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.

 

9/11 Solved!

page: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


Yep, you are reviewing "the footage". I can tell one certainty. Looking at the 4 frames of the object that hit the pentagon it is impossible to tell exactly what it is. Your evidence, again, has been debunked here and on your sad site repeatedly.

Since you are so sure of your "footage" I am positive you know exactly who shot what, when, and you have the original footage that was shot, yes? Not just youtube videos? Please tell me you aren't basing you theories simply off youtube videos - and no, I'm not going to go into why these videos are not evidence. Figure it out yourself.

Having no first hand knowledge of the WTC does have something to do with it. It shows your lack of understanding regarding the number of businesses and people that were there.

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





Who says this is real?


I wouldn't know, not me anyway.




I am not you peer. I associate with adults. You are not representative of anyone I would consider a peer.


Then don't send me u2u's and don't suck up to me.




To not have respect for the dead is a psycopath condition, just saying.


I thought being a psychopath meant that you have no respect for the living. Just saying.

And that line is getting so old. I didn't disrespect anyone. These pics are in the media and are talked about by many. I am free to give my opinion on the reliabilty of any particular pic.

If I offend a real family member in the process I am sorry but I don't care about obvious fake melodramaqueens, buddy.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


So, you post a pic yet have absolutely no knowledge of it. Got it. I won't make the mistake of "sucking up" to you by attempting to reason with you again. My mistake. Is mom's meatloaf ready yet?

And yes, because you have the tendencies I mentioned before, I am not surprised you feel you are not offending anyone with your "analysis" of the "fake" dead people.

And again, when someone (me) sees it firsthand happening, knows people who died and watches people jumping to their deaths, you in your condition call me a "mellodramaqueen". Respect brodette.

How about all of that original unedited footage you have stashed away while performing "analysis"? Care to share how you got it?

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





Yep, you are reviewing "the footage". I can tell one certainty. Looking at the 4 frames of the object that hit the pentagon it is impossible to tell exactly what it is. Your evidence, again, has been debunked here and on your sad site repeatedly.


Wth are you talking about Jens, buddy.

I never even mentioned the Pentagon.




Since you are so sure of your "footage" I am positive you know exactly who shot what, when, and you have the original footage that was shot, yes? Not just youtube videos? Please tell me you aren't basing you theories simply off youtube videos - and no, I'm not going to go into why these videos are not evidence. Figure it out yourself.


It's mostly footage that comes directly from NIST or mainstream media sources.

But I see you don't want to get into details again.

That's ok, you are being consistent and the pattern of failure and incapability is becoming increasingly obvious.




Having no first hand knowledge of the WTC does have something to do with it. It shows your lack of understanding regarding the number of businesses and people that were there.


And this relates to bulding perspective anamolies which I was referring to, how?

And this has to do with me pointing out to you that there were no bootie shorts wearing tourists that died in the wtc, what?

All you do is deflect and get all teary eyed, but you are never saying anything of substance.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





So, you post a pic yet have absolutely no knowledge of it.


Not at all Jens, I know all about it. I said I didn't know who said this was real, that's what you asked me Jens, remember buddy?




Is mom's meatloaf ready yet?


This is also something I wouldn't know, you see Jens, not everybody lives with there mothers Jens, or even mentions another person's mother on the internet. I am sure your mom is very proud of you though, and I bet she makes a mean meatloaf, I can see it your choice of words, how much you love your mommas meatloaf.




knows people who died


Who were they?




How about all of that original unedited footage you have stashed away while performing "analysis"? Care to share how you got it?


What are you talking about Jens?
edit on 14-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


No, you didn't mention the pentagon - I did. I made an analysis of the footage available and it is impossible to tell what it is that hits the building. Repeating my name makes me think you may have a condition.

You, have second hand footage on youtube for everything you claim is "evidence". You have no original footage, do you? And you call yourself an "analyst". Really, you should submit these theories to law enforcement. Rock solid evidence like you provide is sure to get a conviction. Thank God we have experts like yourself parsing 7th generation videos of what you personally can't even tell what it is. I can tell you work with video and photography for a living. Your knowledge is exploding all over the place. Seriously, you are the spiderman of video examination. Obviously you were taught to look for anomolies at a prestigious film school, worked in the field, edited and worked on dozens of films, and now are gracing us with your dissection of all of these 7th generation you tube videos. Thank God. Let me guess, you work in Hollywood, don't you? You are a CGI expert at Dreamworks, aren't you? I knew it! Wow. Is that exciting work? Does it pay well? It must considering you have so much time on your hands to deliver such impactful dissertations on videos you don't have originals of. Amazing. Keep up the good work! You are truly a pioneer of video debunking. You should start a class on it - seriously - super sound knowledge coupled with uncanny eye for detecting anaomolies in youtube videos that you have no clue where they came from and who did what to them. I think your budinsky on this forum would sign up.

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller




knows people who died


Who were they?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Summary: blabla blablabla blabla bla.

