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.

 

What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


So every one of these pictures is fake?

www.911conspiracy.tv...

What about the photos of the engine that made it through the towers and onto the street?

www.rense.com...
(I realize this is a conspiracy website too, but sometimes conspiracy sites are good at putting together great conglomerations of photos, however much they may want to interpret them in odd ways)

The evidence is overwhelming. In fact, the only way I can imagine someone can deny it is if he/she makes up everything and sticks to his/her imagination. After all, anything physical, photographed, or video-taped will be hand-waved away. Witnesses will be ignored, and the government will be considered evil beyond recognition.

Yup, that's logical, mhm.[/sarcasm]



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


So every one of these pictures is fake?

www.911conspiracy.tv...

What about the photos of the engine that made it through the towers and onto the street?

www.rense.com...
(I realize this is a conspiracy website too, but sometimes conspiracy sites are good at putting together great conglomerations of photos, however much they may want to interpret them in odd ways)

The evidence is overwhelming. In fact, the only way I can imagine someone can deny it is if he/she makes up everything and sticks to his/her imagination. After all, anything physical, photographed, or video-taped will be hand-waved away. Witnesses will be ignored, and the government will be considered evil beyond recognition.

Yup, that's logical, mhm.[/sarcasm]


Why would any of them be fake? Some are, some aren't...the ones with a jet are fake, but IMO the collapse sequences look genuine. The point is they should be taken with a grain of salt as evidence. If the government are the perpetrators, they would definitely have their cover story and operatives in place long before the operation. Therefore, what videos we have are the videos we were meant to have.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Then how can you reasonably come to any sort of informed conclusion?

What you are basically telling me and others is that everything that would normally be used as evidence must be completely ignored or considered tampered with, all on the assumption that someone "could" have possibly tampered with it. We're to assume that all the people who saw the plane on 9/11 are lying, and that the government somehow devised a way to edit the live feed in real time from every news camera so that every person at home would be deceived. We're to assume that all the people seen jumping from the towers on that day, and all the people who died and/or were rescued from the rubble are simply fake. That it's all made up just to demolish some buildings and get back into war.

I'm not convinced. In my opinion, even if the government were to have done it, it would be far easier to stage a false flag by actually doing everything that they said was done. Fly the real planes into the building and bring the towers down in the way they would come down naturally. It's a sure-fire way to have no questions asked, because everything will always eventually check out. I don't know how it's possible to come up with such absurdity as to say that absolutely everything is fake, all on a hunch, essentially.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


Then how can you reasonably come to any sort of informed conclusion?



By critically examining all the information I can, with as few presumptions as I can muster.




What you are basically telling me and others is that everything that would normally be used as evidence must be completely ignored or considered tampered with, all on the assumption that someone "could" have possibly tampered with it. We're to assume that all the people who saw the plane on 9/11 are lying, and that the government somehow devised a way to edit the live feed in real time from every news camera so that every person at home would be deceived. We're to assume that all the people seen jumping from the towers on that day, and all the people who died and/or were rescued from the rubble are simply fake. That it's all made up just to demolish some buildings and get back into war.



You can assume all you like, but please don't put words in my mouth.

I find it easier to believe State media and government will lie than I can believe a jet can cut through a building like it wasn't there. I also know how easy it would be to superimpose a jet over real video of a planned explosion, so in my opinion, the flash is real but the jet isn't. This is based on what is possible in real life as compared to what is possible with digital media.


edit on 24-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
what i dont understand is why so many people are on here supporting the OS ..... if you dont think its a conspiracy ... why are you here ? every one of the OSers come across as being a little too full of themselves , they deny anything you say , they quote your post and dissect it like theyre getting some kind of kick out of it , and they keep throwing the same things at you that you have seen and heard for over ten years now, .... if we dont believe FEMA and NIST why would we just stop after all this time and agree with every single word you say ?

Power trippin when youve got no idea how contradicting your evidence is ..... is just foolish , and a waste of time.
edit on 24-10-2011 by Tower7WTF because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
than I can believe a jet can cut through a building like it wasn't there.

The jets did not cut any steel perimeter columns. The only things holding the perimeter columns together were bolts and welds, that's it. Of course a plane will punch through bolts and welds like they're nothing. Once the bolts and welds are broken, those perimeter column sections will just move out of the way as there's nothing else holding them in place (besides the floors which were easily crumpled up from the impact).

Secondly, the no-plane/CGI/hologram/tv fakery disinformation has been thoroughly debunked and is a proven hoax. That garbage is now contained to the HOAX bin on this site. It is also against ATS's Terms and Conditions to advertise or otherwise perpetuate known hoaxes, and if caught 3 times, then it's bye bye Lucy. And you've already got your 3 times in this thread alone.



