Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   


I don't know what made the crater, it certainly wasn't any kind of an airplane. The debris? There wasn't much, maybe a small truck full. The DNA? I don't know of any DNA that was found in the Pennsylvania crash. I don't know of any passengers that were found in the Pennsylvania crash. I do know that the coronor walked away after 20 minutes saying there was no reason for him to be there because there wasn't any bodies.


www.post-gazette.com...




Investigators who recovered remains from the Shanksville-area crash site brought possible stab wounds and lacerations to the attention of FBI pathologists, Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said yesterday. But the FBI has responded that "the catastrophic nature of the crash and fragmentation" left them unable to draw conclusions, Miller said.


Sounds like they found DNA to me.............................




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr


I believe he was talking about the crater in Pennsylvania......if your going to critisize the guy atleast be accurate with your information.



You are right, he was talking about flight 93, I'm sorry for missing that, and actually staying on topic. Even then, the cartoon physics still apply to what he said...

"I don't know what made the crater, it certainly wasn't any kind of an airplane."

What does he expect? A perfect shape of a airplane in the ground? Like a giant Boeing 757 cookie cutter type deal? Is he an expert in airplane craters?



I don't know about you, but that looks more than a "truck full" of debris.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999




www.post-gazette.com...




Investigators who recovered remains from the Shanksville-area crash site brought possible stab wounds and lacerations to the attention of FBI pathologists, Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said yesterday. But the FBI has responded that "the catastrophic nature of the crash and fragmentation" left them unable to draw conclusions, Miller said.



Sounds like they found DNA to me.............................


Sounds like cock and bull to me. That accident occured on September 11, 2001. Had that article been written sometime that month it might have had relevance. 3 months later? Sorry, no cigar.

There was no plane in that hole in the ground in Shanksville. There was no 757 that hit the Pentagon. In both of those accidents there was not enough debris to convince any knowledgeable person that an entire 757 crashed. There may have not been any planes that hit the WTC. Other than an engine core I have seen no debris that would indicate that an entire 767, or actually 2 of them crashed into the World Trade Center. We may have all been watching some kind of hologram that made some of us believe that airplanes crashed into the WTC. I think I'll wait until all of the evidence is in myself.


Edn

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
We may have all been watching some kind of hologram that made some of us believe that airplanes crashed into the WTC. I think I'll wait until all of the evidence is in myself.


Although I have my suspicions about the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon and the plane that disappeared into a hole in the ground, I ask again why would they go to so much trouble to create a hologram when then can simply fly a plane into the WTC?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
We are talking about a MASSIVE deflection process here: missing, gone, none, zero, null.
Please point out where the massive deflection (As shown in the NIST simulation) is taking place.

PD: Of course I'm not saying that the CG must bounce on one piece, I'm looking for the physical process described by NIST (Second image); I have not found it.

PD2: Can you comment about the transparent plane a bit. Thanks.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



the plane is transparent because its was going so fast theres no way its gonna be solid in the picture, like when you take a picture and someone moves they are kinda transparent



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
This johnlear guy is the one thats a crock no plane? im from the pittsburgh area and i am out in that area frequently and have spoken with many eye wittness's that saw the plane personally that day or was it a holograph?? what gives you the expert knowledge that there was no plane that day? who do you think you really are? let me guess all the people that i have talked to our there are sheeple and saw a holograph...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
Holographic planes...
Why would they go to all the trouble of creating a holographic plane when they can do it a lot more easily and more cheaply by flying a real plane into the towers?

Because that's not "in-ter-est-ing".

Welcome to ATS...


Enjoy yer stay!



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Sounds like cock and bull to me. That accident occured on September 11, 2001. Had that article been written sometime that month it might have had relevance. 3 months later? Sorry, no cigar.

Why is that? There are plenty of serious articles/books written long after the event being covered. The "9/11 Mysteries" video upon which a popular thread is based is five years after the event... so it's no good?



There was no 757 that hit the Pentagon.

I need to express my disagreement here. I firmly believe a large passenger airline struck the Pentagon. I tend to think the manner in which it was flown/controlled is very different than "the official story", but a large airliner it was.



Other than an engine core I have seen no debris that would indicate that an entire 767, or actually 2 of them crashed into the World Trade Center.

