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: 22
2
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
PINK MEAT

For those of you following this thread you know that it started out as a question of the anomolies in videos of supposed aircraft hitting the WTC.

There has been a growing support for both sides of the question.

With Billybobs recent post we have come to some kind of climax.

Skeptic Overlord made a post that he 'was confused' and that a supposed 911 Truth Analyst (whatever the heck that is) thinks the holograph theeory is 'rubbish'.

I suggested otherwise and Skeptic Overlord posted a picture of "hands being washed" with the message (paraphrased) 'carry-on'. Someone (and I have my suspicions) removed that graceful and classy post and then Springer posts and starts whinning that he disagrees.

We, those of us who are considering that the WTC aircraft may, MAY have been holographs are probing pink meat. This theory is touching a raw nerve somewhere. However outlandish and weird it may sound, this idea of holographs is getting someone, somewhere, very, very nervous. So, who cares? What if it was holographs? Why would that make anybody nervous? What difference would it make? Most of us know who did it anyway.

OK. Lets regroup. First: Whoever took it down, put Skeptic Overlords post of the "hands being washed" (true class) back up where it belongs. It was one of the best posts I have ever seen Skeptic Overlord make and it showed true class.

Second: lets continue the thread and explore the issue of the WTC video anomalies. Why would that make anybody mad? All we are doing is exploring the possibilities.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Whoever removed Skeptic Overlords post of a picture of, 'hands being washed' please put it back. Thanks

That would be me. I originally considered walking away from this topic, but then thought better of it as doing so would be against my principals.



Originally posted by johnlear
Your comment on this issue has been read and noted. Any further repetition will be considered as 'attempt by an owner of ATS to unfairly impede the search for the truth on what, if anything, hit the WTC on 911'. (Please review TERMS AND CONDITIONS).

That's a rather strong stance... don't you think? I believe I've shown a long standing history of being able to express my stance on various conspiracy theories, while still working hard to promote and provide channel/bandwidth for theories I may disagree with.

If I were inclined to behave as you seem to be implying, this thread would be long gone... as well as thousands of others here on ATS.

My positions have always been unambiguous and grounded in a long history of conspiracy theory research and involvement. On the other hand, with all respect, I must confess that I'm unable to fathom when/if you're joking/serious. For example, when I attempt to engage fruitful discussion on the thread subject matter, you responded with:

The technology comes from Planet Slurpo. This may take awhile

How are we supposed to take something like that? It could mean:
1- An indication you're not serious about this theory
2- An indication you're blowing us off
3- An indication you're pissed off and moving on
4- An indication you really do think it's alien technology
5- An indication you're working on it and will reply soon
and who knows what else?


Here's what rubs my sore spots...

The idea of a 9/11 conspiracy is very serious. Combined with the ever-growing fascist-leanings of the current administration, 9/11 is a troubling milestone that sparked a cascade of troubling events.

There are a number of anecdotal 9/11 "conspiracy theories" that result in detracting from the main thrust of getting to the bottom of who, what, why. This is one of them. I believe that it's based completely in fictional wishful-thinking, eschewing more productive fact-based analysis and information gathering.

There has been, and will continue to be excellent work at solving some of the hard 9/11 conspiracy questions here on ATS and on many other websites and offline researchers. As someone who cares deeply about these efforts and the perceived credibility of the results, topics like this rub my sore spots... because they end up harming the credibility of everyone working hard at answers that might make a difference.


These are my opinions, and do not reflect any management style of AboveTopSecret.com


Now... can we engage in speculation on how the no-plane theory worked?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Not that I want to stir the pot by any means whatso-ever,but could someone PLEASE post the one whole hologram theory in one paragraph or is it

A)somehow an image of a plane was projected on to a missile
b)somehow an image was projected into mid air and there was neither missile nor plane.. only bombs inside the towers



I ask only because if it was (b) how did wing shaped hole appear in the side of the towers at the point of impact/explosions.

