The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

A reply to: wmd_2008

Why don't you link to that post of yours? Afraid that I wreck your deceptive posts there?
I have addressed many times already in many years, that video glitch, that happens when a video camera takes a shot at max zoom, from very far away (southwest from the tip of Manhattan, a chopper hovering over the Hudson).

Obviously, you use lot of senseless words, no calculations, no links of importance, no own thoughts.

Btw, I have a few hours ago studied that WTC 7 "gash" picture I found in some guys online photo depository, and have reached the opinion that it is photo-shopped.
View it in Paint's max zoom, the top of the small white building visible beside the right arm of the 2 men standing at the left side. It is totally distorted and its top not in line at all with the lower portion.
The whole rucksack of that man is lined with a much lighter aura, as if those 2 men were clipped from another photo.
View the 2 strange straight black lines of the west corner of WTC 7, they are interrupted by the 3 smoking windows at the 29th and 28th floor corners. They seem not to line up and are darker than the white corner portion with the 2 smoking windows.

The lines of the south facade front windows that are visible out of the smoke, do not line up at both sides, from right to left.
There are also dark sun shadow angles on the center white building that indicate different times of photo shoot. All shadows should indicate the same sun position. In fact the long black vertical smear at the left side of the top is where the forger cut in the other part with the "gash".

My conclusion : this is a mix of a screen-shot from the from far south shot chopper video with that dark "gash" band in it, and a photo from the WTC debris pile, with the top part visible of a huge white crane, that is normally part of a heavy crane-truck. The pictures-forger did his best to camouflage its top with the thick cable pulley-block, but it still shines through. Of course there was no room yet made in that rubble pile, to drive a crane truck into, before 17:20 on 9/11, when WTC 7 collapsed. Huge cranes came much later than that moment, when that street in front of WTC 7 was cleared from all the debris.
The CIA and military cyber-war divisions are still working hard to "correct" the "national security" threats to their 9/11 fairy tales. (All the top brass CIA + Military failing majestically on 9/11, ALL got promoted...)

Btw, I explained extensively how the top of the Windsor tower was constructed, and how long it took those outer steel columns to fail in a slow crumbling process, you only keep posting baseless 3 line attacks.
Be an honest man, try to counter my 3 sig-LINKS. And not with hollow posts as above.

Btw, do you too, believe those two 'Alienentity' YouTube poster's video attacks, on David Chandler's rock hard evidence of true gravitational acceleration collapse speed, in the first 2.25 seconds of WTC 7's start of its global collapse?
If so, then it is crystal clear by now, what extremely low physics education exists in parts of the USA's population.

Are you more of the schoolyard, hit and run type? Afraid to engage in any real confrontation?

Do you even take the time to read all my responses on your insinuating posts about not reading cardinalfan0596's link about the construction of my 4 examples of steel buildings on fire for tens of hours, while not collapsing globally, as 3 WTC towers did on 9/11..? :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
And you think the First Interstate Bank Fire, Los Angeles is not comparable to the WTC towers? Really?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wmd_2008 : Now we also have people trying to compare building fires in structures that the MAIN STRUCTURAL ELEMENT is CONCRETE not Steel , they are of a TOTALLY different design method because of this, yet because of either a lack of construction knowledge and believing what's posted about the buildings WITHOUT CHECKING they think it's a direct comparison! Say's it all !

Concrete reinforced by huge amounts of steel re-bar.
Without them, any building would crumble naturally over time.
That steel is fire-protected and strength-enhanced by the concrete poured around it. Steel and concrete have about identical temperature dependent expansion coefficients, however, concrete is a much worser heat transporter than steel. Thus protects its re-bar steel better and longer than sprayed on fireproofing on full steel columns and beams.
Re-bared concrete is used mostly in lower load bearing parts of not so hi risers, if used higher up, the weight-cost effect hits in, it's a lot cheaper to build wide body hi risers mostly from steel, with sometimes re-bared concrete cores, which then are not the main load bearing part of the buildings. Otherwise they had to be using much thicker re-bar and massive concrete pillars. See the OKC Murrah building. Build for strong earthquakes.

In short, the top of the Madrid Windsor consisted of solely steel outer columns, and a smaller inner steel re-bared concrete core, that held up against the fires, while the steel slowly gave way to the fire, crumbled first, then partly collapsed during 2 hrs and 47 minutes, after many hours of intense fire exposure.
And do note, from the 17th floor up, there was no fireproofing on the bare steel AT ALL. And still that bare steel held up for so many hours engulfed in flames.