As we all know, the debris was in the buildings. We have no reports of seeing office furniture in the wreckage of the WTC (in fact, we have reports of rescue workers being amazed they didn't find any desks or chairs)... does that mean the offices didn't have desks?



We may have all been watching some kind of hologram that made some of us believe that airplanes crashed into the WTC.

I'm sorry, John, I greatly respect your life achievements, many of your "alternative theories", and the Lunar Mine Photos you brought to our members here. But I feel this hologram theory of yours is among the extreme theories that harm efforts at serious 9/11 conspiracy speculation and research.

These types of wild no-evidence theories make it easy for mainstream press and politicians to wave off conspiracy theorists with a quick condescending swipe of the hand and barb, "see how crazy they are". We see similar wild ideas all over the Internet that take conspiracy theory speculation to new irresponsible levels.

If we're going to engage in an analysis of the events of 9/11 with an eye toward proving conspiracy speculation, we need to do so with a degree of responsibility. Disregarding mountains of physical and eyewitness evidence to support a poorly conceived idea only results in presenting a setback to other more determined efforts.

One of the most popular reoccurring 9/11 conspiracy themes here on ATS is the idea that some government disinformation group is covertly seeding the Internet with extreme theories in an effort to discredit all 9/11 conspiracy research. Dylan Avery took mention of the "pods on the plane" out of the Loose Change revision because of this.

The conspirators I'm sure are chuckling over time spent arguing about holograms.

The evidence is all we have.

Critical thinking is what we should be doing.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The trasparency of the plane can be explained by the way the camera catches the image. For a camera, to record an image, the photons from the object reflecting them should strike the lens of the camera, and then the intermittent exposure of the recording medium will store the image. A motion picture is nothing but a flow of frames, as many of us know. Considering the relative motion of camera and the aeroplane, and taking into consideration the exposure frequency of the storage media, I could say that some of the frames might have got blurred and thus when looking at a continuos flow of frames, it might resemble what various people called a 'ghost' plane. Coming to John Lear's view point, I cannot attempt to disagree with him. That theory is quiet possible too. If it is true, hats off to the darkside for gifting us with such a traumatic movie.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

There was no plane in that hole in the ground in Shanksville. There was no 757 that hit the Pentagon. In both of those accidents there was not enough debris to convince any knowledgeable person that an entire 757 crashed. There may have not been any planes that hit the WTC. Other than an engine core I have seen no debris that would indicate that an entire 767, or actually 2 of them crashed into the World Trade Center. We may have all been watching some kind of hologram that made some of us believe that airplanes crashed into the WTC. I think I'll wait until all of the evidence is in myself.



JohnLear, I used to think you were the REAL johnlear, but now I'm certain you are not.

In an interview with Art Bell on Coast To Coast, you said that you "KNOW" Flight 93 was shot down by an F-16. You also say there actually was jets that hit the WTC's.

So now you are going against words you said on live Radio?

I'm certain the REAL John Lear was on C2C. Now I really doubt you are the real JohnLear.

For those interested in what John Lear had to say on the radio. Here is a transcript:

www.greatdreams.com...

Just scroll down a bit to get to the 9-11 stuff.

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



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Oh, for heaven's sake, do I have to be the first to say it? John Lear is a flake. There, I said it.

John,
Can you give any, ANY, first hand knowledge? Or is it forever gonna be "I can't prove it to you, but I jus' know so trust me...".?

I here-by call BS on our so-called "John Lear". I know, we don't wanna insult the guy 'cuz he's some kinda "celebrity" an' all. But, today, I call "bull#", and hope that Johnny can retort with more than "I jus' know what I know....

Evidence, Johnny. C'mon, now! Back up yer fantasy. Its Now or neveremore... Whadda ya got, boy-ee? eh?

EDIT: puncutation, n'stuff.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord



Why is that? There are plenty of serious articles/books written long after the event being covered.


That may be but there is plenty of lack of evidence in that hole in Shanksville Pa. which precludes any aircraft crashing into it. Most people want to buy into the 'crashed into a hole at 500 mph and was obliterated. Can't happen. There are too many huge parts that have to be accounted four. 2 massive engines obliterated. I think not. An entire empennage including vertical and horizontal tail sections. Not a chance. I never saw one piece of indentifyable part of an airplane come out of that hole in Shanksville.



