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.

 

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealth knife

Originally posted by selfless
i have respect for john lear he does not force you to agree with what he's saying, unlike what you guys are doing right now


What the heck are you talking about? Nobody if forcing anyone to agree.

We simply have so much overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a hologram, that it is just so insanly stupid to even think it was a hologram.

B.T.W. we aren't even certain it is the real John Lear or not.

IMO, the real John Lear would never say WTC impacts were a hologram. Only because I herd him say otherwise on live radio.





Are you kidding me? This thread is no longer about the wtc... you guys are all picking on john lear and calling everyone who keeps an open mind to all possibilities an idiot or a retard. i personaly do not say i know what happened at the world trade center because i do not know and all of you on here do not know either so to claim that your very own theory is the one and only valid one is a false claim.


You guys SERIOUSLY put way too much effort picking on each others then picking on the subject of the THREAD,

(IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT JOHN'S THEORY AS A ''POSSIBILITY'' AND I DO SAY POSSIBILITY THEN PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND NOT ANNOYING THE REST OF US WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE ANNOYED BY CHILDISH WASTE OF TIME AND WASTE OF SPACE ARGUMENTS .............


KEEP IT TO YOUR SELF AND IGNORE THE POSTER, THERE IS A IGNORE POSTER OPTION, USE IT.



There is more threads about john lear's credibility then anything else now so i ask of you john lear, why don't you just take a picture of your self holding a peice of paper that says ''hey ats it's me the real john leart'' so that people stop picking on each others like it's a war. Please......... for the sake of peace... i would understand if you would just never come back to ats john because if i had to take a pic of my self with a message saying it's me then i would not feel like the people who requires this proof are worth it.







PEOPLE WAKE UP AND GROW UP AND STOP HATING ON EACH OTHERS I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE THREAD ON THIS FORUM THAT DID NOT HAVE INSULTS IN THEM OR PEOPLE GETTING OFFENDED BY OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS. THERE IS ENOUGH WAR IN THE WORLD DON'T BRING IT ON HERE PLEASE.



i am sorry for the cap locks but i feel like enough is enough.



THANK YOU............




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
[removed unnecessary quote of Entire previous post]




This forum is NOT about "peace" and letting people BS with impunity... it is about searching for the truth, When someone presents something that is CLEARLY NOT THE TRUTH, THEY GET CALLED OUT.

No one has "personally attacked" anyone which is why you DO NOT SEE the "warns" and BANNED users flying.

You are not a moderator so take your complaint and use the handy "complain" feature if you think ANYONE has stepped over the line.

He may have "credibility" in the UFO FORUM, but to come here and spout off about HOLOGRAMS being the GOD GIVEN UNDENIABLE TRUTH is:

Ridiculous as there is NO PROOF, it is a theory, NOT FACT.
Irresponsible for OBVIOUS REASONS.
A DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what he has previously said to be the UNDENIABLE TRUTH.

So, cry all you want about how someone is being treated...

I ASSURE you if I posted ANYTHING LIKE THIS I would be piled on AS WELL. There is no "special protection" afforded to ANYONE claiming to know 9/11 FACT.

[edit on 10/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

So, cry all you want about how someone is being treated...




i am not crying.

since when is ats about accusing the posters as opose to accusing the opinions... this is clearly what is going on..... go and read the previous pages.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
i am not crying.

since when is ats about accusing the posters as opose to accusing the opinions... this is clearly what is going on..... go and read the previous pages.


When the POSTER is using their NAME and EXPERIENCE as their SOLE SOURCE OF FACT, then posting those "FACTS"... they are inviting it.

It is on him. I can tell the mods agree as I do not have WARN, WARN under my name.



[edit on 4-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by selfless
i am not crying.

since when is ats about accusing the posters as opose to accusing the opinions... this is clearly what is going on..... go and read the previous pages.


When the POSTER is using their NAME and EXPERIENCE as their SOLE SOURCE OF FACT, then posting those "FACTS"... they are inviting it.

It is on him. I can tell the mods agree as I do not have WARN, WARN under my name.



[edit on 4-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



John has always made it clear that his statements are bassed on his OPINION and nothing more and that is why i respect him and he's not on here to start debate wars i believe there is a section of the forum called debates.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Edited: the post posted twice

[edit on 4-10-2006 by selfless]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Lets take a look at John Lears first post on this thread....


Originally posted by johnlear
This is how it was done.


Pretty strong words... almost sounds like he is absolutely certain, and this is pure fact. Am I wrong to think that?


