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: 17
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless

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.


You don't have to agree with me, considering I'm not even the one that debunked it. Tell me why I should ignore logic as far as holographs capabilities are concerned? Or tell me how they got their holograph to cast a shadow? If you don't believe this theory has been debunked, then you haven't read the entire thread.

It's been clearly laid out what holographs can and can not do, based on that, and that alone, you know evidence, it's been debunked. The burden of proof is on you to tell us how a holograph can cast a shadow, and adjust for light changes. You just won't accept reality even in the face of overwheming evidence to the contrary. You want to talk about possibilities right? Well, what the OP and John Lear mentioned isn't possible no matter how far the technology is, in regards to holographs so why discuss it? If you want to waste your own time, that's your business, but I will share my opinion, and my opinion is, it's been debunked.




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
id still like to hear about how they got the sound of the planes other then "if they can do holograms they can create the sound to go along with it" theory.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
yes but my point was that for you it's proven to be false but that doesn't make it right to dub this thread closed acording to you, i still don't believe any theories but i am open to all of them and i do not judge anyone's theories.



edited for exesive quoting: my post is adressed to withoutequal



[edit on 4-10-2006 by selfless]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

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.





wait why are you saying this to me? i never said that holograms did it and i never said that a real plane did it i said that i am open to all possibilities and i do not try to piss on some elses theory.


truth is we won't know untill we know for sure what really happened so no one here knows more then anyone else, at this point it's all speculations either ways.


edited: exesive quoting.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by selfless]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
maybe it was a sphere that projected a plane, i'v seen these spheres on videos they could be military technology, they can be cloaked and you can see them with a infrared camera so maybe ET's technology would be too advanced to see their cloaks with infrared camera's. and also this theory would validate the sound aspect.


Maybe it was a plane controled remotely and the people in the plane was murdered before it happened.



Maybe the goverment brain washed 2 persons to do it and then blame it on terrorists so they can have an excuse to start their world war 3 rampage with out being judged as the bad guys.

Infinite possibilies is still the best theory for me so far.


i do not know what happened and neither does anyone else except those who were in on it.


when i first saw 9/11 i was 17 years old and the second i saw the footage on tv i thought to my self it was an inside job by the goverment but that was just a feeling.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Without Equal--

I have to agree that Holographics is out. No, the airliners were real enough. I can take a clone brush in PSP and make anything appear transparent. IOW--any photo can be made to look like anything you want it to with today's technology, and in such a way as to look convincingly real. It all falls under Spielburg/Lucas Special Effects.

That leads me to this twist; how many of the current pics, pro and con, are examples of Computer Art and which "side" produced them? I am confident that BOTH sides have produced them. Fortunately, in the five years I have been independently looking into 9/11, much of the photographic evidence I have obtained and viewed has been done by private, amateur, individuals, and half of that is digital. I was able to obtain the negatives for the majority of the film work.

All of this personal study, which I have strived to keep as un-biased and I can, has, at this juncture of 5 years down the road, led me to to believe that something is terribly wrong with the entire scenario after taking into account the "hidden" acts of Government before, during, and after the fact of 9/11. My conclusion is that 9/11 regarding the WTC, was at the very least known about, including the date, months in advance, allowed to occur, was "enhanced", and has been used by the Administration since to justify the passage of legislations and Executive Orders designed to whittle away the Constitution, Liberty, and American Freedom in the name of "Safety". As concerns the Pentagon--it was an enhancement--a completely staged act of Shock and Awe.

Official Statements and speeches have, since, been designed and written to reassure the American Public and hype up the War on Terror. The repetative Keywords, "Safety" and "protection" have been used thousands of times in these documents in an attempt to sway the Public into allowing the Administration to legislate away our Liberty. The question has been asked in other threads, "Where are the attacks on American Soil?" Well, suffice to say that Al Qaeda doesn't need to, as the Administration and Legislature are doing their job for them.

Lastly, let me say this, and you have to trust me that I speak from the standpoint of experience. CIA/NSA/FBI/and NIS Intell is much more accurate and concise than the average American understands. As regards recent occurances, understand that SoD
Rumsfeld has recently changed the Leadership of the CIA by insertion of an active duty Military officer at it's head. The SoD's desire for complete Military Control of the Intelligence Community has been accomplished. Stated or not, Military Officers follow orders and ultimately those of the Executive Branch. The CIA has, in the past, been a Black Budget, independant, Agency, which, in it's providence of accurate intel, has operated in a dark grey area in order to be effective in it's mandate. Whether that Idea is good or bad depends on what one knows about the workings--the major being that no one, domesticly, was immune from investigation. That is no longer the case, and, as bad as some activities were, such as has occured is a disasterous mistake.

