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.

 

Some are still trying to push fake planes due to POOR understanding & observational skills.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: pteridine

In this case the most simple plan would've left too many variables up in the air. Yes, you and I don't know very much about sophisticated hologram technology. But to the experts that do, this may have actually been an easier method.

To use holograms instead of real planes would offer the following benefits:


Holograms are not what you see on Star Wars and Star Trek. You can't project them into free air like on sci fi movies.

More, they aren't opaque. They don't obscure objects in the background. And from the other side, you'd see a sort of distorted image of the front, not the other side of the faux airplane.

Volumetric free air holograms with rear surface obscuration, glint, and whatnot make the rounds as an RFQ pretty much every year. It's never been done.




posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
John Lear also agrees with that statement and has been slandered on this site many times in the past. That doesn't change the fact that he's an ex-CIA pilot who has earned every airmen certificate issued by the FAA and has flown over 100 different types of aircraft.


He also thinks the moon has an atmosphere and happy people live there on the surface. And that your soul is vacuumed up upon your death by a dark tower thingy. But don't let that stop you.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Wonder what the intensity/brightness factor is to overcome the power of the sun to make a hologram look solid during daylight?



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I agree, it's preposterous to think we would intentionally kill our own when there are a lot of ways for shutting down the middle east. I mean how many people does it take to debunk this? Silly,silly.

I like how they bring up Operation Northsheild or whatever, a plan that didn't happen and was exposed, would never work, or "face in the clouds". lmao. It's actually hard to be conspiracy theorists after that.

Remember all fake news then? Marines let Osama go, and Egypt (at time was terrorist suppressed) denial of his death. lol Yea just discredit some top 10 badasses on planet.

Oh, or how they called him dumb and ignorant he is than get really mad and say he is a reptilian from outer space. In psychology they see this all as cause of hysteria due to mental ignorance.



Is this the face of a murderer?

I suggest people put stocks in his art, because Bush will take you to a happy place.
edit on 10-12-2016 by Anonopolis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Bedlam

Wonder what the intensity/brightness factor is to overcome the power of the sun to make a hologram look solid during daylight?


First, you've got to be able to display one in free air



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes, in this day and age, those seeking the truth are the bad guys.

Or, as Orwell noted, in a time of universal deception, seeking the truth is a radical act.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And who are those turning a buck from exploiting 9/11 and holding choice speaking engagements on the truth movement circuits?

Who are cult like in the dollar value they extract from the faithful conspiracists.

Dr Wood from her book sales on dustification.

Steven Jones notoriety gained by pushing pseudoscience and being a sirens's call to conspiracists.

Richard Gauge box boy fizzle no flash pseudo-physics?

Nukes or Lasers and Holograms.

Doesn't take a genius to see the 9/11 conspiracists are taken by lies and con persons.
edit on 18-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumble



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And it has noting to do with the official narrative but actual science and evidence.

What Orwell missed with YouTube, drone technology, camera smart phones that can almost instantaneously upload video, and identify thieves, we are selves are just as big a threat..

Then add in the con persons of history with the 9/11 movement right on top.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

No, but it takes an honest man to acknowledge that the official story is false. An honest man NOT afflicted with cognitive dissonance.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Another rant based on emotion with no basis in fact or logic, and with no account of what you think brought down the towers.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Again, doesn't take a genius to see the movement is populated by hoaxers seeking to make money of gullible 9/11 conspiracists.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Argue the points re the CONSTRUCTION if you can't don't comment.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I agree that if there was any funny business going on with 9/11, it probably cannot be proved by looking at any of the photos, videos or physical evidence.

The fact is that it appears that the basic chain of events seems to be correct. And I say that as someone who once believed the controlled demolition theory. I don't think it was controlled demolition. I believe the planes were real and I believe the buildings collapsed (more or less) the way they say they did. Building 7 is a bit fishy but I'm not inclined to argue about it.

IMO, if there is evidence that it was an inside job, it is mostly circumstantial and deductive. And it can always be disputed. People just will believe what they want to believe when it gets down to that level.

My gut feeling is there was some funny business but you won't find it by looking at videos of planes and collapses.

I do find it odd that there's doesn't seem to be a whole lot of video footage outside of the stuff that we have all seen. All these years later it seems like you can see just about all of the footage that's available for the public to be seen in a few hours on Youtube. That's not a lot. It's surprising given the sheer number of people who had to have seen this happen.

But then of course, we see this in hindsight. Obviously, this was a major event in our history but if you want to go with TOS and just give it the benefit of the doubt, no one was really prepared to cover something this massive right on the spot. Most of the footage I've seen was shot with relatively low quality video cameras. And even the better cameras (of that time) were not great.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: HeywoodFloyd

Theory -


" The Planes were Real , but the People in them were not . The Planes were also Not from a Real Airline , but Disguised ones Remotely Controlled by those who are Responsable for this Obvious Staged Event . "



Whatever the Truth is behind the Attacks on 9/11 , that one Particular Theory is somewhat More Possible than the Official Story IMO .



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Simple FACT you haven't considered how many people had video cameras then . Mobile phones with cameras appeared in 2002 a fraction of a mega pixel still images not video.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Simple FACT you haven't considered how many people had video cameras then . Mobile phones with cameras appeared in 2002 a fraction of a mega pixel still images not video.


I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Problems with reading comprehension.....?

What he is trying to say is that high resolution cell phone camera did not exist in 2001

Reason many of the video from the scene appear fuzzy is do to repeated copying - because of data compression to
save space and bandwidth errors occur. making copies of copy of copies only intensify the errors

Want a clear picture ??

Artist Wolgang Staehle had focused a camera on WTC and took a picture very 3 seconds and broadcast it t a museum
Manhattan

Here is video sequence American 11 ca be seem (circled ) approaching in upper right of frme

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You commented on the lack of video unlike today people then didn't have a video camera in their pockets as firerescue explained. Youtube is bad at compressing videos then when idiots download and re upload the quality gets worse. You can't analyse high speed impacts using 25-29 frame per second video.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You commented on the lack of video unlike today people then didn't have a video camera in their pockets as firerescue explained. Youtube is bad at compressing videos then when idiots download and re upload the quality gets worse. You can't analyse high speed impacts using 25-29 frame per second video.


OK. And? I don't think I was arguing with that. I just said that it's a bit odd that there doesn't seem to be a lot of footage. I have spent years looking and I see the same footage over and over. It's not so much a lack of quality as it is quantity.

I realize that not everyone had a cell phone with a camera in 2001. I was 30. I remember the state of technology in those times well. However, NYC is a massive city and it's inhabitants are not dirt poor so I figure camcorders would have been fairly common possessions. I had two myself and I worked at a burger joint. I would assume someone who lived in Manhattan could afford a camcorder in 2001.

It's just a little odd that more average people didn't grab their cameras. I didn't say it means anything. I know what the limitation of the technology are (generally). I know 25-29 frame video is not that useful in the context of watching high speed objects. I was not arguing with any of that.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Problems with reading comprehension.....?


Problems with not being rude to someone for no reason? I've read some of your posts and you seem to know what you're talking about so it's a bit surprising to me that you just come right out and attack someone who isn't arguing with anything you've said right off the bat. Maybe you should take a break if you are that wound up.
edit on 3-2-2017 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join