was talking about shadows on a plane.... OKAY! I will stop here. Any other argument you have from now on is null and void.


It was talking about the LACK of shadows on the plane.

It´s obvious you don´t understand at all, and/or seem to refuse to talk about the actual points made in the vid.

If you had a way of debunking them you would´ve done it by now, as I clearly pointed out what needs to be debunked.

The only thing you are doing now is deflection while saving face.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Hah, funny you should say that, because the video shows that sunlight couldn´t hit the plane at that angle, and it also shows a shadow from the explosion that should not have been there.

I don´t know if this is correct or not, but I sure haven´t seen anyone debunk or even mention it in in this thread, so it is a mystery to me why this is labeled a HOAX.

It´s also clear that you haven´t seen or understood the video, otherwise you would´ve have known this or at least had tried to debunk this particular bit, since this was the point made in the vid.



You win man, I watched the video in full(Again) and I will admit I was wrong. Everything you say is true. CGI was used and all those people were paid off.... damn you are so above the norm....tell me more!



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   


You win man, I watched the video in full(Again) and I will admit I was wrong. Everything you say is true. CGI was used and all those people were paid off.... damn you are so above the norm....tell me more!
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Well if this isn´t an admission of total ineptness and inability to respond to claims made, I don´t know what is.

Attempts at sarcasm are not going to save your face, at all, in fact you´re making it worse.

The voice in the vid even ads that it is merely showing that that particular vid has evidence of tampering. Nothing more nothing less.

No claims of no planes, mininukes or space based weapons, not by me, nor the vid.

Again, debunk the claims made in the vid or shut up.

edit on 17-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The issue of the missing human remains has been dreadfully misrepresented by the mainstream media. The impression is given that the families are having difficulty coping and are unreasonably asking for more searching to be carried out. The truth is the 'fines' were in one place after the debris had been sorted. The opportunity was there to move these remains to a memorial/grave site. It's easy to assume the perpetrators of the crime don't want such evidence to be accessible for forensic study.


The perps/cleanup group don't care - They wouldn't be perps if They did. So They cleaned expediently and not caringly.

No surprise there.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


wtcfamiliesforproperburial represents some of the families who received no remains. These are the people who are being insulted. They were told the remains must be in the 'fines', the debris of less than 1/4 inch. The fines covered an area of approximately 1 acre. It was agreed that the fines would be moved to a respectful place. Instead they were suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the debris. This is the physical evidence that can be used to answer the question, 'How did the buildings transform into dust clouds and debris within a few seconds?'


Yes. Those who lost loved Ones and have been ignored and disrespected are the Ones receiving insults. We are NOT disrespecting the dead by asking Our questions and speculating on answers. We do Them high service thereby, in fact.


Is this respecting the dead and their families ?

letsrollforums.com...


[shrug] I don't know. If there is truth to this, perhaps, but I could tell by the ears on the "Barbara Olson" pics that though They look similar, They are not the same person. And so... Don't tell others about the site if You find disrespect there.
edit on 12/17/2011 by Amaterasu because: misspelling



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



We are NOT disrespecting the dead by asking Our questions and speculating on answers.


Yes. Yes you are. The questions are thinly veiled, if at all, baseless accusations and groundless theories and the speculated answers are often the biggest insult.


I assure You, hoop... Most of Us are not "veiling" anything and have strong, legitimate questions. Rather than merely assert that We have no substance, please offer a list of 10 things most commonly questions and show the baselessness.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Ok so out of the almost 10 minutes of clips showing a plane hitting the building you manage to use one clip to de-bunk it all.. Try harder.
In which the video you posted shows nothing at all.

I said it before and I will say it again.... GET REAL.

I won't go any further on debunking your argument, as anyone with half a brain can see the holes in it.

Your one singular point (and or video) does not explain away the vast amount of other points in the argument.. Again try harder next time!

edit on 12/17/1111 by GR1ill3d because: (no reason given)


Actually ,

the video we are discussing in these posts here actually did not surface for quite some time after the whole incident and has always been up for debate about its legitimacy and not because of the "no-planes" theorists so i find it quite funny to see a response like yours to this.

The point which is pointed out in the video i posted is quite clear but you are free to point out how it is not ,wich i have yet to see you do.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join