Originally posted by johnlear
This paper (www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm) titled Airborne Holographic Projector describes a holographic projector which displays a 3 dimensional image in a desired location removed from the display generator (in this case another aircraft flying nearby).


Notice the URL he provides. It has the year 2025 in it.

csat.au.af.mil...

This "Air Force 2025", is basically a think tank for fictional devices. Basically they imagine weapons that could probably be possible in the future, that would provide the United States air dominance.

They basically get paid to think stuff up like:

"Well my jet can stop in mid air and kill everyone with one button!".

"Soooo...My jet can change shape and color, and appear like enemy aircraft, so the enemy wont shoot at me".

You know, stuff that a little 8 year old kid would make up while pretending to dog fight with toy jets with his friends. They make the rules and defy physics as they go.. They will worry about the technical aspects and the impossibilities later. Right now, they just think up off the wall stuff.

NONE of it is actually possible yet.



Originally posted by johnlear
The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception managment. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary (you and me).


Let me point out the key words here.

Momentary distraction - Why only momentary? Maybe because the longer you look at the projection, the faster you notice it is FAKE. I typed earlyer how they don't care about the realness of the hologram because there is no possible way to pass a hologram as real. They just need it to turn heads for a split second, to catch people off guard. 911 and the many many eyewitnesses and cameras do not equal a momentary distraction. This is more like a permanent distraction, this is set in stone for the rest of history. They would never use such a device on something so incredibly important. Especially because this device does not even exist yet.


Unsophisticated Adversary - Like I said earlier, holograms can not cast shadows, or deal with real time lighting changes. An unsophisticated adversary would not notice a shadow, and lighting effect. HECK, most people on this thread didn't even think about it until NAVY SEAL said something. When they say unsophisticated, they do not mean "a person with lack of knowledge of future technology". They just mean someone who wouldn't notice the difference between real and fake.



Originally posted by johnlear
The 3 dimensional display of flying airliners was projected to to show airliners flying into the WTC. That is why you can 'see through' the projections.


So, to John Lear, a holographic device that doesn't exist is more plausible than something as simple as a slow shutter speed vs fast object.

en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by johnlear
My opinion is that this technology was perfected about 15 years ago.


15 years ago huh? Well the website you directed us to is about "Air Force 2025". Their front page says:

future study conducted 1995-1996

They didn't even THINK about this technology 15 years ago. Let alone "perfect it". Its not even 2025, the date they wish to complete these thoughts.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
John has always made it clear that his statements are bassed on his OPINION ...


No. WRONG. He 100% absofrickingloutely HAS NOT DONE THIS. He did the opposite.

READ his FIRST POST in this thread.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear




Originally posted by Mezzanine
However, the plane controlling the hologram would still need to be exactly on the planned path to create the explosions at the impact point. That still would require a tremendous amount of skill.


You are trying to evaluate technology 50 years advanced from us with concepts that are familiar to you. The WTC scenario required nothing more difficult than placing a pen on a 3 dimensional screen of the area for a 'start' and one for the 'end' then pressing 'go'. No tremendous skill required for that.


Ok John, first you tell someone that they are trying to evaluate technology 50 years advance with concepts that we are familiar with... and suggesting they are wrong..... then you continue to create a fictional tablet pc control surface that controls a fictional holographic projection device..

Great thinking... you should have just said they control the holographic projection device with their MINDS while you are at it. Better yet, they dont even control the projection device, it has its own AI.

This is no debate, this is a one sided, anything goes, fictional story book.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by stealth knife]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


Originally posted by Astygia
This hologram theory is based on incredibly advanced technology (the existence and applications of which can only be speculated upon), along with substandard video footage and related anomalies.


Are you saying the military paper I posted was fake? This was not a proposal it was a statement of fact. It was operational.


YES - They are saying the military paper you posted was FAKE. The were concepts for the year 2025. They state in their homepage that the devices are not yet available. They are just CONCEPTS.

Here is another example of John Lear calling something knowingly fictional, a FACT.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Cheaper. Our government is not going to waste money when it doesn't have to.


Now I am going to have to question if you are a dis info agent or not?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by defcon5

I could only answer a few of these.


Is a 2 inch deep slice in an aircraft tire, on the side that contacts the cement, warrant it being replaced?


If I'm on the last leg of a 3 day trip no. Otherwise its a maintenance call.


What two pieces of ground equipment are required prior to departure on a DC-8?


A roll of duct tape and a pillow.


What are the major assemblies to a wheel assembly?


Air and tire.


