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 Reheat
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files
You pull some picture off the internet and then claim it is 'official'. Get real.
And yet you posted an obvious composite as proof ??
Using your logic ALL of the photos in the OP that have labels are also photo shopped, period!
What official evidence? You guys post it so it automatically 'official'. What is your evidence trail for the photographs you guys are posting? Who took the picture? What was the date and time? What equipment was used? Who added all the photoshopped little labels and cute little arrows?
You pull some picture off the internet and then claim it is 'official'. Get real.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by backinblack
That's why whenever I post a labeled photo, I always put a link to where I got it. It makes it easier for people to make sure I'm not altering a bunch of stuff.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by backinblack
That's why whenever I post a labeled photo, I always put a link to where I got it. It makes it easier for people to make sure I'm not altering a bunch of stuff.
The one he is rejecting as a composite is also sourced. Composite software is very accurate these days. It really doesn't affect the point if no other manipulation are made. The composite is infinitely better than most of those in the OP to show the "hole" where the aircraft went into the building. If you don't trust the measurements then go to the Pentagon a make measurements. It's very amusing that some folks trust obscured or partially obscured objects in a photo as long as they think it makes their misleading point, but don't trust a composite that is without significant obscuration, yet make no attempt to show it's deceiving. I smell confirmation bias....
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
The one he is rejecting as a composite is also sourced. Composite software is very accurate these days. It really doesn't affect the point if no other manipulation are made. The composite is infinitely better than most of those in the OP to show the "hole" where the aircraft went into the building. If you don't trust the measurements then go to the Pentagon a make measurements. It's very amusing that some folks trust obscured or partially obscured objects in a photo as long as they think it makes their misleading point, but don't trust a composite that is without significant obscuration, yet make no attempt to show it's deceiving. I smell confirmation bias....
No, what you smell is common sense..
Without every original that was used in a composite and a time stamp, it's impossible to know exactly what has or hasn't been altered..
There are a limited number of photos available, most from the Jason Ingersoll collection. They are not difficult to find at all....
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat
There are a limited number of photos available, most from the Jason Ingersoll collection. They are not difficult to find at all....
So post them...If all are original with data attached...
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
Ah, apologies then. I didn't know that it was three days later that it collapsed, though it would be nice to have a source before I am certain that was the case. I did a quick search and couldn't locate the information.
So do we have a date/time yet on the pictures, or am I just asking for the impossible?
Originally posted by Reheat
I'm not inclined to do research for you or anyone else. I've already done it for myself and do not have a collection in my personal possession. It is quite obvious that if it disagrees with fantasy it will be rejected or hand waved away anyway. My time is more valuable spent on other endeavors. As 911Files has pointed out actual data from multiple sources is more valuable than photos shot from telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away anyway. Those are subject to all of the distortions inherent in telephoto lens and can easily lead to false conclusions. Prime example = This thread.edit on 25-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
Ah, apologies then. I didn't know that it was three days later that it collapsed, though it would be nice to have a source before I am certain that was the case. I did a quick search and couldn't locate the information.
So do we have a date/time yet on the pictures, or am I just asking for the impossible?
maybe you should read the OP... just sayin'
most estimates say around 20 minutes AFTER the first small explosion (probably what Jerry Henson heard), when the plane allegedly hit, there was a very large secondary explosion which caused the collapse with lots of fire. In one TV news vid the guy says 45 minutes, but mostly I've heard the 20-25 minute range.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Originally posted by Reheat
I'm not inclined to do research for you or anyone else. I've already done it for myself and do not have a collection in my personal possession. It is quite obvious that if it disagrees with fantasy it will be rejected or hand waved away anyway. My time is more valuable spent on other endeavors. As 911Files has pointed out actual data from multiple sources is more valuable than photos shot from telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away anyway. Those are subject to all of the distortions inherent in telephoto lens and can easily lead to false conclusions. Prime example = This thread.edit on 25-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
let's translate this...
you don't care about any new information because you made up your mind a long time ago and won't change it. Anything that doesn't agree with your previously decided belief you will call "fantasy". You would rather spend your time doing something else but have to be here for some reason. and... you categorically throw out any data that is from a telephoto lens. In other words your only purpose here is to keep other people from proper investigation.
Curious - do you look at the pictures that are posted by your OS cronies, or by various government reports? I doubt you do.
Originally posted by Reheat
It's still early in the day, but the monkey's are already up to their throwing tricks.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
still waiting for proof.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There are too many anomalies to say it was a hijack-crash scenario so I want to convince people we need an investigation.
Originally posted by 911files
Sir, I said facts. Not a bunch of pictures and your unqualified opinion as to what they show.