Not as what we saw at the fireproofing sprayed-on WTC 1 and 2, sudden instant collapse initiations after JUST 56 and 102 minutes already.
There were reports by a chopper, that WTC 1 was visibly leaning first. And we may assume WTC 2 did too.
I expect in both occasions, that was the moment the demo-masters decided to hit the demolition master switches.
To prevent a real natural chaotic collapse to occur, where a lot of still standing remnants would have needed to be removed in a time and money consuming, long lasting, utterly dangerous process.

SOURCE : Document Chaos Isn't Sorted Out
By Matthew Goldstein, posted September 09, 2002 - 08:33 AM EDT.

Aimed at the world's financial heart, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were designed to throw capitalism into chaos. In one respect they succeeded: Millions of crucial documents were vaporized in the tragedy, and the process of sorting the losses out has been difficult and has included charges of opportunism.

A Citigroup lawyer, for instance, recently told a congressional committee looking into the bank's role in the WorldCom mess that she couldn't provide them with all the information they sought because some of it was destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center.

"Some further email records the committee has requested cannot be retrieved," wrote Citigroup Deputy General Counsel Jane Sherburne in an Aug. 7 letter to House Committee on Financial Services. "The backup tapes for external emails from September 1998 through December 2000, and for a short time period in September 2001, were lost when the building in which they were stored ( WTC 7 ) was destroyed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001."
--snip--

The problem is our suspicion that shady lawyers will have accepted the one in a million lifetimes chance, spread out before them, to "get lost" all the damning documents in possession of huge conglomerates they represented in those just as huge law suits against their clients, like Enron and World.com.
And Citigroup is a known CIA fronting company.

Not only are some financial services firms still grieving over the deaths of hundreds of their employees, many are still struggling to reconstruct the mountains of information they lost and to institute contingency plans for avoiding a repeat.

As Citigroup's recent disclosure shows, some financial services firms and institutions may have lost more documents and records than they originally believed -- despite all the talk about firms routinely backing up their information off-site.
And it appears ordinary investors are sometimes paying the price for all those lost records and documents.
--snip--

And of course the sharks of Wall-street took the opportunity offered by the events of 9/11/2001, to directly use them to clean up their messy gardens :

A Morgan Stanley spokesman pointed to a letter the brokerage firm sent to the National Association of Securities Dealers, shortly after the 9/11 terror attack, noting that "our capacity to retrieve documents, files and other records has been very substantially impaired."

Message to self : Cripple these few hardcore 911-duhbunking sites, wash them from their notorious false information, laid out by them as facts. Will be one of my next projects.
Do point however, at the honest facts, most doubters thus also classify as lies, which they are certainly not.

"Regardless of what the regulators (SEC) say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents."

Whether these files were really lost, or were "made lost", they WENT lost in the end.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: wmd_2008

Why don't you link to that post of yours? Afraid that I wreck your deceptive posts there?
I have addressed many times already in many years, that video glitch, that happens when a video camera takes a shot at max zoom, from very far away (southwest from the tip of Manhattan, a chopper hovering over the Hudson).

Really tell me more 35 years of photography experience here so give it your best shot!!!!!

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: wmd_2008


Btw, I have a few hours ago studied that WTC 7 "gash" picture I found in some guys online photo depository, and have reached the opinion that it is photo-shopped.
View it in Paint's max zoom,

PAINT really PAINT

8 BIT Colour ( do you know what I mean by that ) used by 2 bit thinking

Heard it all now

That image is a STILL FROM A VIDEO once again you show YOU don't have a clue

A reply to: wmd_2008

Why do you STILL not give the link to that post of yours of 15 days ago where you also posted that same "gash" photo, as you wrote a few posts back? Second try asking for it.

I can see the problems with that "gash" picture easily with the simple Paint program all Windows users here, standard have, and thus all of them can see those problems too. Can't you? Why don't you address those ?
I use Paint Shop Pro, GIMP, Google Picasa 3.9.138, Corel Draw Essentials, so, take your pick.
Anomalies in red from a 400 % zoom in Picasa 3 out of that "gash" photo from my earlier mentioned and linked to, online photo repository from a stranger :

That image is a STILL FROM A VIDEO once again you show YOU don't have a clue

Why don´t you give a link to that video you say it is a still from? Instead of throwing insults around.
And explain me how such red anomalies end up from an un-altered video screenshot. And explain the others too.