Thanks. T



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by zombiemann



john,

Its great to see you adressing the questions asked of you. Way to realy get to the bottom of the issue. Oh wait you didn't. instead you choose to find every excuse to dance around them by trying to side track things.


Please accept my apologies zombiemann for my dancing around and getting side tracked. There have been threats to 'derail' this thread and those issues I felt had to be addressed.


So lets get back on topic. I have a few questions that I would like to have you answer. Please do not take these as insults as they are not intended to be that. I will listen to just about any side of the story as long as its supported by logical information. You CAN'T just say "it could have been holograms" with no supporting information and expect everyone to automaticaly buy into it.

1. If they were holograms where are the real planes and real people?


This question has been asked and answered many times. I don't know. If I knew I would tell you. The fact that I can't tell you where the planes and people are doesn't disprove the theory that the airplane hitting the WTC may, MAY have been holographs.


2. Where did this tech come from? A serious answer this time if you please? Not a simple one line joke (at least i HOPE it was a joke)


The U.S. Government is privy to very, very advanced technology provided to them by aliens from outer space. Yes, aliens from outer space. Our (the U.S.) technology base is about 50 years ahead of where everybody thinks it is.


3. Why go to all the trouble? Motive means a lot. It just seems WAY over complicated to me.


I was not privy to the planning. I don't know what the motive was. It was a complex plan and the complexity was part and parcel of the plan. I.E. "They'll never figure it out." That was probably what they thought.


I know you posted a URL for a military paper about a holographic projector. But you said yourself it was for MOMENTARY distraction. Not sustained deception.


I do not believe that I said it was a momentary distraction but if I did I misspoke.


And how did you come across this paper? I cant find a link to it anywhere in the actual site. Maybe got someone on the inside that planted that rather amature looking "paper"?


If someone got ‘inside’ then they have access to www.au.af.mil. I would call the police if I were you. And if it’s amateurs then the amateurs included descriptions and plans for “Adjustable Yield Munitions, Advanced Air-to-Air Missiles, Standoff Hypersonic Missiles, Attack Microbots and Hybrid High-Energy Laser Systems".


Hey its a theory. I mean I cant find it linked to anywhere even after extensive diging. A google search doesn't show any internal links to it. So how did you find it?


Maybe aliens from outer space gave it to me.


Because so far thats the only documentation I have seen about your theory.


You need to check Billybobs recent post.


And in my minds eye its sort of questionable.


See if they have optometrists for ‘minds eye’.


So please, convince us.


All if can offer is theory and suggestion. You’ll have to convince yourself.


Lets get back to basics here. Not supposition that you are privy to information we aren’t so we should accept your word as gospel fact.


I don’t believe I have ever said my word was gospel.


And Skeptic Overlord, I know I am just a little guy here at ATS but, I personaly apreciate your efforts to keep things at least somewhat realistic. Keep up the good work. And dont let everybody else fool you. You have every right to say what you want to who you want. This is you and the other amigos site. Alot of people have put a lot of work into it. but it wouldnt be ATS if not for you guys.


I personally appreciate Skeptic Overlords posting of the picture of the “hands washing” if only for a moment he showed a lot of class. But my whole family saw it and remarked what a classy guy Skeptic Overlord was. If only for a few minutes.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_apequality varies , and not all of it came from official sources - you really have not done your homework

utterly laughable .

have you actually ever attempted to film an object at a high rate of tracking

almost all the cameras were hand held -- and a large percentage consumer grade -
if you think you can capture crystal clear footage of an object traveling at 600kph + from a range of under 2 km , when you have no idea that it is about to appear in your feild of view - nor do you have any idea of its true trajectory so you cannot predictivly lead the camera to keep it in shot - please try it .

please look at how many seconds the planes were in shot for - could you adjust focus and zoom to stabilize the shot and ensure the perfect sharpness you demand

a blatant red herring - the camera crews who document the shuttle launch , have specialist equimpent optimised for the job - thier cameras , lenses and mounts are all selected soley for the purpose of filming the shuttle
they have all the focus settigs , light metering values , and pan / tilt adjestments calculated in advance too .


