Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
WithoutEqual ---

FYI.......your not really typing on a computer.

Actually your not even 'real'.....

You're all just part of my imagination.




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Slap Nuts



Stop it already... Stop with the no planes. Until you can produce a hologram projector or a patent for one just stop it.


Thanks for your input Slap Nuts. You remind me of that infamous bean counter at Los Alamos in 1942 when he told Gen. Groves that the U.S. Government was not going to put one more nickel into the development of the atomic bomb until they could see proof that it worked.


And people here call me a disinfo agent? This place is turning into starting to turn into Fairy Tale Central where someone can claim anything, and some waterhead will call it fact.

Why don't I beat you to the punch Mr. Lear and go ahead and say WTC 1,2 and 7 never even existed, they were holographic images that fooled NYC residents all those years. So inreality noone died that day, it was just a big hologram, so I guess there's no conspiracy after all, cause if the buildings didn't exist, and the planes didn't then nothing happened that day. With that said NYC never even existed, it's a ficitional city, nobody lives there, NYC is actually a plot of land filled with rolling hills, and trees. What you think you've seen of NYC is really a hologram. The Pentagon didn't exists either, and neither does Washington D.C., it's all holograms. Is this believeable to you people? It should be, I have just as much proof to back up this theory as Lear does his.

You know it's phychobabble like this, that make the entire conspiracy community look like nothing other than a bunch of gullible fools.

Warn me, ban me whatever, but this place is starting to get pathetic fast. Lear, I love your stories that sound like something out of some 3rd rate sci-fi b-movie, I really do, cause each and every day they make me literally laugh my ass off. You come out with these fairy tales, and all the sheeple start to eat it up, like the gullible sheep they are. I'm amazed so many people believe the crap that comes out of your mouth, when you have zero legitimate proof. You people are just as bad, if not worse than Bush sheeple.

Saturn doesn't really look like Saturn right? Should any of you sheep be given koolaide by Mr. Lear I suggest you not drink it.

Oh, and NYC is still a hologram, when you think you're visiting NYC you're actually part of a computer program, that's nowhere near the east coast. YAY I'm a groudbreaking hero too!

[edit on 3-10-2006 by WithoutEqual]



there is no need to insult people... we are simply keeping an open mind to all possibilities and that's not gullible it's open mindedness.


im sorry but the ''sheeps'' are the ones who can't look further then their own noses.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
a)
No one has provided a picture showing the deflection debri cloud that the physical NIST model shows and I have provided a image with the plane completely inside the building and absence of deflection.
The deflection is something that EVERYBODY knows that must have been taking place there, and NIST accounts for. You see it everyday of your lives. I know for a fact that a good number of you have solved a simple collision problem by hand while studing. That was not a physic Boeing.


A lot of people have showed you the deflection. The problem is, you are stuck on one picture that was taken from a horrible angle, and shows nothing but shadows. The deflection is there, yet you continue to believe it was "part of the explosion". Someone already explained to you that the NIST simulation is not accurate because of the limitations of the calculations of small particles. To you the NIST picture might look "exaggerated" but to people with half a brain, it looks just right.

This picture you provide:


...is a horrible picture to use. The angle of it hides everything in a shadow. When you doctored the photo in a editor, you did nothing but change the colors of shadows. You can not base your argument on one picture of shadows. Even then, someone already explained the scale of the picture is throwing your calculations off. There is deflection happening on a much smaller scale than the camera can pick up. What you can't see are the small particles that are being thrown out. NIST knows these particles are there, so they try the best they can to simulate them. Even though you can't see them in your crappy camera that is probably 1000's of feet away from the point of impact, doesn't mean they are not there.

You don't understand the forces involved do you? This is a 128,730+ pound jet going 500 mph into a semi-hollow building. The building is not solid. With these kinds of forces you have a vacuum and momentum that is sucking mostly all the deflection particles inside the building.

Take this F4 crash for example:

video.google.com...

Notice there is very little deflection going the opposite direction of the flight path. All of the deflection was mostly going upward. Now imagine this F4 was hitting a semi-hollow WTC, instead of solid outer casting of a nuclear reactor. There would be very little visible deflection just like you see on WTC 2, because the plane isn't hitting something solid, its sinking into something semi-hollow.

Empty F4 Phantom = 30,328 pounds = 15.16400 short ton
Empty Boeing 767 = 128,730 pounds = 64.36500 short ton

More weight = more force.

One of the structural engineers described the WTC impacts like this:

"Imagine a pencil stabbing a screen door."

