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 Lyte Trizzle
it's so ironic to me that people who fight the 9/11 truth movement call themselves "skeptics" when he swallow the official story hook line and sinker despite all of the glaring contradictions and anomalies.
911eyewitness intentionally does not try to identify the origin of the projectile..
[....]
It only confirms that the arc of the debris was non-horizontal.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh wow how touching, do I get to be in the next video as well
His cheap parlour psycology tricks in the writing and presentation style may work on the vulnerably minded people it's targeting, but overall it's pretty pathetic..
[edit on 6-2-2006 by AgentSmith]
Originally posted by AgentSmith
I especially like the way my strawman comment was underlined like it's 'big evidence', the more astute of our viewers can probably tell what is my rather dry, sarcastic sense of humour when they see it.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh wow how touching, do I get to be in the next video as well
...
Emm, so how can you tell the trajectory of an object without having a reference point to start from or work your way back too?
*silence*
...
And you wasted all that time with that beautiful presentation..
...
His cheap parlour psycology [sic] tricks in the writing and presentation style may work on the vulnerably minded people it's targeting, but overall it's pretty pathetic..
Originally posted by Majic
What A Real Skeptic Believes
Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
it's so ironic to me that people who fight the 9/11 truth movement call themselves "skeptics" when he swallow the official story hook line and sinker despite all of the glaring contradictions and anomalies.
I call myself a skeptic, and I'm skeptical of the overwhelming majority of "alternative explanations" for what happened on 9-11.
I'm also skeptical of the "official story", which leaves some rather important questions unanswered and seems to hand-wave away many other important questions.
This whole 9-11 business stinks from hell to high heaven.
Somebody's lying.
I'm also skeptical of the approach of seeking to bolster one's claims by taking potshots at those who may disagree with them. Doing so does not give credit to such claims.
A much better course is to adopt true skepticism which, at its foundation, is nothing more than accepting the very strong possibility that we're all wrong to some degree or another.
Once we get past that, maybe we have a chance of finding out the truth -- despite the strenuous attempts on the part of so many to hide it.
While we need not agree on everything, if we can agree to share what we know in a reasonable and civil manner, the rewards may well prove worth the effort.
It's worth a try, anyway.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Unedited frames direct from video
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Originally posted by MERC
...how credible do you think the information is about FEMA turning up for a disaster on September 10th?
One of the great things about this video is that it doesn't try to "hard sell" you any ideas, if you know what I mean. The information, for the most part, is presented as is and left for you to make your own conclusions. The footage is played unedited and raw first before going back again and pointing things out. A recording of CBS news with Dan Rather interviewing a FEMA official on Sept 12 is played:
Rather: "Tom Kennedy...Kennedy a rescue worker with the National Urban Search & Rescue which is part of FEMA."
Kennedy: "We're currently...uh...one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today [Wed Sept 12] did we get full opportunity to work the entire site."
Google for "FEMA + Tripod II" for more info on FEMA arriving on Sept 10th for a disaster scenario drill of planes crashing into the WTC towers. Next morning, whaddyaknow...
Originally posted by ChapaevII
My question then is if you are being deceptive or duped? Did you know that is not original material or were you fooled?
Also, your sequence above is reversed. The lowest frame being the first, as the building goes down the debris goes up. The top of your video is cut off so as not to show the effect, but the enlargement of the cloud as one views your "evidence" starting from the bottom going up, it is plain to see. It is quite clear in the DVD and I highly recommend getting it.
Perhaps if you wish to really be efficient in your research you would use
the proper materials or not mislead people? I assume that when you said Unedited frames direct from video you did not refer to the 911Eyewitness video, but one you fabricated or altered to your argument here, therefore you were misleading as this thread is about that 911Eyewitness video. Providing frames from "only you know where" and making it "seem" to be evidence on that DVD is provocative at best.
Mr. Smith, you do need to do better work.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Originally posted by ChapaevII
My question then is if you are being deceptive or duped? Did you know that is not original material or were you fooled?
Those screenshots are from the video that was linked at the beginning of the topic that everyone has been basing their comments on? Maybe you have a different video?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
As I said, I am referring to the video that was linked at the beginning of the post,
go onto Rick Siegels' site
he never said they weren't from his video.
Everyone else here, including those who argue my point, all accept they are from the same video they watched as I did
.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
You may also like to explain how over the last 21 pages the other members who watched it seem to be happy to accept they are from the video.
[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]
Originall posted by ricksiegel
ATS, being one of the largest conspiracy sites on the internet, is naturally home to a nest of debunker agents. Some like "Agent Smith" proudly announce their status and set about looking for anything that can be misrepresented or misconstrued to confuse, obfuscate and distract from the incriminating evidence in plane view.
Carefully avoiding all other aspects of the scientific analysis that proved bullet-proof, and ignoring the narrative that directs viewer attention to the non-horizontal nature of the projectile ARC, the disinfo agent claims to have debunked the entire program with the use of two carefully chosen screen capture frames.
He claims that when overlaid, these two frames explain, beyond a doubt, how the very top debris collapsed outward 600 feet. He states that the documentary has falsely determined the origin of the Winter Garden debris. This is necessary to distract the viewer from the non-horizontal debris ARC that verifies upward movement during a downward collapse, which can only be explained by the use of explosives.
www.911eyewitness.com...