My personal stance with all of it revolves around the Oath I took whan I entered Military Service, swearing to Defend the Constitution of the United States against all Enemies, Foreign or Domestic, and to defend Freedom and Liberty for every Citizen of this Country. For me, That Oath still stands, and it always will.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Ed Littlefox]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The hypothesis that complicated and sophisticated holographic projections filled in for actual aircraft on 9/11/2001 is unilaterally absurd. While it may be an interesting "sci-fi" angle for some to use as speculation, it has no basis in reality.

Why?

Because any serious analysis of history's conspiracies will result in the researcher concluding one unifying theme: simplicity. At their core, global conspiracies tend to be very simple affairs utilizing mundane tactics and limited personnel. The reason is simple, mistakes are not tolerated. For example: while the logistics of Iran/Contra may seem complex, the reality was a very simple and mundane system of material movement.

The reality here is most probably very simple -- agents of covert U.S. operations inspired already radical fundamentalist people with a mindset of suicide bombers to pilot planes into civilian targets with a high probability of some type of technological flight assistance. It's simple. Easy. And limits factors for possible mistakes.


Stay tuned for more from Mister Old School.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by mister.old.school]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
also take into account that our government isn't very bright. I don't think GWB can even spell conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Originally posted by mister.old.school




The hypothesis that complicated and sophisticated holographic projections filled in for actual aircraft on 9/11/2001 is unilaterally absurd. While it may be an interesting "sci-fi" angle for some to use as speculation, it has no basis in reality.


Thanks for your opinion mister.old.school. We value your different views here at ATS. As to holographic projections being complicated and sophisticated I would disagree. They could be as simple as pointing a video camera is today. But instead of 'taking' an image you are projecting an image and sound into space. If the concept is there, the technology won't be far behind.

As to your comment "filled in for actual aircraft on 9/11/2001" I want to be sure that you understand that the holographic image theory (and thats all it is, a theory) is limited to the 2 WTC airplanes. It does not include Shanksville (the airplane that vanished, some propose into a small, smoking hole in Shanksville) or the Pentagon fire, which some honestly believe was caused by a Boeing 757.


The reality here is most probably very simple -- agents of covert U.S. operations inspired already radical fundamentalist people with a mindset of suicide bombers to pilot planes into civilian targets with a high probability of some type of technological flight assistance. It's simple. Easy. And limits factors for possible mistakes.


The key word here is "probably" and my opinion is that it wasn't "probably" very simple. It was a very complex operation involving many people, many planes, extremely close coordination and in some case very advanced technology. It was certainly not simple and it was certainly not easy.

And its certainly not going to be simple or easy to unravel who the conspirators were. But your statement "agents of covert U.S. opertions" gives me a hint that the real conspirators, having been essentially and for all practical purpose 'caught' are now going to lay the blame on 'agents of covert U.S. operations'. Hey, it wasn't us at the top. We knew nothing about it. It was those "agents of U.S. covert operations' guys. They did it!



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Where did the jet engine that was lying on the ground just down the street from the WTC come from?

I have another hypothesis: No planes hit the WTC because there never was a WTC! Both of the WTC towers have been a hologram since 1965.
That also explains why both towers fell strait down... they can make a hologram look like anything they want. If the tops of the towers would have slid off or fallen over, leaving the rest of the tower, then it would have damaged surrounding buildings.... except a hologram of a tower can't damage anything, so they had to fall in their own footprint to be effective.
I'm pretty sure George W is also a hologram.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your opinion mister.old.school. We value your different views here at ATS.

You write as though you're in some type of official capacity here. Is that the case?


They [holograms] could be as simple as pointing a video camera is today.

The operative where here is "could be". Your "mind space" is in the extreme fantastic realm occupied by anti-gravity, extraterrestrials, and lunar mining operations. All of which fall under the category of "could be". Hence, this is the point of view form which you write.

I, on the other hand, operate from the "mind space" of what has been. I focus on what governments and groups have done, and how. It makes no sense to imagine far fetched methodology for actions that history has proven to be simple and mundane.


But instead of 'taking' an image you are projecting an image and sound into space. If the concept is there, the technology won't be far behind.

In this section, your authorship takes on the voice of speculation. I then assume you are not serious about the possibility of holographic projections?