The outer section of the WTC's are not the main supports for the building. The main supports are in the center of WTC. The outer shell of the WTC is not super solid. It is partially made of glass.

My way of describing the WTC impacts would be:

"Imagine a model RC airplane crashing into a thick tree. It will sink into the leaves and branches, and most likely hit the tree trunk."

So to end this section of your debunk, I want to ask... What is your problem? Is it the fact that NIST report is not 100% accurate? Or the fact you can't understand simple physics? Or the fact that you can't except you are wrong?

Here is NIST's animation for WTC 1.



Notice less deflection?

Here is NIST's animation for WTC 2.



Notice less deflection? Your NIST picture was for reference to small particles only.

DEBUNKED



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
what i find weird about that pic is that the plane is inside the building but yet the windows around the impact of the plane are not shattered...

surely more windows around where the plane has entered would have been shattered before the explosion.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
i would stay stealth knife officallly pwned this thread.


no more discussion. officially debunked. open a physics book and get over your silly simulation.

you are wrong, NITS or is wrong, and physics isn't wrong.

i won't say there are no such thing as holograms used by our govt, but that is too far fetched for me to swallow in this scenario.



[edit on 3-10-2006 by psilogod]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by psilogod
no more discussion. officially debunked. open a physics book and get over your silly simulation.

you are wrong, NITS or is wrong, and physics isn't wrong.
[edit on 3-10-2006 by psilogod]



you're the judge of that?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by psilogod
no more discussion. officially debunked. open a physics book and get over your silly simulation.

you are wrong, NITS or is wrong, and physics isn't wrong.
[edit on 3-10-2006 by psilogod]



you're the judge of that?


yes. yes i am. everybody else besides seems to agree with that besides you, and the original poster who is hellbent on not being wrong.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by psilogod

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by psilogod
no more discussion. officially debunked. open a physics book and get over your silly simulation.

you are wrong, NITS or is wrong, and physics isn't wrong.
[edit on 3-10-2006 by psilogod]



you're the judge of that?


yes. yes i am. everybody else besides seems to agree with that besides you, and the original poster who is hellbent on not being wrong.





I agree with infinite possibilities.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker

b)
At this point no one has explained why the plane is transparent (And I mean big transparency here, because I see the WTC corner behind the "plane" even without glasses). This just adds up the the proof (a).



Your "transparent plane" is actually hurting your "hologram theory". As NAVY SEAL has pointed out, holograms can not make shadows, and there are plenty of shadows in many pictures. No matter how far ahead in technology you think the military is, they can not make shadows out of thin air, especially in day light. A hologram is made of light, and a shadow is "the absence of light". The only thing that can make a shadow is a solid object that light can not penetrate. It is humanly impossible to make a "solid hologram". There are many pictures available that show shadows, not only on the jets, but off the jets as well.



For example, the picture above. Notice the dark side of the jet? And the light side of the jet? Well the only way humanly possible for a hologram to make this effect is if the hologram was created at night, so you can make a fake shadow. In day light this is impossible since there is direct sunlight hitting that object, there needs to be some sort of solid object to block the sun light. Which in your case of the "hologram theory" there isn't a solid object to block the sun light.

If you are suggesting the military has found "black, light", then you are insane. Black is not a color, it is the absence of light. You cannot project "darkness". To even think its possible would require a very large bong filled with weed.

Just look at your computer screen, and find everything that is black. You are not seeing the color black, you are seeing the absence of light.



On the picture above, each wing is a different "color". Actually, the reason the bottom wing is dark, is because the light is not hitting it, and not bouncing off the color rays. To understand this, you have to know how colors work.

When you see the color red on an object, every color in the known universe is being sucked into the object, and the only color not being sucked into the object is the color red, which bounces off and hits you in the eye. Same for every other color.

But, when you see a white object, every single color in the known universe is bouncing off the object, and into your eye.

When you see a black object, every single color is being sucked into the object, or there is no "color" to begin with, meaning there is no "light". That is why, when you wear a black shirt in the sunlight, you get more hot than you would in a white shirt. All the light/color rays are being absorbed into the black shirt, making you hot.

In order to make this 3D hologram, you would need something to bounce the colors off of. They can not just stop in thin air. Also, you would need to make this "hologram" fly nearly 500 mph.

I THINK ALL OF YOU THAT BELEIVE THIS HOLOGRAM THEORY ARE TOTALY EXAGERATING THE MILITARYS CAPABILITYS. When they said they wanted to create tanks, and a fake Saddam, to play mind tricks, they were talking about using it on people in a 3rd world. Only because they wouldn't be smart enough to know the difference. They wouldn't be like "omg there is no shadow!". If they see it, they believe it.