Dear ignorant_ape:

Yes, you are right, no one was expecting the 9-11 attacks. Therefore we can possibly “excuse” the poor quality of the WTC-1 North Tower attack. But even that’s a stretch, since the Naudet brothers were officially “pro’s” and using state-of-the-art filming equipment. Nonetheless, we’ll set that aside for now.

After the first attack however, everyone and their brother were filming the two towers. National and international television crews had their cameras running nonstop — and they don’t employ cheapo equipment. Still no decent footage of the second plane. And oddly enough, the second attack was never shown “live”. It was televised after a 6.5 hour delay at 4:30 PM — just in time for the “evening news”. That’s a fact.

Furthermore, for sure, no one (well almost) was expecting the buildings to actually collapse, right? Then why do we have endless amounts of national-geographic quality pictures and films of those events? Because those things really did happen and the cameras were “on”, that’s why. Plenty of the objects relating to the fall of the towers were fast moving also — yet they were recorded with utter precision.

But NJStomp is the first ATS-member I’ve heard from who says he viewed the plane crash into the WTC first hand. He may not want to elaborate, but it would be priceless if he did.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
And oddly enough, the second attack was never shown “live”. It was televised after a 6.5 hour delay at 4:30 PM — just in time for the “evening news”. That’s a fact.

You are incorrect.

The entire world (or, anyone tuned in) watched the live coverage of the second explosion with news anchors expressing surprise at the second plane.

The live angle covered by NY1 (local NY-only cable news channel) clearly showed the second plane as it approached and hit the building... live... real time.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord



Originally posted by johnlear
Whoever removed Skeptic Overlords post of a picture of, 'hands being washed' please put it back. Thanks



originally posted by Skeptic OverlordThat would be me. I originally considered walking away from this topic, but then thought better of it as doing so would be against my principals.


Well, you really showed a lot of class there, if only for a moment.


Originally posted by johnlear
Your comment on this issue has been read and noted. Any further repetition will be considered as 'attempt by an owner of ATS to unfairly impede the search for the truth on what, if anything, hit the WTC on 911'. (Please review TERMS AND CONDITIONS).



originally poted by Skeptic OverlordThat's a rather strong stance... don't you think? I believe I've shown a long standing history of being able to express my stance on various conspiracy theories, while still working hard to promote and provide channel/bandwidth for theories I may disagree with.

If I were inclined to behave as you seem to be implying, this thread would be long gone... as well as thousands of others here on ATS.


Good for you.


My positions have always been unambiguous and grounded in a long history of conspiracy theory research and involvement. On the other hand, with all respect, I must confess that I'm unable to fathom when/if you're joking/serious. For example, when I attempt to engage fruitful discussion on the thread subject matter, you responded with:

The technology comes from Planet Slurpo. This may take awhile

How are we supposed to take something like that? It could mean:
1- An indication you're not serious about this theory
2- An indication you're blowing us off
3- An indication you're pissed off and moving on
4- An indication you really do think it's alien technology
5- An indication you're working on it and will reply soon
and who knows what else?


My response was tempered by listening to the 3 Amigos, sniveling, smirking and giggling at my suggestion of the holograph theory on their radio program. I considered the response appropriate and in kind.


Here's what rubs my sore spots...

The idea of a 9/11 conspiracy is very serious. Combined with the ever-growing fascist-leanings of the current administration, 9/11 is a troubling milestone that sparked a cascade of troubling events.


I agree.


There are a number of anecdotal 9/11 "conspiracy theories" that result in detracting from the main thrust of getting to the bottom of who, what, why. This is one of them. I believe that it's based completely in fictional wishful-thinking, eschewing more productive fact-based analysis and information gathering.