The key word here is "probably" and my opinion is that it wasn't "probably" very simple. It was a very complex operation involving many people, many planes, extremely close coordination and in some case very advanced technology. It was certainly not simple and it was certainly not easy.

History has proven to us, again and again, that on-the-ground human intelligence by well-traind professional operatives is the most reliable of all. In this case, all it would take is one or two well-placed operatives to promote the proper planning and inspiration.

As far as technology is concerned, there are numerous stories of last-minute and mysterious high-tech construction on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center. There are those following up on reports of nearby radio interference and odd signals -- the thought being that equipment that provided "landing vectors" (my apologies, I don't have the appropriate terminology handy) for the approaching aircraft was installed.


And its certainly not going to be simple or easy to unravel who the conspirators were. But your statement "agents of covert U.S. opertions" gives me a hint that the real conspirators, having been essentially and for all practical purpose 'caught' are now going to lay the blame on 'agents of covert U.S. operations'. Hey, it wasn't us at the top. We knew nothing about it. It was those "agents of U.S. covert operations' guys. They did it!

The real conspirators are the elite power-seekers. There are several names by which conspiracy theorists call them, most are inaccurate or dated. But all you need to do is examine who would profit from arms, oil, and drugs. You see, even fingering the guilty is rather simple.



Stay tuned for more from Mister Old School.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by mister.old.school]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The hypothesis that complicated and sophisticated holographic projections filled in for actual aircraft on 9/11/2001 is unilaterally absurd.

[...]

Because any serious analysis of history's conspiracies will result in the researcher concluding one unifying theme: simplicity. At their core, global conspiracies tend to be very simple affairs utilizing mundane tactics and limited personnel. The reason is simple, mistakes are not tolerated.


Personally I disagree with your statement and I think it is this assumption you describe which blinds so many people to the truth of their situation. It's like people who use occam's razor to say that the simplest choice is always best but what these people fail to observe is that mister occam said "All things being equal", which rarely ever happens. The mathematical converse of Occam's construct is that if two outcomes are not equal, then the more compelx one must be true. Complexity would be expected. Furthermore, the idea of complexity is itself challenged by the work of Stephen Wolfram and others before him who describe complex behavior in very simple programs. In essence, fractals show us, like the patterns of leaves on branches or veins in our arms, that complexity and branching, even complex randomized differentiation, can all stem from very simple origins.

Be it simple or complex, It is only technology which transforms a species. Technology can be a ray-gun or an energy machine or even a hologram projector which accepts 3DMAX paths and which can make planes look real. Personally I still believe the planes were remote controlled into WTC because that seems to be the simplest explanation, but a larger question is raised here:

If there was given to a group, a tool of advanced extra-terrestrial design, which accepted any physical model (airplane, horse, etc) and could project that image with complete reality and directional sound, would this technology be used in place of a 'real' scenario, perhaps for the purpose of reaffirming to members of the group their own superiority? I mean, if you go dig up Geronimo's skull (for example), but you only show it to one another, what purpose is served in regard to the group? Does the group become stronger?

Similarly, if the group uses high-tech to create a scenario which seems to be simple in itself (planes into buildings), might they also get a collective high from the overcomplication of this spectacle, knowing that only they themselves know the truth? Personally I am not sure, but I do know that this world is far stranger than what the masses are allowed to know. Many things are done which seem unreasonable and which are done for sheer pagentry. Cremation of Care anyone?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by mister.old.school



You write as though you're in some type of official capacity here. Is that the case?


Yes, I am an official member of ATS. We at ATS welcome your inputs.


I then assume you are not serious about the possibility of holographic projections?


Your assumption would be wrong. If holographic projection is not a reality within the deep black programs of the secret government then it is just around the bend. Eventually we will be able to take what is similar to todays video camera, set the distance and project a full color, full sound, three dimensional image.


The real conspirators are the elite power-seekers. There are several names by which conspiracy theorists call them, most are inaccurate or dated. But all you need to do is examine who would profit from arms, oil, and drugs. You see, even fingering the guilty is rather simple.


Fingering the guilty is simple. Identifying them is not. Its not anybody that you have ever heard of and they will be very hard to catch.


Stay tuned for more from Mister Old School.


Let me respectfully suggest that you put this in your signature instead of at the end of each post in the text. It will seem less like you're begging. Just a suggestion.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Well, when I present logic based on a verified historical record, and you refuse to accept that... it's your prerogative, and there's little more I can do.

However, I urge you to do some research into the proven previous methods of these "unmentionable people" throughout the later century. You will encounter methods that are brilliantly simple in their execution, without the complications of technology that introduces exponentially rising possibilities for error.