B.T.W. THEY NEVER USED THIS TECHNOLOGY.

-conclusion-

The answer to your "transparent plane" is so simple its laughable. When something is moving fast (around 500mph), and a device like a video camera is trying to film it with a slow shutter speed... its to fast for the camera to capture it frame by frame. So two frames bleed together, and you see the background and the object at the same time.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
There are just way too many people who saw the planes collide with the twin towers or all the eye witnesses are part of the conspiracy.

There are too many videos of the crash... Or all the videos are part of the conspiracy.

What about the planes tracked by air traffic controllers?

This is just one more conspiracy theory that doesn't have much weight.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   


OMG ITS A HOLOGRAPHIC HUMMING BIRD!!!!!! It's wings are transparent!!!




You hologram theorists are hurting the TRUTH about 911. It is like you are mocking the REAL conspiracies with a totally stupid one.

Prison Planet's View of The Hologram/Blue Screen Theory.

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealth knife
When they said they wanted to create tanks, and a fake Saddam, to play mind tricks, they were talking about using it on people in a 3rd world. Only because they wouldn't be smart enough to know the difference. They wouldn't be like "omg there is no shadow!". If they see it, they believe it.


I'm sorry to post such an off topic reply, but what sort of reasoning is that [other than racist of course]?

All people who by accident of birth inhabit 3rd world countries are inherently stupid? Nice. You want to be careful, your prejudice is showing.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Implosion, go give a small tribe in Africa a computer. Tell me when they learn how to send an e-mail.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
I'm sorry to post such an off topic reply, but what sort of reasoning is that [other than racist of course]?

All people who by accident of birth inhabit 3rd world countries are inherently stupid? Nice. You want to be careful, your prejudice is showing.



Before this turns into a racial debate, let's not get crazy. There's a difference between stupid and uneducated.

If you took a computer to some remote area of Guatamala, many might thing it's a cabinet or something like that. So a techno geek might assume they're stupid.

At the same time, they'd consider us stupid if we walked out into their jungle of a back yard, because they know we'd likely get lost and die; yet their children play there all day and still come home for dinner.

Uneducated doesn't = stupid, let's not obfuscate the issue.

Used as a diversionary tactic, a hologram of a tank coming at you is not going to prompt people in a combat zone to say "Hey, that tank has no shadow and seems unrealistic, look it's not colliding with the environment properly!" If you're torqued for action and you see a tank coming at you, you're going to act.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealth knife


OMG ITS A HOLOGRAPHIC HUMMING BIRD!!!!!! It's wings are transparent!!!




You hologram theorists are hurting the TRUTH about 911. It is like you are mocking the REAL conspiracies with a totally stupid one.

Prison Planet's View of The Hologram/Blue Screen Theory.

www.prisonplanet.com...




HAHAHA. double pwned.

this thread is offically over. you have lived up to your name, brainsucker.

it's always a pain in the arse trying to persuade someone who is unpersuadable. it's called being stubborn.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
can rap on but I say there were no planes...

Talked to a few people who were there and most are very f-ed up by what they think that they were a 'witness 2... but one day I saw for a second time a very professional woman, trained in detail and she said to me that she just had to tell me, tryed to in our first meet but with got we were off onto something else... that she was there on West Street when the 2nd 'Plane' or Explosion happened and that she looked up at the Explosion and saw the Hole and Fire BUT SHE DIDN'T HEAR ANY JET NOISE before the Explosion !... well it all came to-get-her in my mind and I told her that she didn't hear any noise because there were NO JETS, that it was a 'Hologram' and Mind Control etc Operation... well she thanked me and said that she just knew I could give her the answer... well I mentioned this to a friend and he remarked, with, did u see 'Wag-the-Dog' {yes} and did I think that we went to the Moon {NO], then he said, well now, you know...just going say this once and you can think about it...

1} Controlled Demolitions...

2} Holograms...

3} Edited TV Feeds...

4} Mass Mind Control...

A made for TV, Hollywood Production, Wag the WTC, A Ongoing Soap with Real Dead People ...............................................................................



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
*looks for the topic*

Nowhere, can we get back to it?

Asking nicely.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by stealth knife


I THINK ALL OF YOU THAT BELEIVE THIS HOLOGRAM THEORY ARE TOTALY EXAGERATING THE MILITARYS CAPABILITYS.