Originally posted by septic
the flash is real but the jet isn't.

That flash cannot exist without the plane as there would be no oxygen tank to ignite. The no-plane disinformation is already debunked by not only the dozens of videos and images of the planes, there's no way to add CGI planes to private home videos that private citizens have posted to the internet.


"Septic", anytime you feel that you have some "real" evidence of no planes at the WTC, or CGI/tv fakery, you go ahead and set up a debate between us in the debate forum. Or we can even do it on the ATS Live radio show.




In the mean time, the answer to the title of this thread was given in the second post. Now we have 13 (and counting) pages of disinformation, perpetuating a known hoax, and off-topic BS. Absolutely disgusting.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Tower7WTF
 


I came here because I had doubts. This site has caused me to return to seeing the OS as more than likely, so I thank ATS for that. I guess maybe I should leave, but I'm interested in other things as well. I do believe the government was at fault for 9/11 and might have played a role in it. I'm interested in metaphysics and theories of medicine.

I find it kind of amusing during my free time to try and correct errors in judgment that I see throughout this particular subforum. 99% of the time, I'm simply telling people off for using faulty facts or information. It's just not right to let it go unopposed.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Interesting. I have seen far greater threads closed for what is going on here.

There are multiple new users that are contributing now, some that have never posted before. The opposition to the truth in this case is being represented by people who know quite well how to inflame a conversation.

Classic disinformation tactics.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

www.whale.to...

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


Read the last couple of posts and try to identify some of these traits. Research this page 25 Rule of disinformation

I believe that this is on topic and should be mentioned before good users get banned for replying to these people.
edit on 23-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


You shadowherder are exhibiting all the hallmarks of the classic gatekeeper and your ATS
appellation seems strangely appropriate to me. Are you familiar with ATS member Bonez by
any chance? You express the exact same flawed certitude on any and all mention of 9/11 fakery.
9/11 Video fakery is about the only demonstable proof presented in 10 years of confuscation
and tail-chasing by the 'truth movement'.
Thousands of hours have been invested by intelligent researchers into the whole reality
of media fakery and the role it plays in many major worldwide events.
Catagorical proof that video fakery played an extensive role in the hoax that was 9/11
is demonstrated clearly below.
I would urge any interested parties to judge the evidence on it's own merits, and refuse
to be bullied or lead by the nose by you or any other so-called authority, ATS included.

!.5 Hours Of Proof Of 9/11 Video Fakery


True Extents Of Media Fakery

Your veiled threats regarding the banning of contributors who respond to fakery
postings (and the possible closing of the thread) is disgusting, and hopefully will be
seen by honest members for what it is!
The only reasoning behind the aggresive hoax labelling of the reality of 9/11 video fakery
is that someone somewhere is trying desperately to hide something!

I, for one, know what that something is!

(There is no reason for this post to be removed, but I am well aware of the form here.)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
!.5 Hours Of Proof Of 9/11 Video Fakery

"September Clues" is debunked at multiple sources in my thread here:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



Originally posted by pshea38
(There is no reason for this post to be removed, but I am well aware of the form here.)

Actually, there is: it violates ATS's Terms and Conditions of perpetuating a known hoax.


This thread needs to either be closed or moved to the HOAX bin.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


wow...you speak with such authority...

Are you an officer of this site or something?

I'm happy to do a live radio program. Will I need to clear my material with the censors first?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pshea38
!.5 Hours Of Proof Of 9/11 Video Fakery

"September Clues" is debunked at multiple sources in my thread here:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



Originally posted by pshea38
(There is no reason for this post to be removed, but I am well aware of the form here.)

Actually, there is: it violates ATS's Terms and Conditions of perpetuating a known hoax.


This thread needs to either be closed or moved to the HOAX bin.






I have looked at your thread and there are plenty of contributors who disagreed with
your conclusions. Isn't it funny in your thread how you find ATS 9/11 official story faithfuls
(weedywacker, dereks etc.) expressing complete agreement with you bonez, an ardent 9/11
O.S. denier. I don't think I have seen that before! Very Curious!
Is a case of all hands unite against the Media Fakery Truthers? Potentially very telling, IMO!

Have you some sort of monopoly on truth and enquiry? Look at your attitude with this
statement above...

This thread needs to either be closed or moved to the HOAX bin.

The Nazis are back! The Nazis are back! That is what is ringing in my ears
when I read this. Have you some hidden influence here at ATS?

Why are you so untoward with everything media fakery? Are you seriously telling me that
there is not one aspect to the whole sway of evidence presented in the SeptemberClues movie
that you find reasonable or believable? Not One. Seriously? That is one Big Red Flag to me!

You protest too much bonez and you show up your true colours!
You have heard about the notion of controlled opposition, I take it!
edit on 24-10-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


wow...you speak with such authority...