I need to express my disagreement here. I firmly believe a large passenger airline struck the Pentagon. I tend to think the manner in which it was flown/controlled is very different than "the official story", but a large airliner it was.


With all due respect SO you do not know what you are talking about. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.


As we all know, the debris was in the buildings. We have no reports of seeing office furniture in the wreckage of the WTC (in fact, we have reports of rescue workers being amazed they didn't find any desks or chairs)... does that mean the offices didn't have desks?


No it doesn't. And by the same token it doesn't prove a Boeing 767 was in there either.


I'm sorry, John, I greatly respect your life achievements, many of your "alternative theories", and the urlwww.abovetopsecret.com...]Lunar Mine Photos[/url] you brought to our members here. But I feel this hologram theory of yours is among the extreme theories that harm efforts at serious 9/11 conspiracy speculation and research.


If this is a cause for concern I suggest you ban me or put a limitation on my comments. For instance you could say, "John its OK to talk about open pits mines on the moon but we don't want you to comment on 911 holograms. Its too wild an idea.


These types of wild no-evidence theories make it easy for mainstream press and politicians to wave off conspiracy theorists with a quick condescending swipe of the hand and barb, "see how crazy they are". We see similar wild ideas all over the Internet that take conspiracy theory speculation to new irresponsible levels.


See above.


If we're going to engage in an analysis of the events of 9/11 with an eye toward proving conspiracy speculation, we need to do so with a degree of responsibility. Disregarding mountains of physical and eyewitness evidence to support a poorly conceived idea only results in presenting a setback to other more determined efforts.


I agree and I think you should take the lead by saying, "I'm going to look again at the Boeing 757/Pentagon evidence and see if there is something I missed. If John Lear isn't buying into it, why not?


One of the most popular reoccurring 9/11 conspiracy themes here on ATS is the idea that some government disinformation group is covertly seeding the Internet with extreme theories in an effort to discredit all 9/11 conspiracy research. Dylan Avery took mention of the "pods on the plane" out of the Loose Change revision because of this.


Too bad. I kinda liked the pod idea myself.


The conspirators I'm sure are chuckling over time spent arguing about holograms.


Maybe. Maybe not. What do you care what the conspirators do or say?


The evidence is all we have.


Yes, and we should consider all of it. Not just what sounds 'reasonable'.


Critical thinking is what we should be doing.


SO, if you feel that I am a threat to the legitimate inquiry and research into 911 in proposing that they used holograms then I suggest you make a list of all theories about 911 that is forbidden for me to discuss so I am clear what I can talk about and what I can't. Otherwise I'll assume that I am free to post as I have been doing.
Thanks for your understanding and consideration.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
John,
Come back to us, man...
:



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealth knife
JohnLear, I used to think you were the REAL johnlear, but now I'm certain you are not.



Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Oh, for heaven's sake, do I have to be the first to say it? John Lear is a flake. There, I said it.


I am also starting to smell “Truth Movement” scam here.

The reason that I say this is that even a novice pilot knows that an aircraft becomes more stable and more controllable at higher speed (not sure about over mach though).

Why does a plane stall?
Because it looses its lift from not enough airflow over its wings…

Why do they get into uncontrollable stalls?
Because there is not enough airflow over the control surfaces to allow the pilot to alter the aircrafts attitude.

When you get into a stall what is the first things that you do?
You dive and increase throttle to thereby increase the airflow over the wings and control surfaces.

Does the air pressure and increased airflow make it harder to control an aircraft dude to extra weight on the control surfaces?
Yeah, on aircraft that do not use hydraulics to lift those control surfaces.

Does this apply to modern commercial aircraft?
Nope, they have hydraulic control surfaces. This means that when a pilot moves a control in the cockpit, it does not actually move the control surface such as it does on a small plane; rather it sends that signal to a hydraulic pump that moves the control surface. These are the same type of hydraulic devices that are used to lift your car in a garage or an elevator in some buildings.

If this is incorrect perhaps you can explain how B52’s can fly at mach under the radar, that is under 100 feet, NOE?