I don't consider the holograph theory wishful thinking. Wishful of what? What is the problem with exploring the holograph theory? Why is THIS particular subject so sensitive.


There has been, and will continue to be excellent work at solving some of the hard 9/11 conspiracy questions here on ATS and on many other websites and offline researchers. As someone who cares deeply about these efforts and the perceived credibility of the results, topics like this rub my sore spots... because they end up harming the credibility of everyone working hard at answers that might make a difference.


This is the end run employed against Ufologists: "Hey quit looking for those Grays your ruining the REAL search for UFO's."

We know that the 3 Amigos have members that they trust to provide them with comments on posts. The 'trusted members' have PhD's, Doctorates and are very well informed. But these 'trusted members' can also have an agenda unknown to the 3 Amigos. And that agenda mey be to steer threads away from certain areas. This is why I ask: What's the Big Deal about A Holograph?" Who is this irritating? This is just an exploratory thread...who cares if it's a Holograph? Is this leading to something?


These are my opinions, and do not reflect any management style of AboveTopSecret.com


Wish you'd consider putting back the 'hands washing'. It was a classic.


Now... can we engage in speculation on how the no-plane theory worked?


No speculation required. It worked perfect, absolutely perfect. Not a friggin' soul suspects....er....we need to get rid of those space aliens on that ATS thread, though.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
And oddly enough, the second attack was never shown “live”. It was televised after a 6.5 hour delay at 4:30 PM — just in time for the “evening news”. That’s a fact.

You are incorrect.

The entire world (or, anyone tuned in) watched the live coverage of the second explosion with news anchors expressing surprise at the second plane.

The live angle covered by NY1 (local NY-only cable news channel) clearly showed the second plane as it approached and hit the building... live... real time.


Dear SkepticOverlord:

I was watching everything “live” on TV that day as well (I happened to be off work that day). After the second plane hit I remember the news anchors TALKING about it — but that was all. I cannot recollect seeing any footage of the “plane crash” until later in the day. But that’s neither here nor there. The man who would know is Tim Canale who videotaped the entire day’s transmissions. Here’s a link to his summary of the 9-11 events. He says the WTC-2 attack wasn’t shown until 4:30 PM. www.maebrussell.com...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I don’t feel like slogging through 22 pages here, but has anyone explained just how this “hologram” worked?

It seems to me that this theory is at odds with the basic concept of holography.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I was watching everything “live” on TV that day as well (I happened to be off work that day). After the second plane hit I remember the news anchors TALKING about it — but that was all.

We had NY1 running in the office at the time... they was showing a wide-angle view at the time flight 175(?) hit... and we all clearly saw the plane approach.

Here's an angle you may not have seen:
youtube.com...

Also, these are very compelling:
youtube.com...
youtube.com...

This is very close to the angle I recall seeing via NY1
youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by HowardRoark



I don’t feel like slogging through 22 pages here, but has anyone explained just how this “hologram” worked?


A holographic projector displays a three-dimensional image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can display a moving object such as an airplane or UFO. In a military web page describing technology desired for 2025 it states: “The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management.” They further state, “It is useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.” This military’ wishful thinking, however, was written in the present tense. The paper goes on to describe its capabilities:

Precision projection of 3-D visual images into a selected area
Supports PSYOP and strategic deception
Provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors.

The arugument against holographic projection is argued with todays known understanding and limitations, not what might be commonplace technology years from now.

The counterargument is that todays ‘real’ but unacknowledged technology is far enough advanced to include holographic projections that were used to project images of Boeing 767 flying into the WTC.

To answer the question “Why would they use a holographic projection” my answer would be they didn’t want to waste a perfectly good Boeing 767. They certainly didn’t waste a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon, they didn’t waste one at Shanksville and they probably didn’t waste any on the WTC.

To buy into the ‘holograph theory’ you have to propose where this technology come from. And the answer to that may be too far into outer space for some to buy.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord



Here's an angle you may not have seen:
youtube.com...


