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 jeichelberg
I do not know where all these videos are surfacing from...When I watched the coverage that day, all I saw was one person jump from the buildings...
It appears the images and videos of the jumpers are faked. Who would so such a thing?
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by septic
One of the ways propagandists control you is through the use of fear.
Yah, like you. I been debating with you on another 911 thread about structure and collapse and I am amazed at how insistent you are about how "everything is faked". Here you have surpassed yourself with this video. Shows how little understanding you have about engineering or cameras even. This "psyops" witch is fooling you with her "blown up" photos? I'm done with you Septic. Cut your 911 eye out, it's septic and will go gangrenous if you don't act quick.
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by surrealist
I find this thread offensive to everyone involved in the incident, both those who died and the families involved. Disgraceful.
Unless no one jumped, as evidenced by the fraud, in which case isn't your outrage slightly displaced? It appears the images and videos of the jumpers are faked. Who would so such a thing?
Originally posted by Helmkat
I'm not sure what happens to Human memory over time. As a species we have a very disturbing ability to take facts of the past and suddenly call these facts into doubt. Sort of a strange "I wasn't there, didn't see it with my own eyes, it must be fake". People jumped, it happened, if your mind cannot deal with the horror, I am sorry.
This thread reminds me in a way of holocaust deniers.
Glittering Generalities. Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous." Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered.
Originally posted by Pinkarella
reply to post by intrptr
Video has been removed from Youtube.
Originally posted by Starwise
reply to post by septic
Okay I just showed my husband who has been a Graphic Illustrator since 1992, the video with the photographs. His opinion:
The Man falling with knee bent, the famous one: Not faked regular Jpeg artifact: REAL
The second one with the man leaning back looking like he was sitting in a park bench: His opinion: FAKED
So what it boils down to why would some pictures be real and some be faked.....I believe my husband over some stranger any day of the week.....
edit on 26-12-2011 by Starwise because: (no reason given)
NOTE: It has been proven that this picture was not of anyone from 911, but rather a Russian man who was hit by a truck.
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by Helmkat
I'm not sure what happens to Human memory over time. As a species we have a very disturbing ability to take facts of the past and suddenly call these facts into doubt. Sort of a strange "I wasn't there, didn't see it with my own eyes, it must be fake". People jumped, it happened, if your mind cannot deal with the horror, I am sorry.
This thread reminds me in a way of holocaust deniers.
Hoboy, now you're just reading from the manual, aren't you?
Glittering Generalities. Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous." Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered.
www.constitution.org...
Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc.
Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by septic
I was not there, but I did see the PBS ( I think) special on it. It followed the French Film crew that videoed the first plane strike to the WTC with the Fire Truck it was with. The crew made it into the Lobby of one of the towers. You could hear "thuds" hitting the top of the Lobby and the look on the fireman's faces left no doubt in my mind that they thought they were bodies impacting from jumpers. I still remember how the fireman looked at each other when they heard those sounds........really bad foreboding.
Originally posted by septic
Yeah, the "thumps" are my point. The sound drums up that gut-wrenching horror. From Leslie Raphael:
26. Yet another staged scene : top left (43:32), Pfeifer giving a sly look to his left, as if waiting for a prompt, his aide Ed Fahey on the right of the picture, fiddling with something out of shot, and between them in the centre, Mike Hurley, Director of Fire Safety at the WTC, staring at something in the distance (the shot opens with a close-up of him doing it, then widens out). Top right (43:33), Pfeifer has apparently been told to look down at his radio — as Fahey is already doing, perhaps. Bottom left (43:33), the start of their head movement as they allegedly react to the crash of someone hitting the ground outside the building, after falling or jumping from the upper floors. Bottom right (43:33), their final position — looking in three different directions — different from each other (compare picture 8b, another fake reaction shot), and different from where each was looking in the first frame — before the camera swings left (west) towards the front of the building. Hurley switches from east to west, Pfeifer from downwards to south-westwards and Fahey from down to south-eastwards.
Something like 200 people were killed that way at the North Tower between 8.46 and 10.28, an average of one every 30 seconds : are we really supposed to believe this would be the reaction of people in the lobby every time they heard that sound ? That 200 times, they would instinctively jump and look around them, to see where the noise was coming from ? The head movement is obviously deliberate and scripted : the crash is arranged, and so is their reaction, down to different directions designed to create artificial suspense.
Source
Here's a thread that really digs into the question.
I have 2 questions about the WTC jumpers
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by septic
One of the ways propagandists control you is through the use of fear.
Interesting story.
The video was a quick example, and had you read the thread you would see many others linked as well. I repeatedly link to the Raphael piece, but none of the ATS "real" truthers or true OSers will touch it.
Yes, I'm the one who's the insistent one, but then unlike you, the evidence I bring gives me a certain confidence that might seem insistent to one who hasn't done the homework, at least judging by the volume of nasty responses to my thread.
This isn't a debate at all. This is more of an analysis on the OP's mental state. Mod, I am not trying to be intentionally rude, but I seriously think the OP has some problems. This isn't as bad as that rush of "9/11 was media fakery" threads not too long ago, and I pray that it does not become like that.
Nice excerpt. now how in any way does that offer to retaliate to Helmkat's post?
?
...intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason.
I know people like you. People who take the red pill and cannot believe the reality they are seeing -- so much so that they believe that what they are seeing is as fake as the fake reality.
Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by septic
WHy make a thread with a question as a title if you already have your mind made up as to the answer?
Let me be forward and ask you if you were an eye witness that day?
Did you actually see with your own eyes the tragedy of that day unfold?