You keep avoiding standard practice in discussion forums. You're obliged to offer links, or names of books, or your own argumentation when you are discussing subjects here.

Up till now, the only thing you do is boasting about your assumed capabilities. Which you did not show at all.
Btw I have 60 years of mature age photographic experience behind me, and a few University-refresh-courses too, the good old fluids stuff and the digital stuff.
And read up a lot about USA NTSC and European PAL-SECAM video camera glitches. The NTSC TV and cameras systems in 2001 had a much lower line count than PAL. Is it still that sloppy system in the US?
Reason for many glitches, which you did not encounter in 2001 PAL cameras.
The 2001 US TV pictures quality could not compare to the European TV systems pictures quality, we had much better digital quality at 100 Hz and far more lines already then.
For recent quality, just look at a German TV channel, when it's airing a BBC HD-Pro nature film.
This is probably also one of the reasons for the bad quality of most 9/11 YouTube videos, beside the restrictions from YT itself. Lately some better quality ones turned up from the NIST collection, after some stubborn FOIA requests.


On a side note, NIST indicated in their 2005 draft report and in their 2008 final WTC 7 report, that any eventual damage from debris from the WTC 1 collapse that hit WTC 7, had no influence on its collapse. It did not cause it.
That was that once in a lifetime "thermal expansion at low fire temperatures" NIST humbug.

I put the following words in the ATS search, and 60 posts in 6 search pages (10ppp) turned up :
wmd_2008 gash

The first one on page 1 I read.
It seems most of his gash opinion came from here :
911myths.com...

The firsts 6 photos there show the SW corner gash done by a Vierendeel exterior columns triplet landing in a few corner rooms.
The last 2 are screenshots from the ABC 7, Washington, D.C. 'gash' video.

This Archive.org one, Date: 2001-09-11 17:23:07 UTC, Air Time: 2001-09-11 13:23:07 EDT, Length: 0:41:41

where you see the glitches from 3:20 on to 4:14, letting the sides of all the buildings seemingly jump up and down, caused by the extreme (digital?) zoom and the poor video quality as streamed to the networks.
Btw, this seemed intentionally, this very poor quality of all videos shown on 9/11 on our TV sets, as seen by me all day in Montreal, Canada where I lived at the time. It changed my life, and my opinions about decision makers, for ever. I moved from the North American continent to the South Caribbean, then to Europe, since I lost all faith in the trust level of any US government, from the past to the future.

At 22:08 to 23:06, an extreme zoom at the Southwestern and South facade of WTC 7 starts. I see no gash there.
At 24:18 to 24:35 another one, no gash.
At 29:13 to 29:38 starts a zoom of the South Tower collapse, where you see its top knacking-in while starting to lean to the southeast. Then the huge explosive clouds spit out to the east, the North Tower is blocking our sight on the rest of it.
At 30:17 starts the North Tower collapse.
At 31:00 another WTC 7 zoom in, and then at 31:27 to 31:45,
I see smoke clouds passing CLEARLY in front of that black gash.

So, why the obvious anomalies in that still picture I found?
And that one was definitely not taken from this ABC video.

Further, we have that picture taken from the eastern side of the debris heaps, near the Deutsche Bank, around 11:30 deducted from the sun shadows, aimed at the southern facade of WTC 7, and there's as far as I remember, no gash at that same spot visible. I am gonna try to find it, and review it again. It was once featured in the very first draft of Dr Jones his thermite endeavors.
He was here then at ATS in 2005/6, and I told him his time stamping of that picture was not right, not shot in the afternoon, but before noon, showing him the shadows.
And the South facade of WTC 7 was quite good visible.

PS :
This is what NIST said caused the collapse of WTC 7 :

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

www.nist.gov...

And this is the TOTAL rebuttal of that NIST theory initiation event, the failure of a beam's seat, which they said had no stiffeners attached, well, they REALLY indeed had them there :
www.consensus911.org...

And this poster made a huge post about it in that first gash thread-link I found in my above ATS search :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: LaBTop


Why do you STILL not give the link to that post of yours of 15 days ago where you also posted that same "gash" photo, as you wrote a few posts back? Second try asking for it.

The photo in question is a still shot that was originally taken by Thomas Franklin.

The photo that is circulating on the net is a screen shot taken from this video at the 2:42 mark. The photo is labeled as "WTC7 South side gash Tom F. video grab " this is the source of confusion as to wether or not it is a still or video.