What does it mean if a ramp agent puts his hand to his neck and motions across it in a slicing motion?


Your wife just called and wants to know who Darlene is.


What does it mean if a ramp agent holds up his left hand with 1 finger held up and makes a fanning motion with the other?


One passenger left to board and he's been told to get his ass in gear.


Sorry I didn't get them all. I'm really tired tonight.



I think we can add Comedian to JLs list of accomplishments



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultralo1

I think we can add Comedian to JLs list of accomplishments


You mean we can add AADD. Adult Attention Deficit Disorder. It seems he can not seriously answer questions that would harm his credentials. Instead he totaly ignores them and jokes about it.

Not good...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by selfless
John has always made it clear that his statements are bassed on his OPINION ...


No. WRONG. He 100% absofrickingloutely HAS NOT DONE THIS. He did the opposite.

READ his FIRST POST in this thread.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



go read the other threads he posted when he had to explain to people who did not understand that he did not force them to believe his statements and that he said it was merely his opinions.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealth knife

Originally posted by johnlear




Originally posted by Mezzanine
However, the plane controlling the hologram would still need to be exactly on the planned path to create the explosions at the impact point. That still would require a tremendous amount of skill.


You are trying to evaluate technology 50 years advanced from us with concepts that are familiar to you. The WTC scenario required nothing more difficult than placing a pen on a 3 dimensional screen of the area for a 'start' and one for the 'end' then pressing 'go'. No tremendous skill required for that.


Ok John, first you tell someone that they are trying to evaluate technology 50 years advance with concepts that we are familiar with... and suggesting they are wrong..... then you continue to create a fictional tablet pc control surface that controls a fictional holographic projection device..

Great thinking... you should have just said they control the holographic projection device with their MINDS while you are at it. Better yet, they dont even control the projection device, it has its own AI.

This is no debate, this is a one sided, anything goes, fictional story book.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by stealth knife]



i think he is saying that with the technology known to the public it would be far fetch to believe it would be possible to use holograms for the world trade center incident.

but maybe it would not be that far fetch if we knew what technology they actually have.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
OK guys, there other threads to discuss John, too many imo, let's get back to the topic like selfless did above.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK guys, there other threads to discuss John, too many imo, let's get back to the topic like selfless did above.


Then the topics dead, cause it has already been debunked multiple times, and proven to be untrue, this was pages and pages ago. How many times does something have to be debunked here for people to accept it?

See I told you guys back on page 14, there will still be the rabid ones defending him. Reminds me of the mentality of the Serpo believers.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual

Originally posted by intrepid
OK guys, there other threads to discuss John, too many imo, let's get back to the topic like selfless did above.


Then the topics dead, cause it has already been debunked multiple times, and proven to be untrue, this was pages and pages ago. How many times does something have to be debunked here for people to accept it?

See I told you guys back on page 14, there will still be the rabid ones defending him. Reminds me of the mentality of the Serpo believers.





no you got it all wrong, just because you think it's ''debunked'' does not mean we all agree with you that there is one and only possibility cause really there is no way to know yet what really happened and you don't know more then anyone else.

This is why the thread is still going on.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
So how come I got a warning and 500 ats points deducted and everyone else seems to go on and on without a warning? Hmmph.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
selfless, once again...

-WTC-

1. Holograms do not cast shadows. We clearly see shadows before impact.
2. Holograms do not have the ability to reflect light. Various footage of the planes show glare from the plane.
3. Holograms do not come equipped with sound. no actual theory has been presented to account for the presence and "travelling" of engine sounds.
4. Despite earlier misunderstandings, whether they were intentional or not, we clearly see impact damage in frame-by-frame review.
5. We can see the remains of the plane exiting the other side of the building, obviously post-impact.
6. Plane wreckage is clearly pictured in and around Ground Zero. This will never be conclusive, since the claim can always be made that it was planted; but the fact remains that wreckage is there so its existence cannot be denied.
7. Numerous eyewitness accounts, along with numerous videos and images, verify the planes, and for the most part they are not transparent. The "transparency" is only striking while viewing through less-than-amazing footage, and again the plane is moving at several hundred miles per hour; motion blur is hardly a new phenomenon.

If you just want to believe the hologram thing, nobody can change that but you; just know that all evidence - and it is evidence that any court of law would use - nullifies the plausibility of holographics in use at the WTC.

This isn't about dreaming up a pet theory and making it work; this is about uncovering the truth of 9/11/01 and digging for links to those responsible. Don't lose sight of that.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join