Evan Fairbanks' Cameo?

Originally posted by comprehension
How else were readers to recognize him?

And readers are still going to NOT CARE because recognizing him, and seeing him "picking up his camera" mean absolutely nothing at all.

And you still haven't made your point as to why any of it matters, while continuing to dodge everyone's questions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by comprehension
How else were readers to recognize him?

And readers are still going to NOT CARE because recognizing him, and seeing him "picking up his camera" mean absolutely nothing at all.

And you still haven't made your point as to why any of it matters, while continuing to dodge everyone's questions.

Sure it means something, it means this person can be placed at a location at a certain time. This is good information for researchers who are tracking the movements of the alleged witnesses.

I don't see how any information would not be interesting to a 911 researcher. Isn't that why we're all here?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by comprehension

See folks?

Controversial Evan Fairbanks dredges up paranoia just at the mention of his name.

When his cameo occurred, what street was he on, and what time was he there?

Why do you think a photo of Fairbanks picking up a camera is a thread topic? Do you have a point to be made or do you just plan to post random photos as FYI posts?

Who are you, the thread police?

Can any of you fine ATS representatives tell me what topics are approved?

Please, I've asked before...what topics are approved here?

Judging by the fear and preoccupation with "no planes" threads, I'm betting "no planes" are verboten. Is that true?

Anyone?

Originally posted by comprehension

Who are you, the thread police?

Can any of you fine ATS representatives tell me what topics are approved?

Please, I've asked before...what topics are approved here?

Judging by the fear and preoccupation with "no planes" threads, I'm betting "no planes" are verboten. Is that true?

Anyone?

1. The thread police are moderators.
2. There are topics that are not approved including discussions regarding preparation and use of illegal drugs. See the T&C for such restrictions.
3. If you start threads about how there were no planes and the 911 videos were faked, etc., it will end up in the hoax bin. The no-planer theories are too far fetched and induce a great deal of hate and discontent. Mainly, no-planers are trolls that like to wind people up by playing stupid. The threads are a waste of server space.
4. When you start a thread, it should have a purpose. You need to explain why pictures of Joe Blow picking up a camera are important and what you think they mean. Eventually, you have to show that it was really Joe and not CGI, etc. Posting of random youtube videos sans rationale doesn't cut it.

Can any of you fine ATS representatives tell me what topics are approved?

Please, I've asked before...what topics are approved here?

It would be nice if there were a topic

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by comprehension

Who are you, the thread police?

Can any of you fine ATS representatives tell me what topics are approved?

Please, I've asked before...what topics are approved here?

Judging by the fear and preoccupation with "no planes" threads, I'm betting "no planes" are verboten. Is that true?

Anyone?

1. The thread police are moderators.
2. There are topics that are not approved including discussions regarding preparation and use of illegal drugs. See the T&C for such restrictions.
3. If you start threads about how there were no planes and the 911 videos were faked, etc., it will end up in the hoax bin. The no-planer theories are too far fetched and induce a great deal of hate and discontent. Mainly, no-planers are trolls that like to wind people up by playing stupid. The threads are a waste of server space.
4. When you start a thread, it should have a purpose. You need to explain why pictures of Joe Blow picking up a camera are important and what you think they mean. Eventually, you have to show that it was really Joe and not CGI, etc. Posting of random youtube videos sans rationale doesn't cut it.

1. Then leave the moderation to them.
2. I'll be sure to not discus such things.
3. This is your opinion, something you are entitled to. In my opinion, I see ten years of wasted server space filled up by dolts playing smart. This photo isn't Joe Blow, it's Evan Fairbanks, famous for his controversial sequence of the second strike. It is important information for genuine researchers. Poseurs like those I've met here tend to be offended by topics about which they have no knowledge.
4. This thread has a purpose. Its too bad your paranoia and self-proclaimed hall-monitor status prevent you from recognizing it.

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Can any of you fine ATS representatives tell me what topics are approved?

Please, I've asked before...what topics are approved here?

It would be nice if there were a topic

What revelations were you expecting out of "Evan Fairbanks Cameo?". A "no planes" thread? From the reaction, you'd think any topic about Evan Fairbanks is also off-limits.

reply to post by comprehension


Well you may have confirmed (if it was Evan) that he was at the right place on the right day (if anyone doubted it ).

Well done.

reply to post by comprehension

This thread has a purpose....

Yes, its so you can call the video of the plane crash "controversial". Its not. There, the topic has been resolved.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by comprehension

 

This thread has a purpose....

Yes, its so you can call the video of the plane crash "controversial". Its not. There, the topic has been resolved.

con·tro·ver·sial
   [kon-truh-vur-shuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical: a controversial book.
2.
subject to controversy; debatable: a controversial decision.
3.
given to controversy; disputatious.

dictionary.reference.com...


It is controversial, else this forum wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't be commenting on this thread. Or is consensus required of members?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by comprehension

 

Well you may have confirmed (if it was Evan) that he was at the right place on the right day (if anyone doubted it ).

Well done.

Its obvious this is a tender topic worthy of more study.

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by comprehension

 

Well you may have confirmed (if it was Evan) that he was at the right place on the right day (if anyone doubted it ).

Well done.

Its obvious this is a tender topic worthy of more study.

It isn't obvious to me mate !

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by comprehension

 

Well you may have confirmed (if it was Evan) that he was at the right place on the right day (if anyone doubted it ).