Note you can also see a portion of the gash at the 2:00 mark.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: wmd_2008

Why do you STILL not give the link to that post of yours of 15 days ago where you also posted that same "gash" photo, as you wrote a few posts back? Second try asking for it.

I can see the problems with that "gash" picture easily with the simple Paint program all Windows users here, standard have, and thus all of them can see those problems too. Can't you? Why don't you address those ?
I use Paint Shop Pro, GIMP, Google Picasa 3.9.138, Corel Draw Essentials, so, take your pick.
Anomalies in red from a 400 % zoom in Picasa 3 out of that "gash" photo from my earlier mentioned and linked to, online photo repository from a stranger :

That image is a STILL FROM A VIDEO once again you show YOU don't have a clue

Why don´t you give a link to that video you say it is a still from? Instead of throwing insults around.
And explain me how such red anomalies end up from an un-altered video screenshot. And explain the others too.

You keep avoiding standard practice in discussion forums. You're obliged to offer links, or names of books, or your own argumentation when you are discussing subjects here.

Up till now, the only thing you do is boasting about your assumed capabilities. Which you did not show at all.
Btw I have 60 years of mature age photographic experience behind me, and a few University-refresh-courses too, the good old fluids stuff and the digital stuff.
And read up a lot about USA NTSC and European PAL-SECAM video camera glitches. The NTSC TV and cameras systems in 2001 had a much lower line count than PAL. Is it still that sloppy system in the US?
Reason for many glitches, which you did not encounter in 2001 PAL cameras.
The 2001 US TV pictures quality could not compare to the European TV systems pictures quality, we had much better digital quality at 100 Hz and far more lines already then.
For recent quality, just look at a German TV channel, when it's airing a BBC HD-Pro nature film.
This is probably also one of the reasons for the bad quality of most 9/11 YouTube videos, beside the restrictions from YT itself. Lately some better quality ones turned up from the NIST collection, after some stubborn FOIA requests.


.

Lets see I can use PHOTOSHOP,LIGHTROOM,SAGELIGHT,COREL AFTERSHOT, all 16 BIT per colour channel (do you KNOW what I mean by that ) WOULD NOT USE GIMP or PAINT for serious work only people WHO don't understand why USE THEM.

So lets see we have a vertical gash shown at the same location filmed on 2 different cameras by 2 different people that was ALSO reported by the FDNY yet because you who use amateur software to analyse still frames from compressed versions of the video from youtube it doesn't exist PRICELESS!!!

You know where the still is from I don't have to show what thread I posted it own that has nothing to do with you or this thread.

60 YEARS experience so you must be well into your 70's then, I am from Europe I am well aware of the difference in TV systems, I am also well aware of the LIMITATIONS of still grabs from videos from cameras back when this happened taken from youtube and zoomed 400% WHAT A JOKE!!!

Here use your software to unblur



You can see the date, if I say I did something I did !

a reply to: LaBTop

I had a little look at your TV link here is a little present for you at 3:46



I can see part of it exposed between the lighter & darker smoke/dust

a reply to: wmd_2008

Your link isn't working :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

PS : Your second link is also not functional :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

For your info, I already saw it myself. Are you so eager to post, that you forget to read the rest of my posts?

LT : At 31:00 another WTC 7 zoom in, and then at 31:27 to 31:45,
I see smoke clouds passing CLEARLY in front of that black gash.

For such a specialist, you make an awful lot of mistakes. (makes me smile)

originally posted by: LaBTop

Further, we have that picture taken from the eastern side of the debris heaps, near the Deutsche Bank, around 11:30 deducted from the sun shadows, aimed at the southern facade of WTC 7, and there's as far as I remember, no gash at that same spot visible. I am gonna try to find it, and review it again. It was once featured in the very first draft of Dr Jones his thermite endeavors.
He was here then at ATS in 2005/6, and I told him his time stamping of that picture was not right, not shot in the afternoon, but before noon, showing him the shadows.
And the South facade of WTC 7 was quite good visible.

You have both the time and location of that photo wrong.

Here is the photo:

blog-imgs-18.fc2.com...

Location is North West corner of 1 Liberty Plaza

www.mediumrecords.com...

Time according to shadows shortly after 9:59 ( daylight savings time ). Before WTC1 collapsed and caused the gash.

i995.photobucket.com...

