There were a number of A1 plot printers in use in both WTC towers - the paper clearly looks like tractor fed lengths of paper having been blown out of the holes in the building/s.
It could equally be a large 'Happy Birthday' banner. It is unquestionably just a long length of white material.
and this is exactly the type of thing that is posted all the time.
someone posts a clip claiming something then asks a question(even in the title of the thread).
somebody then answers the question with what they believe the answer is.
then the person who answered the question is blasted for not giving the answer the poster expected to hear.
the thread then goes on to accuse anyone who disagrees as being a gatekeeper of some sort to the truth etc etc.
should i give my opinon of what the white thing is in this clip? i mean a question was asked but i know if i did give my opinon it would be the wrong one as it is likely not to support the orb suggestion.
so lets just say its an orb or at least pretend we think its a orb, this is about the truth afterall
and this is exactly the type of thing that is posted all the time.
someone posts a clip claiming something then asks a question(even in the title of the thread).
somebody then answers the question with what they believe the answer is.
then the person who answered the question is blasted for not giving the answer the poster expected to hear.
the thread then goes on to accuse anyone who disagrees as being a gatekeeper of some sort to the truth etc etc.
should i give my opinon of what the white thing is in this clip? i mean a question was asked but i know if i did give my opinon it would be the wrong one as it is likely not to support the orb suggestion.
so lets just say its an orb or at least pretend we think its a orb, this is about the truth afterall
Nonsance! You really are king of the buffoons, arent you? Either that or you are John White which has been the general consensus on the controversies board. Whichever you are, you are equally loathsome.
Perhaps there is a clue in the commentary? - The commentary is clearly talking about stuff in the air "sucked out of the building" - which leads me to tenuously suspect that the cameraman is focusing on assorted debris (paper etc like Tele says) floating around. The paper-like UFO in the close-up wasn't exactly round, so I don't know why they're orbs. Actually it's a shame the Orb went a bit downhill over the years. Their earlier stuff is great and they were amazing live.
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again - where are the eyewitness accounts of all these UFOs flying round the towers with gay abandon?
I stake my place as being 'loathsome' like Marky for daring to contradict the Official Canon. Your reply to Marky just confirmed everything he said; you do realise that, don't you Miss Anthropy?. Or, maybe I'm Marky too? Well Marky? Am I you? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
and this is exactly the type of thing that is posted all the time.
someone posts a clip claiming something then asks a question(even in the title of the thread).
somebody then answers the question with what they believe the answer is.
then the person who answered the question is blasted for not giving the answer the poster expected to hear.
the thread then goes on to accuse anyone who disagrees as being a gatekeeper of some sort to the truth etc etc.
should i give my opinon of what the white thing is in this clip? i mean a question was asked but i know if i did give my opinon it would be the wrong one as it is likely not to support the orb suggestion.
so lets just say its an orb or at least pretend we think its a orb, this is about the truth afterall
Nonsance! You really are king of the buffoons, arent you? Either that or you are John White which has been the general consensus on the controversies board. Whichever you are, you are equally loathsome.
ah ok so i was wrong about how it works?
ok in that case my opinon is that tele is correct, its a white floating piece of paper from the towers.
In conclusion, as Missy has opted out of the debate, well, reasoned debate at least;
By definition 'orbs' are round/spherical in shape - the object in the sky is neither of those. The use of the word 'orb' is purely pandering to artistic licence and bears no relationship to what we witness in the clip.
Consider that we have no idea exactly what was housed in the WTC. The object could be a bedsheet from a director's private office, it could be a large length of silk stored for any number of reasons, it could be printing paper from a large plotter as suggested before.
The editing of the clip has been done in the usual jerky, let's not get a clear STILL view of the object in case it can be identified accurately, kinda way.
On the day, the sky was full of smoke and airborne wind blown debris. To assign it this ethereal mystical label of 'orb' places a considerable percentage of The Truth Movement into a very unfavourable place. We are trying to convince the rest of the planet that this was a setup, the official story is wrong, a lie. Instead we throw holograms, beam weapons and no aircraft at them, and expect them to take us seriously.
Perhaps there is a clue in the commentary? - The commentary is clearly talking about stuff in the air "sucked out of the building" - which leads me to tenuously suspect that the cameraman is focusing on assorted debris (paper etc like Tele says) floating around. The paper-like UFO in the close-up wasn't exactly round, so I don't know why they're orbs. Actually it's a shame the Orb went a bit downhill over the years. Their earlier stuff is great and they were amazing live.
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again - where are the eyewitness accounts of all these UFOs flying round the towers with gay abandon?