I particularly like the comment at the end of the clip, " A remarkable video. Provided to ABC News free."

Free? Free?

Now who's kidding who?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
This is about as believable as a Scooby Doo movie. Where is the picture of the Mossad agent dressed as a bag man with a mask? " I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those damn 9/11 truthers....."

Mr. Lear, where was the projector? and if they did not want to 'waste' an airplane, why waste the resources and the slight chance of the uncovering the technology during this black op as you state? There is no logic to it. None.

2 jets were hijacked, and thousands saw the planes hit, including people on the ground, in the buildings and across the bay. Just as one hit the pentagon, and the one in PA was shot down. That is the only conspiracy, and I beleive this is all disinfo to keep people from investigating 93.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
And oddly enough, the second attack was never shown “live”. It was televised after a 6.5 hour delay at 4:30 PM — just in time for the “evening news”. That’s a fact.


I remember watching the second plane hit tower 2 on the internet minutes after it happened. We had to watch it on a computer because we were at work and didn't have access to any televisions. I wasn't aware they didn't show it on TV until later that night?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Sorry but the one thing I do know about is audio production.

YES. i could go with the theory of an internal holographic projector inside the projectile showing an image of a jet on a coating of minature lcd screens or whatever.This would supply the required jet sound..

But the idea of a ghost plane/projected plane..??

That would require a series of intelligently linked speaker systems to project the incoming 3d jet sound. a la dolby surround at the movies....
..For city blocks for hundreds of meters!!!

THAT would be one huge and very noticable sound system!!...

...AND set a series of explosions that PERFECTLY match the impact points to create the plane shaped entry points

...AND set huge explosive devices that would produce a fire ball out of the opposite side of the impacted building like a reverse shaped charge with a few hundred gallons of napaalm or jet fuel!! THAT would be noticed!!

I,m voting NO on this one.Whatever advanced tech you guys might have over there. It,s just not feasible compared to just crashing fuel laden jets into the buildings



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by esdad71



This is about as believable as a Scooby Doo movie. Where is the picture of the Mossad agent dressed as a bag man with a mask? " I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those damn 9/11 truthers....."


Interesting. Are you serious?


Mr. Lear, where was the projector?


Take a look at Billybobs posts and the small unidentified objects in the sky next to the WTC. On another forum there used to be a thread where this guy collected hundreds of pictures, from hundreds of different sources, of these small unidentified objects hovering around the WTC. Oddly enough, most of the pictures of the small unidentified objects on that other thread looked exectly like the now debunked science fiction channel video object.

Thats whats so interesting about the science channel video. The unidentified object was real, it was one of the objects they used at the WTC. The video was bogus. It was like, "Lets show the real thing and expose it as a hoax, then if anybody brings it up again everybody will know it was a proven hoax. Sheer genius.


and if they did not want to 'waste' an airplane, why waste the resources and the slight chance of the uncovering the technology during this black op as you state? There is no logic to it. None.


Interesting observation. So you believe, so I do that, that 'uncovering this technology" would be undesirable?


2 jets were hijacked, and thousands saw the planes hit, including people on the ground, in the buildings and across the bay. Just as one hit the pentagon, and the one in PA was shot down. That is the only conspiracy, and I beleive this is all disinfo to keep people from investigating 93.


No, actually 4 jets were supposedly hijacked. And what 'thousands' of people saw might have been what Arthur C. Clarke was talking about when he said, "Technology sufficiently advanced would be indistinguishable from Majic.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
Sorry but the one thing I do know about is audio production.

YES. i could go with the theory of an internal holographic projector inside the projectile showing an image of a jet on a coating of minature lcd screens or whatever.This would supply the required jet sound..

But the idea of a ghost plane/projected plane..??

That would require a series of intelligently linked speaker systems to project the incoming 3d jet sound. a la dolby surround at the movies....
..For city blocks for hundreds of meters!!!