The other reason that I suspect that this is someone else is that he has continued to dodge my posts even though I have never said a word to him before this thread, almost like I am on ignore. To me I would speculate this is someone that I have dealt with before in the 757 thread, and knows to avoid folks on this site who do have some aviation experience.


[edit on 10/3/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   


That may be but there is plenty of lack of evidence in that hole in Shanksville Pa. which precludes any aircraft crashing into it. Most people want to buy into the 'crashed into a hole at 500 mph and was obliterated. Can't happen. There are too many huge parts that have to be accounted four. 2 massive engines obliterated.










Oh I forgot, if they came from the government, then they must not be true.....

Contrary to popular belief, the engines...or what was left of the engines of Flight 93 WERE found.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
That may be but there is plenty of lack of evidence in that hole in Shanksville Pa. which precludes any aircraft crashing into it.

I was referring to your categorization that an old article was invalid... not the details of the event.



With all due respect SO you do not know what you are talking about. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

I didn't say a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. However, someone very close to me was on the highway at the time, and saw a large passenger aircraft flying low and very fast toward the Pentagon.



it doesn't prove a Boeing 767 was in there either.

There is exceptionally strong video and numerous first-person evidence showing that two aircraft impacted the building.



If this is a cause for concern I suggest you ban me or put a limitation on my comments.

It would be the first time we engage in such an action for someone's opinions, so it won't happen. Also, just because I personally express disagreement and consternation, does not indicate any intent to apply that to site policy.



"I'm going to look again at the Boeing 757/Pentagon evidence and see if there is something I missed.

I have... and my history of posts on ATS are record to my changing opinion. As I've said, I'm convinced a large passenger aircraft attacked the Pentagon, however, I'm not convinced it was flight 77, feel that it was likely modified for maximum penetration, and may be the actual target of the day with the WTC being the cover story.



SO, if you feel that I am a threat to the legitimate inquiry and research into 911 in proposing that they used holograms then I suggest you make a list of all theories about 911 that is forbidden for me to discuss so I am clear what I can talk about and what I can't. Otherwise I'll assume that I am free to post as I have been doing.

Don't misunderstand the opinion of one of the site partners as implying site policy. I will continue to keep the servers running and enforce the T&C such that you can indeed post whatever you like about whatever theories apply to the topics discussed on ATS... and will take action against anyone who tries to go against our T&C to disrupt your ability to do so. On the same hand... don't ever expect that if I have an alternate opinion or strong disagreement, I won't express it.


One of the reasons I work hard to keep ATS running is that it's often a bastion of inspired and balanced critical thinking on the subject of conspiracy theories and other 'alternative topics'. I will jump into topics that interest me where I feel critical thinking is lacking... and this happens to be one of those topics.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
John, I have to ask, why do you say "no 757 in pennsylvania" on ATS. But on LIVE RADIO you say the "757 was shot down by an F-16"??

You also say on LIVE RADIO that most of Flight 93's pieces were found 5 miles away from the crash site. Then now on ATS you say "no identifiable pieces in the crater". Well... huh? Which is it? Plane? Or no plane?


Also you say you haven't seen any identifiable objects come from pennsylvania. Doesn't that mean you have no clue what you are talking about because of your lack of knowledge?

Here are some picture you haven't seen from Pennsylvania...











Source: www.amny.com...

John, are these all holograms?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
fakes or holograms...cant be real



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999









Oh I forgot, if they came from the government, then they must not be true.....

Contrary to popular belief, the engines...or what was left of the engines of Flight 93 WERE found.


Lets see here: 1 wheeldrum. 1 side window section which doesn't appear to have been crushed by vertical impact of 500 mph. 1 3ft. section of skin. Total Approx. Weight: 210 pounds. 219,790 pounds to go.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
He is ignoring my posts now. I think we have a FAKE. Someone ask John a few questions for me....

John, I have to ask, why do you say "no 757 in pennsylvania" on ATS. But on LIVE RADIO you say the "757 was shot down by an F-16"??

You also say on LIVE RADIO that most of Flight 93's pieces were found 5 miles away from the crash site. Then now on ATS you say "no identifiable pieces in the crater". Well... huh? Which is it? Plane? Or no plane?





top topics
 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join