You are saying nothing of substance regarding my observations.

You are not refuting them

Just blanket statements.

Mayday.

Over.
edit on 14-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


I thought so. You have no qualifications to make any judgement on any of the videos you presented. Your lack of basic photographic and video imaging makes you less than qualified to make any "anaysis" what so ever.

You know all about the photo of the guy and the plane? If you don't know the source of the photo, then you know very little of it. What is the history behind it? What program was used to put the plane in? Do you know there are many other photo and video editing softwares out there other than photoshop? Do have any idea how to tell if one or the other was used and what the capabilities of each are?

Where did you get your videography degree? How long have you been a video analyst?

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Why do you care Eraserhead?

CJ



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





You know all about the photo of the guy and the plane? If you don't know the source of the photo, then you know very little of it.


Come one now, everybody knows this a prank photo called the Tourist Guy. I posted it as a pun.

I find it hilarious that you are actually arguing about this pic Jens.

And my qualifications as a video analyst are irrelevant. Just more deflection.

Care to respond to my specific claims? I'll qoute the post below.
edit on 14-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Lol, I'm 00.17 sec into your vid and I already have two impossible images. Do you know where those images are from?

At 0.16 sec you can see the north tower between WTC7 and the building to the right. The shot is from the street level of that building, looking up, the north tower is almost the same size in this pic, and this is how it looked for real(not the same angle).




Also the shadow cast on the north tower (in the vid) seems impossible, the sun was coming from the other side of the tower.

Impossible perspective.

Then at 00.17 sec you can see the smoking tower behing the wtc7. It is from the street level of wtc 7. The tower is at least twice as high, yet it doesn't even tower above wtc 7.

Fake.

I'll review the rest.

edit on 14-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)





posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


why do you care that i care?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Why do you care Eraserhead?

CJ


Probably because he also feels that statements like yours mean absolutely nothing. Are you going to answer?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 



And my qualifications as a video analyst are irrelevant.


Yep. Only irrelevant when taking anything you say seriously.

I suppose you cure cancer too.

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


I could let the images speak for me, but you seem to refuse to actually look at them and discuss them.

Consistently.

Mr. Smith.




Yep. Only irrelevant when taking anything you say seriously.


You seem to be taking it very seriously. You are certainly spending your time here.
edit on 14-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


No. I wouldn't bring their names into a discussion with you. To have you deny their existence would make me do some things that may be against T&C. I would never put their names on this or any other thread, just as I won't post the photos taken of me that day that were later published in a nationally syndicated magazine. Some of us have what is known as tact.

CJ



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


Again, yes. It is a disgrace to make the claims you are making, and it's kind of funny in a sad way to see you continue to post these outrageous examples. Can you repost your example of the guy diving in the japanese game show to compare to the "jumper"? That was as good as they come. You are the one supposedly giving evidence of your theory.

Thus far you admit:

1) You have no knowledge of photography.
2) You have no knowledge of videography.
3) You have no firsthand knowledge of the WTC or NY in general
4) Your sources are septemberclues and the let'sroll forum.

I think that sums it up.

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





No. I wouldn't bring their names into a discussion with you. To have you deny their existence would make me do some things that may be against T&C. I would never put their names on this or any other thread, just as I won't post the photos taken of me that day that were later published in a nationally syndicated magazine. Some of us have what is known as tact.


At least you have the decency to only use them as anonymous collateral in an online discussion.

If you want to have it your way then you shouldn't mention them. Like in a court of law, you can't just make up witnesses, they have to have an identity.

So, fail.

Btw, did you wait to mention those people at a later time in this discussion because you forgot about them earlier? You didn't mention them before did you?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





No. I wouldn't bring their names into a discussion with you. To have you deny their existence would make me do some things that may be against T&C. I would never put their names on this or any other thread, just as I won't post the photos taken of me that day that were later published in a nationally syndicated magazine. Some of us have what is known as tact.


At least you have the decency to only use them as anonymous collateral in an online discussion.

If you want to have it your way then you shouldn't mention them. Like in a court of law, you can't just make up witnesses, they have to have an identity.

So, fail.

Btw, did you wait to mention those people at a later time in this discussion because you forgot about them earlier? You didn't mention them before did you?



No, you are not of sound mind if you truly belive there were no people in the buildings. Watching people jump to their death and knowing personally of people who died is something that I did not make up. I watched it happen, I was there and this is not something you should continue to promote. For real bro? Funerals are made up?


Page 1 of this thread. So, fail.


At least you have the decency to only use them as anonymous collateral in an online discussion.


So I should pretend they didn't die? Ok. I'll selectively edit that fact out when discussing with you that no one died that die - oh yeah, that's right - SOME died but not who they say did. Your legal analogy fails and is ironic considering you have no expertise or even some basic training on video analysis yet you tout your "evidence" as such. Ironic? Yes. Full on fail? Yes.

CJ
edit on 14-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join