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.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And I have a dozen letters from friends who were there that day and saw what hit their office
Originally posted by Slick Tic
Oh this is silly and an excercise in desperate futility.
Originally posted by coughymachine
(wrong post removed )
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
let's go on the presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames.
Ok good. Smart thinking and finally a logical, scientific way to approach the discussion. We must only discuss this in full context of the fact that this is invalid evidence that further implicates the suspect in question.
However, what I'm wondering is, was anything manipulated within this frame?
Do you believe these dots were really there, or inserted? THAT is the question you'll need to answer.
Huh?
Man that was a quick reversal!
If you go on the "presumption that the overall video was manipulated to remove key frames" then the evidence has been rendered invalid and further implicates the suspect.
Therefore to suggest that I "need" to answer a question regarding all the ways this invalid evidence was manipulated even though that is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to answer this question anyway simply makes no sense.
It would be counter-productive and quite silly to focus in on inconclusive anomalous dots in invalid data that only implicate the suspect.
Especially when your contention is that these dots in this invalid data support the suspect's story.
Legitimate investigators are always looking at the full puzzle when they try to fit the pieces.
They don't take pieces from a completely different puzzle and then cut them up and try to force them into the picture.
Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.
But luckily we don't need to because we have already proven the data has been manipulated which only further implicates the suspect.
Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Caustic Logic
I was more interested in the fact that the carriageway dividers stood proud from the road's surface than the fact they curved.
Take a look at this graphic. I know it's kind of crude and the plane's shape is wrong, but it serves to demonstrate how those shadows could appear as they did (i.e. two dots rather than a larger connected 'mass'. Of course, it only works if the camera is set broadly eye level with the dividers and too low to see the road's surface - maybe you know?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic
Oh and about this that you said:
Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.
Yes it is proven. Talk to the manager.
Obviously she would know.
Why do you refuse the evidence and insist on theorizing and debating irrelevant details out of context?
No legitimate investigator would accept data that was controlled by the suspect as evidence of the suspect's innocence.
That would make no sense at all.
...so I think we're seeing two lanees n-bound and the median...
Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Caustic Logic
...so I think we're seeing two lanees n-bound and the median...
If we can see the road surface, then my graphic doesn't explain it. If, however, we only see the cars, but not the road surface - and assuming the median is raised enough - then the graphic could explain why the shadow appears as two dots.
cover: hide from view or knowledge; "The President covered the fact that he bugged the offices in the White House"
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic
Oh and about this that you said:
Alright, if these are the terms than never mind my momentary concesiion for the sake of argument. It may or ay not have been more broadly re-arranged. This is not proven.
Yes it is proven. Talk to the manager.
Obviously she would know.
Not to get too OT, but man she sure knows a lot for someone who hasn't yet put it all together. Or do you think she suspects? She knew one of her employees saw the plane fly north of the station - that the FBI had removed franes and actual cameras for some reason - that you guys are investigating just such a scenario and agrees to help you out by being an open book. That's a profile in courage right there.
And density?
I don't know all the details of what she said and when, and I don't mean to sound paranoid and doubt your source, I just can't help it when I hear it put in full CIT context.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by Slick Tic
Originally posted by Slick Tic
Oh this is silly and an excercise in desperate futility.
Indeed, not-so-slick CIT. Aldo, you were banned.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just like you will never have evidence or proof that it is a shadow of a 757 I will never have evidence to prove it was added so why are we sitting here making this a focus of conversation as if it is even remotely relevant to 9/11 justice since the evidence is invalid anyway?
It is impossible for us to prove what was manipulated in that video.
This only serves to deflect from the real issue and that is EVIDENCE TAMPERING which is a federal offense and directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up.
But I do know they manipulated out those relevant views AS WELL AS manipulated out Robert Turcios since his story is backed up by his manager and all the other witnesses who were at the station so I have no doubt they would throw in a few flashes and shadows to add confusion.
This is 100% invalid evidence in support of the official story and all of the witnesses are 100% valid evidence that prove the official story a lie.