Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,905
I'm saying you couldn't write an original song to save your life. How about that?
Lying with Pixels - Technology Article from 2000
- Thread starter TruthSeeker1234
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ryan mackey video fakery
I'm saying you couldn't write an original song to save your life. How about that?
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Ace, let's try this again, okay? We've done it once before but we'll do it a step at a time.
I saw the plane hit.
I was in a building in Jersey City (Exchange Place) with a picture window view of the towers.
I was with a minimum of twenty people in my section of our offices, and I later learned that there were another seventy in the conference room and other executive offices.
All of us were staring at the conflagration of WTC1 and heard the second plane approaching AND THEN WITNESSED IT CRASHING INTO THE TOWER.
This was ONE FLOOR of a ~35 floor building (not sure of the exact floors)... so in that building alone there were probably a thousand people who witnessed it.
There are about five such towers around that area with equally direct views of the WTC and WFC complex. Add another 5000.
Additionally, there were thousands of people down on the boardwalk and pier watching the events.
And this was one city, Jersey City. All up the western shore of the Hudson, there were tens of thousands of people in buildings and along the waterfront watching WTC 1 burn, and a large percentage of those saw the Boeing slam into and through the building. The best views were from Liberty Park (Southern end of Jersey City) up to around the Holand Tunnel.
And that was just on the Jersey side. (I suspect far more people on our side of the river had a clear view. Manhattan is crowded with buildings and skyscrapers, and there were noises on the ground so people looking at #1 wouldn't have necessarily heard the jet approaching like we did.)
So, .... "tens of thousands" is a fair estimation.
Why haven't you read our statements? Well, you've read mine, but you might be surprised to know that the FBI did not go out and interview 10,000 people to ask if we saw a plane hitting WTC 2. Therefore we're not a part of the record.
Please cite me the statistics for the number of people, on record, who witnessed the Challenger disaster. Everyone saw the Challenger explode, live on television. Everyone saw 175 hit WTC 2, live on television. Why would they go around interviewing eyewitnesses to compile a mass of data in the expectation that some frustrated loon would demand the evidence seven years later?
> Swingdangler.... Ya know, I was a little distracted and didn't think to look at the tail fin to get a number!
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
Oh, OK. Well, all I can say is I've got some people fooled! I've got around 500 published titles, and I provide for my family quite comfortably, we own a home in the hills, with a pool, and a recording studio, living in a very expensive city, and all from writing original music.
You?
I wonder how much better you would do if you were not such a poor researcher. You did not make money off of research on 9/11, or are you selling lies like LC?
All that money and still not able to think and be rational, as in Beam Weapon, dustified WTC etc. Just goes to show you do not need to be rational or logical to make money. Making up lies does not impede the ability to make money. I bet there is a song in there somewhere.
As agents we know you use to play for cookies, and you should stick to playing and drop the critical thinking research gig (or is that your cover story?).
Last edited:
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,905
Me? I move every 2-3 years because my military duty doesn't allow for long term residential status. I never sign a lease for more than a year at a time because God knows when I'll have to pack up my wife and kid, 2 cats and my bird, and my more expensive guitars into one of my 2 obnoxiously large SUV's going to our next station. I am by no means "rich" but I do have alot of stuff I don't need that I refuse to share with anybody. Of course, I do retire in 6 and a half years as to make good on my promise to die a happy man on a golf course somewhere out in the middle of nowhere at the ripe old age of 37 (age of retirement, not death. insha allah). That's why guitar playing is more of a hobby to me than a source of income, even though I have played with the likes of Kenny Wayne Sheppard, Nick Catanese (of Black Label Society), PumpJack, Brand New Sin, and Bullistic, to name a few.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
McDonald's makes billions. does not mean their "food" is good for you or nutritious. So you write pulp crap thats gobbled up by the masses. doesn't mean its original or artistic.
You are not interested in the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your deranged fantasy. You are insane.
Do not use insults or accusations of insanity to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
Dude, you probably shred. You're probably great. Rock on.
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
Guys, I readily admit that IF planes had crashed into the WTC, THEN they would have been seen by thousands. I've been to NYC many times, and it's nothing if not chock full of humanity.
But the videos are fake, the planes display no crash physics, you've got a nose coming out of a building, you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen, you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits, there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes, there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .
There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes. And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media.
Ron, you can call me insane a thousand more times. Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.
But the videos are fake, the planes display no crash physics, you've got a nose coming out of a building, you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen, you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits, there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes, there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .
There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes. And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media.
Ron, you can call me insane a thousand more times. Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.
The Mysterian
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 71
TS, If you do this thing where you make a fake video and a real one and have us guess, you CANNOT use anything that wasn't available in 2001 and you have to do it in the same time period from 9/11 to when the video was released.
PS: No nose came out the other ***ing side of the building, it's called an explosion and if you saw past the first couple of ***ing frames you'd see that, it's not even the same shape as the nose of the plane you nut.