I stake my place as being 'loathsome' like Marky for daring to contradict the Official Canon. Your reply to Marky just confirmed everything he said; you do realise that, don't you Miss Anthropy?. Or, maybe I'm Marky too? Well Marky? Am I you?
we are all marky 54,john white, stephan etc if we disagree with with any of the "evidence" or mistype and add wrong letters to words, it gives people a reason to dismiss what has been said and keep their now challeged belief afloat, and also makes it seem as though one person is disagreeing rather than 20 or more.
here i am again having a conversation with myself, and speling hall teh worrds wong,
Sorry it doesn't work that way, simply stating that the wind is from the wrong direction isn't enough. Supply a map, sources and how you know that the wind variations and currents that ebb and flow around such structures are not simply responsible.
the link didnt really help to bring to light what the object could be, the wind would need to be strong and constant , to constantly blow paper in one direction, wind usually has breaks in it unless strong, even gale force winds blow and die down before picking up again, so there is still a big possibility the object is something with a boring explaination regardless of wind.
you linked some footage of strange objects in another thread and i admit some of them do appear strange and puzzling and as yet i have not dismissed them or what you are claiming, however as ive said before, once you notice these strange objects you look for more untill everything becomes under suspicion, even the explainable.
some of these clips are simply explained or give people no reason to think anything strange. there are bound to be strange objects picked up that are explainable once you start looking for them and thinking they are linked to the other strange objects that were noticed earlier on.
some of them i think are puzzling and i dont have the answers others are explained by what we know was in the sky that day, floating paper, helicopters etc etc, they are not all advanced craft, some may well be and i think at least one clip has a strong case, but may well have an explaination to, although im yet to see one, but some of the clips have boring explainations unfortunatly.
Coincidentally I just went out with my dogs across the valley and although the wind was blowing very clearly in a specific direction, I watched a plastic bag going around in a wide circle of about 100ft across in direct opposition to the wind. This was still doing the same thing when I left.
Skyscrapers are known influence the wind currents to a huge extent and having run a quick search, it is a science in itself. There is lots of info, example;
Diagram 1. The winds go every direction between the Saltonstall and McCormack buildings, bouncing from one building to the next.
So to believe that proving the wind direction in itself proves that something cannot be seen to move in a seemingly unnatural direction is simply shortsighted.
Skyscrapers are known influence the wind currents to a huge extent
Fair enough; I abandon my rebut of your contention that it could be paper. IMO it is not paper, because of all the things in other S11 footage I thought were paper at first which proved otherwise on closer exam. This clip I don't have a slow, large enough copy of, to continue my argument.
Skyscrapers are known influence the wind currents to a huge extent
Fair enough; I abandon my rebut of your contention that it could be paper. IMO it is not paper, because of all the things in other S11 footage I thought were paper at first which proved otherwise on closer exam. This clip I don't have a slow, large enough copy of, to continue my argument.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USa
Acknowledged. It is indeed rare to see anyone graciously concede any point and for that I thank you.
Obviously I don't know it is paper and have offered up other alternatives. I cannot see any reason to say it is 'orblike' given the way it changes shape and appears to unroll.
The link you supplied from The Fairy I have seen before, but am unable to draw any conclusions. I am more prone to say 'fake' unless there are any witnesses who can corroborate the object from a closer proximity.
So to believe that proving the wind direction in itself proves that something cannot be seen to move in a seemingly unnatural direction is simply shortsighted.
I once went sailing and we could travel in whichever direction we wanted. The wind direction didn't seem to matter, just as long as there was wind.
So to believe that proving the wind direction in itself proves that something cannot be seen to move in a seemingly unnatural direction is simply shortsighted.
I once went sailing and we could travel in whichever direction we wanted. The wind direction didn't seem to matter, just as long as there was wind.
As regularly is proved by the boats in the America's Cup (and Louis Vuitton Challenger thing which is currently taking place)
This is an odd video clip really. "Was 9/11 a Conspiracy" - based on the contents of this video alone, who the heck could tell?
1) It is extremely unclear as to what the clip shows. It could be large sheets of paper, though that seems unlikely as the motion doesn't seem right.
2) It could be 2 or 3 seagulls flying along together - but again the motion doesn't seem correct for that.
3) It could be the suggested "stealth plane", though from this clip alone, it would be a stretch to say this with any real confidence (and I am still not sure about the "stealth plane" evidence.
So in summary, I don't think this one adds much and is just one of the many video anomalies from the day... _________________ Andrew
It's a quiet unmanned helicopter that can be used for surveillance and military missions. They're made in Canada by Bombardier. You don't even need to be a pilot to fly one. They're just the thing for secret missions like making sure everything is in place to blow up a building.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