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: wmd_2008

Your link isn't working :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

PS : Your second link is also not functional :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

For such a specialist, you make an awful lot of mistakes. (makes me smile)

Your MISTAKE screen grabs NEVER said they were links that's why they appear as PICTURES DOH!!!

Also as I said the second one is from the TV LINK you posted and I have gave you the time and it can be seen in the picture I thought even YOU could put 2+2 together .

That happens a lot earlier than what YOU claimed.

Just shows you !

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: wmd_2008

Your link isn't working :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

PS : Your second link is also not functional :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

For such a specialist, you make an awful lot of mistakes. (makes me smile)

Your MISTAKE screen grabs NEVER said they were links that's why they appear as PICTURES DOH!!!

Also as I said the second one is from the TV LINK you posted and I have gave you the time and it can be seen in the picture I thought even YOU could put 2+2 together .

Just shows you !

My dear genius, those are .jpg links you posted ! Which do not function for some reason in my Firefox window.

PS: I have to go now, will return in 10 hrs.
Waypastvne, I enjoy discussions with highly intelligent opponents, thank you for your posts, I will study them in 10 hrs. I just had the chance to glance over those 2 posts, that's real discussion !

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: wmd_2008

Your link isn't working :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

PS : Your second link is also not functional :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

For such a specialist, you make an awful lot of mistakes. (makes me smile)

Your MISTAKE screen grabs NEVER said they were links that's why they appear as PICTURES DOH!!!

Also as I said the second one is from the TV LINK you posted and I have gave you the time and it can be seen in the picture I thought even YOU could put 2+2 together .

Just shows you !

My dear genius, those are .jpg links you posted ! Which do not function for some reason in my Firefox window.

PS: I have to go now, will return in 10 hrs.
Waypastvne, I enjoy discussions with highly intelligent opponents, thank you for your posts, I will study them in 10 hrs. I just had the chance to glance over those 2 posts, that's real discussion !

They are ATS links to pictures I have uploaded for example your avatar from your post above I take a screen grab, crop to a size I want upload to my pics on ATS get the link for the picture and post and here YOU are.



If you require any help please just ask

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: LaBTop

Further, we have that picture taken from the eastern side of the debris heaps, near the Deutsche Bank, around 11:30 deducted from the sun shadows, aimed at the southern facade of WTC 7, and there's as far as I remember, no gash at that same spot visible. I am gonna try to find it, and review it again. It was once featured in the very first draft of Dr Jones his thermite endeavors.
He was here then at ATS in 2005/6, and I told him his time stamping of that picture was not right, not shot in the afternoon, but before noon, showing him the shadows.
And the South facade of WTC 7 was quite good visible.

You have both the time and location of that photo wrong.

Here is the photo:

Location is North West corner of 1 Liberty Plaza ( LT: I always assumed that was Deutsche Bank, i'll check it again, smile )

Time according to shadows shortly after 9:59 ( daylight savings time ). Before WTC1 collapsed and caused the gash.

Had to take a good nap, too, after that 10 hrs trip.
Yes, I am old. I am one of the last, who saw, and heard the whisper of those cosy gas lanterns lining the streets.....and had to light up the gas socks in the lamps in my granny's home.
I seriously doubt anybody here, have ever seen or heard those.
We were not in too much of a hurry, back then. My "golden years", the way I remember them.

waypastvne, these 2 things convinced me, that all my WTC 7 gash posts from earlier years, were in error :

1. The good resolution video I found myself in my earlier post, is the most convincing part :

LT : At 31:00 another WTC 7 zoom in, and then at 31:27 to 31:45, I see smoke clouds passing CLEARLY in front of that black gash.

2. Your excellent, above quoted, shadows calculation post.
You saw the sun lit vertical bands on the remnants of WTC 4 and 5, correct. And they show correct in your shadow calculation diagram.

That dark gash REALLY existed in the western part of WTC 7 its glass panel facade, formed after WTC-1N also collapsed at 10:28:31, which happened 29 minutes and 27 secs after WTC-2S first collapsed at 09:59:04.
(Do note, that the gash existance has no influence on any of my signature LINKS its bulk of evidence, that 9/11 was a black operation)


Just one remark you will have trouble with, just as me :

How could that 1 Liberty Plaza NW corner photo have been shot by Tom Franklin at or around the same moment that WTC-2S collapsed?
Around 09:59, as you concluded....

I think I do not need to post here aerial photos of S.Manhattan's tip, filled and covered with HUGE smoke and dust clouds up to several hundred meters high, after both Twin's collapses.