Are you an officer of this site or something?

I'm happy to do a live radio program. Will I need to clear my material with the censors first?


I sincerely doubt that that is a genuine offer but I would love to hear such
an uncensored (Ha!) exchange. I don't believe for a second that ATS would
grant any airtime to 9/11 Media Fakery loons (sic.) like us.
Nothing to get hung up on though
.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
I sincerely doubt that that is a genuine offer but I would love to hear such
an uncensored (Ha!) exchange. I don't believe for a second that ATS would
grant any airtime to 9/11 Media Fakery loons (sic.) like us.
Nothing to get hung up on though
.


I wouldn't mind a debate...didn't know we could do that...I look better on paper even though I have a face for radio.


Media complicity would be my topic, and I'd go toe to toe with anyone as long as no holds were barred.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Then let's do a debate in the debate forum where videos and images are allowed. You can't do videos and images on a radio show.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Sure, but I'm not sure what to do. Why can't we simply debate about it right here on the 911 forum?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I'd think not.


This thread needs to either be closed or moved to the HOAX bin.


As far as I can tell, the OP asked a sincere question.

The Op's question was answered with the fact of the matter in the second post, on page #1.

There is no "hoax" here, only a few who have hijacked the thread to spout more ridiculousness about the so-called "TV Fakery" (which you addressed completely in your thread).

Those who peddle the baloney of "no planes" are the criminals (maybe too harsh....."provocateurs" might be more apt). But, there is a definite agenda, and seems to be to steer those just coming along, who have not yet had a chance to review all the facts.....and thus, those "provocateurs" shill for 'Jim Fetzer', 'Simon Shack', and their ilk.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Might I assume I am included in that "ilk"?

What's with you guys anyway? Good cop, bad cop? What is your aversion to discussing media complicity?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


So every one of these pictures is fake?

www.911conspiracy.tv...

What about the photos of the engine that made it through the towers and onto the street?

www.rense.com...
(I realize this is a conspiracy website too, but sometimes conspiracy sites are good at putting together great conglomerations of photos, however much they may want to interpret them in odd ways)

The evidence is overwhelming. In fact, the only way I can imagine someone can deny it is if he/she makes up everything and sticks to his/her imagination. After all, anything physical, photographed, or video-taped will be hand-waved away. Witnesses will be ignored, and the government will be considered evil beyond recognition.

Yup, that's logical, mhm.[/sarcasm]


Why would any of them be fake? Some are, some aren't...the ones with a jet are fake, but IMO the collapse sequences look genuine. The point is they should be taken with a grain of salt as evidence. If the government are the perpetrators, they would definitely have their cover story and operatives in place long before the operation. Therefore, what videos we have are the videos we were meant to have.


'Some are, some aren't...'

This has been my approach of late. Or, more specifically, 'which are, which aren't' For not everything is Fake.

We very clearly have to take things into account. Like that many many 'witnesses' "seen planes". I imagine people across the river "seen planes" and had I been in NYC I'd have "seen a plane" too!

But do I think the second hit video is fake? No. Do you want to know why? (I bet you do!)

It all has to do with the "nose out" clip seen from the backside through the two towers. There's filming and what looks like a "nose out" and THEN - an abrupt Fade to Black. Why do I think the video is real, the "nose out" isn't a nose out and that the Fade to Black is very telling and indicates to me that the video is real? It's because it's like a master control, as in, "Let's run this and video it from all the angles, you have your eye on the gap, if you see anything funky pan out I want you to immediately cut it, cut the feed. You understand?"

The feed WAS CUT after it began but before normal completion. It was cut in the backside GAP between the towers.

Now I haven't worked out the sequence yet that came across the TV Live but was the plane coming in to the right of the building first, well, yes it was, then what? Then did it switch to between the towers? To that view? And then ONLY LATER were we shown the full hit from street view main side? Because if that's right then it makes perfect sense to me why it Faded to Black so abruptly and exactly when it did.

The live second shot sequence needs to be checked for this pattern - backside plane coming in right, backside "nose out", all front side shots following backside Fade to Black.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvneIsn't Simon Shack from Norway too ? Must be something in the water.
edit on 24-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


The water in Norway is just fine, i guess it's all the junk food.

I've read a few posts on the cluesforum, and i'm afraid it's too "out there" even for this forum.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Again with the ganging up of all sides on media fakery!
I was sure that proudbird and bonez were on opposite sides of the 9/11 fence.
This is SO TELLING!

If someone posted a UFO video, would those questioning the possibility of fakery be hounded?
I think not! It is first thing looked for by any investigator.

And there is so much more direct evidence for video fakery in the released 9/11 footage.

I hope readers can see through this charade!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join