PS: No nose came out the other ***ing side of the building, it's called an explosion and if you saw past the first couple of ***ing frames you'd see that, it's not even the same shape as the nose of the plane you nut.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Ace says he knows that NYC is crowded with people, many of whom must have seen these horrific events. Yet he still contends that no plane hit the towers.
Here's my question for Ace: If no plane hit the towers, why haven't thousands of people come forward in the last 5 years saying that all the videos are fake? As far as I can tell it's only people like you who weren't there that say this.
Where are the people who were there that agree with you?
These people would mostly be New Yorkers and people from New Jersey, who as far as I'm aware, don't have a reputation for being shy about expressing their opinions.
How about it Ace, heard of any witnesses that saw the buildings explode by means other than a bloody great aeroplane?
Here's my question for Ace: If no plane hit the towers, why haven't thousands of people come forward in the last 5 years saying that all the videos are fake? As far as I can tell it's only people like you who weren't there that say this.
Where are the people who were there that agree with you?
These people would mostly be New Yorkers and people from New Jersey, who as far as I'm aware, don't have a reputation for being shy about expressing their opinions.
How about it Ace, heard of any witnesses that saw the buildings explode by means other than a bloody great aeroplane?
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
You have not conclusively demonstrated that on any of the forty-plus angles available. You tried to do so with one particular live image, but there were errors in your procedures and methodology, as was pointed out in the relevant thread.
In what way? It all looks spot-on to me. And this comes from somone who can spot visual effect shots precisely because they don't exhibit the proper subtleties of motion and the related physics.
No, you've got something you're claiming in the undamaged nose section of the aircraft coming out of the building. You have not conclusively demonstrated your assertion, and the possibility that it is merely debris which looks like that has not been discounted.
Station/network ID "bugs" as they are sometimes called? (Please don't get me started on a rant about the darned things.) You can see those things everywhere now, and all the time. Nothing unusual about it at all.
This is a miscategorization of their statements. They don't say there were no planes, they say they didn't see the aircraft because they didn't look beforehand or their viewing angle was blocked. Not seeing the aircraft is not the same thing as saying there were no aircraft. Asky them if they heard the aircraft - jet engines are quite loud and even in a busy, crowded city such noise would be heard. (Look no further than the Naudet brothers' video of the first impact - you can clearly hear the jet engines, and the firefighters react by looking upwards towards the sound before the first impact takes place.)
There most certainly was wreckage; have you forgotten the story of the woman who was injured by part of the landing gear? As for planting wreckage, you have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim.
No, if there is a dearth it is of those who told their accounts to the media. Do you seriously expect the media to track down and interview every single potential witness in a city of millions? Do you seriously expect every single potential eyewitness in a city of millions to be found and interviewed by law enforcement authorities?
What you are claiming is like saying because every one of the 55,000 people who attended Saturday's Mets vs. Yankees baseball game were not interviewed by the media or otherwise had their eyewitness account of the game recorded, the baseball game therefore did not take place. This in spite of the video evidence of the game having been played. This in spite of the supporting documentary and other evidence of the game having been played.
No, you are saying because documented accounts cannot be found from all of the 55,000 spectators, the game therefore didn't take place - all other supporting evidence be damned. This does not strike you as being an argument bordering on the completely ludicrous?
And what about all the media from other countries who were there covering the story? The CBC, CTV, BBC, just to name three television networks, along with many, many more. New York is a major world city, and a great many media outlets have reporters or bureaus there. Should I presume then that all the media of the world was in cahoots to cover up the truth?
No, the only thing that's underwhelming are your attempts to discredit the official version of events. You have failed to conclusively demonstrate even one thing significantly wrong with it. Your claims of fakery and supposedly impossible physics are the product of misunderstanding of how things really work. You also make the error of not heeding or considering the merits of points others have made to you; your greater error though is in assuming your conclusion is correct and then seeing only what you want to believe.
I am now very eagerly awaiting your faked aircraft video. I am quite interested in seeing what you think can pass as realistic compared to those of us with more experience in the area think can pass as realistic.
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
So much wrong it's hard to know where to start.
There are witnesses who did not see a plane. Well, then they're not witnesses. Were they staring at the south face of WTC 2 at the moment your beam weapon struck, so can prove by not seeing the plane that there was no plane. I didn't see a large black labrador retriever in the park behind my apartment building this morning. But, a friend just sent me a picture of her walking her labrador in that park. How can that be? I didn't see it. It couldn't have happened. You're generally absurd, Ace. You're getting absurder.
Provably planted? Proven by whom? When was that? Are you going to get Killtown to draw you little stick figures of black ops agents sneaking the debris into place? Absurd squared.
The people on television who witnessed the planes were working for the media. Gasp! Reporters work for the media? Who'd a thunk it! Absurd cubed.
But let's take your overall theorem, here. If there was one witness who didn't work for the media and wasn't a government employee, who witnessed Flt 175 flying into WTC 2, then your entire theory is disproven. Well, I'm that witness. Ergo, your whole theory goes out the window (or out the north side hole along with the nose cone)!
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
Is this like those "Where's Wally?" books? (That's "Where's Waldo?" for USAians).