So, my dear Watson, WE clearly have a problem at our hands. A researchers nightmare, a correctional Peer.
Let's solve it together, (or you do it for me, a.s.a.p.) :

Either your real time shadows calculation software is erronous.
Or you filled in any possibly wrong parameters.
F.ex. incorrect placed buildings (seems correct)
Incorrect daytime fed in. (EasternDT, New York time, WesternDT, CentralDT, MountainDT, Greenwich time, etc)
Problem with all of this, your two vertical shadows on WTC 4 and 5 seem, as seen in the picture, correctly situated.
However, when you feed the wrong standard time, it will spit out a wrong time of day in New York.

Please provide the link to that shadow calculation software a.s.a.p., so we can work together on that problem. And we both can thus tweak and verify the parameters, and thus one of us can collect the "gauger's fee".

Because that is some highly interesting shadow predicting software, for both of our future arguments. You will be familiar with the term :
PEER's review, my dear Watson. You must provide your peers with all the information and instruments used, for them to be able to HONESTLY review your work.
Thank you in advance.

PS : I probably can find the software with what I see. However, I feel a need to check your obvious high level of investigative integrity.

Any integer investigator would have reacted on my CORRECT analysis of that "hanging truss photo by NIST" post here in THIS thread post, with the same level of admittance, as I just showed you above.

I expected the same courtesy from you, for that last page 6 post of mine about my total refutation of NIST's hanging and sagging trusses theory which they based THEIR WHOLE collapse initiation event THEORY on , in my " Trusting and Doubting 9/11, a neverending story. Additional T&D-evidence " thread over there in this same 9/11 Conspiracies ATS-forum.

In fact, I missed that courtesy up till now in every 9/11 Truster posting here, after I showed them their erroneous thinking.
This really makes you guys, look really bad as for truly historical Research manners.
A Truly Historical Researcher, who can't bring him or herself to admit his errors, or (even worse), to admit the correctness of his colleagues, is not worth that title.

I am really eagerly awaiting discussing my sig-LINKS with you, you are a worthy adversary. I am sure at last I found one who can stay neutral, just as myself, when the outcome will not be as expected, favorable for each participant's view on the world.

These are photos of the, too long quotes, in this linked post of mine (click it), where that former text must be saved for the next generations of curious young truly historical minded Americans and those same youngsters from other countries :

1. files.abovetopsecret.com...
2. files.abovetopsecret.com...
3. files.abovetopsecret.com...
4. files.abovetopsecret.com...
5. files.abovetopsecret.com...

I think I have found a solution for my utter need for excessive quoting, that will fit in the ATS forum rules.
Born out of my decades long Internet experience that sites that attack the heinous behavior of the US and other various governments, its military or its agencies and their paid enslaved politicians, tend to disappear swiftly, sometimes even in a few days (the winner lately : a link posted here, to Leo Wanta's site : 2 days, and then his site was gone), sometimes months (StudyOf911, where I posted my full seismic evidence first, it ended caused by financial problems of the host), sometimes a few years only (TerrorDenmark with its extensive 9/11/2001 photo and video archive).

I will conserve from now on, longer than ATS-tolerated, utterly important excerpts of pieces of by me linked-to conspiracy websites by means of a few tiny screenshot-links, written by me in the usual BB-formatting of ATS posts.

So you, the unbiased and curious readers in the far future, can click those small links to my photo upload pages here at ATS and still read what at that time, will be thoroughly cleansed from the then existing form of Internet. And use parts of it in your future posts.

We experience this website-erasing every day.
Try to get to all those disappeared important links in my 2005 to nowadays ATS posts, using f.ex. the Wayback engine from Archive.org.

It will not work, most parts of online forums can not be crawled by the Archive.org web bots. Because most forum web-masters (by intention or not), did not include the Archive.org WayBack web bots in their forum Software Bot-Exceptions page.

While the Archive.org administrators were very forthcoming to the reasons that web-masters do not want them crawling their forums, to save us from forum-wars, by introducing a lag-time of SIX MONTHS, before you are able to retrieve old posted pages.
And still they don't let those Archive bots have access.

In a few years, when their sites are also long gone from the Web, they will sob sour tears for their lack of historic insight.

It would be a relief to know ATS-forums administrators have the foresight and insight to allow the Archive.org WayBack web bots to crawl the whole site, except for the staff forums.