And let me respectfully point out that the above is your opinion and not based on fact. Because the fact is you do not know what the military's capabilities are. You may suspect, and you may theorize, you may guess, you may propose, you may hypothesize, you may assume, you may speculate, you may even postulate, but stealth knife, let me respectfully suggest that you do not have the faintest idea what the true capabilities of the military are. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Okay this probably isnt the right place for this but can anybody vouch for JohnLear being who he says he is? So far all I see is attacks on others gramar and and supposition. Yes theoreticaly an extraordinarily holographic technolodgy could have been used. But where is the proof that it was? The burden of proof is on the people making the statement not on the people expected to believe it. It is impossible to prove a negative.

And the question of motive keeps coming up in my mind. I am the type of person whos asks dificult questions. Like WHY? Why spend all that money and effort to make a holographic airplane crash into the buildings and then cart the "passengers" of the real plane off somewhere and kill them? Its doesnt add up. Why not just plant a few "islamic" looking "terrorists" on board the airplanes and have them crash it?

Anybody who knows anything about strategy knows that the best plans are the simplest plans. When you get complicated with things you add room for screw ups. And you do it exponentialy for every complication you add. So why would a "secret government" capable of this kind of technolodgy be stupid enough to try something like what you are suggesting?

As far as the whole "ntis model" or whatever its called. Basicaly you are expecting us to take a computer generated model as gospel truth when real life shows us differently?

P.S. We are supposedly all adults here. I know my spelling and gramar could be better but I do have a life outside of these forums that I need to get back to. So lets discuss the issues presented not the way they are presented?

[edit on 3-10-2006 by zombiemann]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by georgejohn
can rap on but I say there were no planes...

Talked to a few people who were there and most are very f-ed up by what they think that they were a 'witness 2... but one day I saw for a second time a very professional woman, trained in detail and she said to me that she just had to tell me, tryed to in our first meet but with got we were off onto something else... that she was there on West Street when the 2nd 'Plane' or Explosion happened and that she looked up at the Explosion and saw the Hole and Fire BUT SHE DIDN'T HEAR ANY JET NOISE before the Explosion !... well it all came to-get-her in my mind and I told her that she didn't hear any noise because there were NO JETS, that it was a 'Hologram' and Mind Control etc Operation... well she thanked me and said that she just knew I could give her the answer... well I mentioned this to a friend and he remarked, with, did u see 'Wag-the-Dog' {yes} and did I think that we went to the Moon {NO], then he said, well now, you know...just going say this once and you can think about it...

1} Controlled Demolitions...

2} Holograms...

3} Edited TV Feeds...

4} Mass Mind Control...

A made for TV, Hollywood Production, Wag the WTC, A Ongoing Soap with Real Dead People ...............................................................................



All I can say is LMAO!


Maybe she didn't hear the second plane hit because after the first plane hit there was 100+ police, and fire, and medical vehicles with their sirens full blast. People screaming and cars honking. Need I say more? Well, I will... ever herd of the Doppler Effect for Sound?? Its simple really. Depending on where the "professional woman" was standing, or if she was moving, depends on what she will hear.

For example, a fire engine and its siren are speeding towards you at a high rate of speed. Because of this, the sound of the siren is REALLY LOUD, because each sound wave coming out of the siren is being compacted, making it a higher frequency. Once the fire engine passes you, the siren becomes quieter because the sound waves are no longer being compacted together, they are actually a lot farther apart. Imagine the speaker > is moving to the left really fast, and playing a loud noise. Because it is moving to the left, it compacts the sound waves together each time one is made making it louder if you are in front of it. Since it is moving away from the sound waves behind it, the sound waves behind it are really spaced apart, which makes it more quite.

||||||||||||||||| > | | | | | | | | | |


Just read these pages..
www.fearofphysics.com...
en.wikipedia.org...


Then watch this video of the WTC 2 impact. You can hear everything. You saying this was a dubbed sound track? That's insane.

www.youtube.com...

ALSO, you have to take note of the speed of sound. If your "professional woman" was really far away from the impacts, which most people were since the impacts were about 1000 feet above ground, then she wouldn't hear the explosion or the jet sound until a second or so later.

If you are in the outfield seats of a professional baseball game, when you see a baseball player hit a ball, you wont hear the hit until a second or so later.

The same for high flying jets... if you look up and see a jet flying, the sound from the jet will seem like its trailing way behind the actual jet. It sounds like that because you are actually hearing the "past". You are hearing something that has already happened, and the reason you cant hear the sound in real time, is because it hasn't reached you yet. Same with the stars in the sky, their light takes a very long time to reach us. So we are actually seeing the light that shined hundreds of years ago. If the stars burned out today, we wouldn't know for a few years.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by stealth knife]





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join