Good luck with proving the fantastic.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

I haven’t had the time to read the entire thread in detail (I’m at work) — but what I’ve read so far is REVOLUTIONARY. “Brainsucker” and “Johnlear” appear to be extremely knowledgeable — so it would behoove everyone to treat them with the utmost respect, less you want to risk looking like fools. These guys obviously “know their stuff”. I’ve heard of the hologram theory before, and of course thought of it as utter rubbish. But I’ve never seen it presented in detail, until now.

Smokin’ good work Brainsucker and Johnlear!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
John Lear stated:


Fingering the guilty is simple. Identifying them is not. Its not anybody that you have ever heard of and they will be very hard to catch.


Absolutely. What you see is only the stage play and the Players and not the people manipulating the strings. I have come to refer to these simply as "The Sith"--to steal a more or less definitive term from George Lucas. Most of The Sith aren't even American.

Further, it isn't even really about Money. Money only buys goods and is totally worthless unless it is distributed within a society of Consumers and Industry as a medium of Trade. IOW-- if a small group had all of it, it would be worthless. So, Money isn't Power---its Paper. That being the case, we need to quit assigning Dollar Values to individuals, and take a new tack with these ideas.

Other than Money, what would all this be about? Command and Control? Unlimited Power? Ensalvement of the Masses? If any of the foregoing, then to what end?

I have my own ideas about what is actually going on, and why. But to "think" and to actually "know" are far removed from each other. The many layers of smoke are dense--like pealing an Onion. It's a mass of smoke and mirrors, and Illusion suplanting that of David Copperfield. Trust me, nothing is as it seems.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

I haven’t had the time to read the entire thread in detail (I’m at work) — but what I’ve read so far is REVOLUTIONARY. “Brainsucker” and “Johnlear” appear to be extremely knowledgeable — so it would behoove everyone to treat them with the utmost respect, less you want to risk looking like fools. These guys obviously “know their stuff”. I’ve heard of the hologram theory before, and of course thought of it as utter rubbish. But I’ve never seen it presented in detail, until now.

Smokin’ good work Brainsucker and Johnlear!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.


I wish I wasn't a fool and could just hop aboard an outrageous theory because someone "seems knowledgable". I should recognize the error of my ways and just consider everything to be true all at once. That way little things like reality won't get in the way.

There's actually no point to debating this; as long as scenarios continues to be dreamed up, evidence manufactured, and imagination treated as fact, it's all reverse logic and impossible to deem correct, incorrect. or anything in between.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Dear Astygia:

Glad to see you’re still on board!

You might think I’m full of “it” but I kind of like your posts. They’re thought provoking and straight-from-the-hip. Albeit a bit caustic but in good taste. You just addressed the very crux of every research process — the ability to dream things up.

This capability to imagine — i.e. creativity — is critical to any real research undertaking. And research is precisely what we’re doing here at ATS. If we were unable to envision the previously impossible or “never-happened-before”, well then we would still be foraging for berries and grubbing for worms (although in that case we might have actually survived as a species for much longer, but that’s another topic).

You might think that I’m easily bamboozled. Yes, sometimes I am, because I have an innate openness to ideas. I pretty much think I can learn something from just about anyone regardless of social status, education or even character (yes, evil people can teach us things too, although I loathe to admit it).

I just read that people are questioning John Lear’s true identity. That strikes me as odd. I have not yet read all of his posts, this is a really long thread. But what I have seen strikes me as really smart, BECAUSE his logic “adds up.

So maybe, by commending “John Lear” and “Brainsucker”, I’ll end up with egg on my face. Well, I’ll take my chances.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
This capability to imagine — i.e. creativity — is critical to any real research undertaking.


I respectfully submit that your summary is incorrect.

The capability for imagination and creativity is an admirable trait for authors of fiction -- it is a terrible tendency for researchers of fact.

Relying on creativity and imagination in research invariably establishes preconceived notions in the researcher. It is then human nature to try and defend your ideas by proving them correct through research.

True research is the agnostic review of available material, free of imaginary musings, so there is no anticipation of an expected result.

If we approach the aircraft flying into the World Trade Center as possible holographic projections, our research will be tainted with the effort to prove that idea.

Imagination is for fiction. Critical analysis is for research.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Dear Mister Old School:

Albert Einstein (I'm sure you're familiar) is considered to be one of the most creative, imaginative, day-dreamy-type person of all times.

Nuff Said.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join