Well done.

Its obvious this is a tender topic worthy of more study.

It isn't obvious to me mate !

Yea but, you don't have the "special" powers
needed to see the obvious....

reply to post by comprehension

It is controversial....

No its not.

else this forum wouldn't exist....

Yes, that's right - this forum exist solely for the purpose of dicsussing what you think is controversial. So I guess the next subject will be Earth and Sun - who revolves around who?

and you wouldn't be commenting on this thread.

Yeah, right, thats how this works. I was commenting on the content of OP, but the purpose.

Or is consensus required of members?

I don't know about "consensus" but at least some interest in the actual subject.

Originally posted by comprehension
1. Then leave the moderation to them.
2. I'll be sure to not discus such things.
3. This is your opinion, something you are entitled to. In my opinion, I see ten years of wasted server space filled up by dolts playing smart. This photo isn't Joe Blow, it's Evan Fairbanks, famous for his controversial sequence of the second strike. It is important information for genuine researchers. Poseurs like those I've met here tend to be offended by topics about which they have no knowledge.
4. This thread has a purpose. Its too bad your paranoia and self-proclaimed hall-monitor status prevent you from recognizing it.

1. I do leave the moderation to them. You asked.
2. Good for you.
3. It is up to you to explain what you think it means, if anything. You have a photo of a person from the back. You think it is Evan Fairbanks who took pictures and whom you claim is famous. Why is it important if this is Fairbanks? Are 'genuine researchers' those who look for photos and videos on the web and post them on ATS? Are poseurs those who disagree with you or question your motives?
4. If this thread has a purpose, you have done a poor job of stating what it is.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by comprehension
1. Then leave the moderation to them.
2. I'll be sure to not discus such things.
3. This is your opinion, something you are entitled to. In my opinion, I see ten years of wasted server space filled up by dolts playing smart. This photo isn't Joe Blow, it's Evan Fairbanks, famous for his controversial sequence of the second strike. It is important information for genuine researchers. Poseurs like those I've met here tend to be offended by topics about which they have no knowledge.
4. This thread has a purpose. Its too bad your paranoia and self-proclaimed hall-monitor status prevent you from recognizing it.

1. I do leave the moderation to them. You asked.
2. Good for you.
3. It is up to you to explain what you think it means, if anything. You have a photo of a person from the back. You think it is Evan Fairbanks who took pictures and whom you claim is famous. Why is it important if this is Fairbanks? Are 'genuine researchers' those who look for photos and videos on the web and post them on ATS? Are poseurs those who disagree with you or question your motives?
4. If this thread has a purpose, you have done a poor job of stating what it is.

It is what it is.

The purpose was to elicit a response; the response was surprising, but revealing.

How is any of this not important to a 911 researcher? I'm surprised no one has asked for any details like "where" and "when". I'm surprised at so much negativity over such an innocuous topic.

Originally posted by comprehension
It is what it is.

The purpose was to elicit a response; the response was surprising, but revealing.

How is any of this not important to a 911 researcher? I'm surprised no one has asked for any details like "where" and "when". I'm surprised at so much negativity over such an innocuous topic.

No, actually, the purpose seems to me to be a blatant attempt at insinuating impropriety without actually coming out and saying it. It's the same old tired stunt that every conspiracy mongor has to fall back on whenever they don't have a shred of tangible evidence to back their claims up. "Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" has been used to smear people unjustly since the invention of the written language so you'll need to forgive your critics here when they see you trying to do it.

As for why noone has asked for any details of "where" and "when", everyone knows all that already. The "where" is New York City and the "When" is September 11, 2001.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by comprehension
It is what it is.

The purpose was to elicit a response; the response was surprising, but revealing.

How is any of this not important to a 911 researcher? I'm surprised no one has asked for any details like "where" and "when". I'm surprised at so much negativity over such an innocuous topic.

No, actually, the purpose seems to me to be a blatant attempt at insinuating impropriety without actually coming out and saying it. It's the same old tired stunt that every conspiracy mongor has to fall back on whenever they don't have a shred of tangible evidence to back their claims up. "Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" has been used to smear people unjustly since the invention of the written language so you'll need to forgive your critics here when they see you trying to do it.

As for why noone has asked for any details of "where" and "when", everyone knows all that already. The "where" is New York City and the "When" is September 11, 2001.

If that was my purpose then why draw attention to the thread? Without you trolls, this thread wouldn't have any action at all.

Everyone knows all this already you say? Tell me, have you ever seen this cameo shot before?

Originally posted by comprehension
It is what it is.

The purpose was to elicit a response; the response was surprising, but revealing.

How is any of this not important to a 911 researcher? I'm surprised no one has asked for any details like "where" and "when". I'm surprised at so much negativity over such an innocuous topic.

It is what it is...which is pointless.

The response was predictable. "Why is this important?"

The answer, "It isn't." No one cares that your hero might have been at the WTC on 9/11. His presence or absence means nothing unless you have an explanation of why it was important. So much for 'research.'

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by Planet teleX

Can any of you fine ATS representatives tell me what topics are approved?

Please, I've asked before...what topics are approved here?

It would be nice if there were a topic

What revelations were you expecting out of "Evan Fairbanks Cameo?". A "no planes" thread? From the reaction, you'd think any topic about Evan Fairbanks is also off-limits.

I hadn't heard of the guy before. Maybe I was expecting some relevant information