THAT would be one huge and very noticable sound system!!...

...AND set a series of explosions that PERFECTLY match the impact points to create the plane shaped entry points

...AND set huge explosive devices that would produce a fire ball out of the opposite side of the impacted building like a reverse shaped charge with a few hundred gallons of napaalm or jet fuel!! THAT would be noticed!!

I,m voting NO on this one.Whatever advanced tech you guys might have over there. It,s just not feasible compared to just crashing fuel laden jets into the buildings


Im not saying I believe the hologram theory....but I am open to the dicussion of it and what you posted all presupposes current technology and I think everyone on this thread agrees its just not possible with known current technology to produce a hologram and make it seem as real as the planes that hit the WTC.

But, who of us here can honestly say they know what is spent on govt black ops programs and what their current level of technology is? And unless or until those question are known then I think the whole question of was it or could it have been a hologram will be unanswered.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

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.

My opinion is that this technology was perfected about 15 years ago.


In your opinion is this what was also done at the pentagon? Is that why witnesses claim it was an large commerical aircraft but all evidence points to possibly a missle or drone?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Wizard,
I am not sure what you want me to elaborate on? I worked on 52nd and 7th at the time and was bringing a server back up tape to our other office which is on Wall St. It was a nice day so I walked. About when I got to the Time square is when the first Plane hit. I was actually getting breakfast at a deli. Someone came in and yelled that the trade center just blew up. We all ran out and started making our way downtown. I sat on the curb and tried calling my friend who worked in the towers but couldn't get through. Luckily he didn't listen to corporate security and got out as soon as the first tower was hit. I heard someone yell o my god, here comes another plane and looked up to see another plane, Which ended up hitting a building in front of my eyes, and all of lower manhattans. I remember after running uptown for about 20 blocks laying down to catch my breath and was talking with others that followed. People were talking about how F@cking wierd it was to see the towers get hit by the plane. Now, I will admit that from where I was sitting I didn't not see the Plane enter the building. I saw it come across the horizon, disappear behind the building and then a very large fire ball come out.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
thank you skeptic, for the kind words.
thank you john for caring enough to go out on a limb.

no need for anyone to get hot under the collar, though. i'm cool. we're just talking, eh?

anyway, regarding the possibility of 'well poisoning'...

first of all, i don't want to have to 'promote' the ideas of nukes in the elevator shafts('clean' micro-nukes which do not exist to the public's knowledge), and the idea of holographic planes(now, THERE'S a real technical challenge, as well as a big "why?"). however, there is evidence of these things.
in particular, the two seperate camera angles, of stills from nearly the exact same moment, which both show the complete absence of the rear stabilizer.
i guess i could buy digital compression as an excuse for the far shot with the disappearing left wing, but the two cameras from underneath, no. they are close to the building, and it's the exact same wing at the exact same moment. it's simply not there(in high resolution).
much like the radioactive fallout ingredients that ARE there after the collapse...can all that strontium, uranium, molybedum and whatnot be from exit signs and drywall?


if the 'truth movement' did not explore alternative theories, no matter how 'far fetched', we would still all believe in magical jet fuel. i heard the hologram theory years ago, and simply hand-waved it away in my mind(a rare thing for my very entertaining mind) as ludicrous.
however, the theory came from the guys at 'cloakanddagger.de', and those buys are on my short list of who's who in conspiracy research. they've got alex jones, sherman skolnik(r.i.p.), eric phelps, 'ghost troop', etc. as guests and collaborators all the time.

do i LIKE having to tell people that the world leaders snuff little boys on film while soddomising them in front of a giant stone owl in the redwood forests? that there are pedo-sex parties at the whitehouse, which are protected by the secret service(catered by, even.)? that the president stole the election with voting machines? that the wars that are going on are all staged in a vast shadow puppet show? that elements within the government have no more concern for the citizens of their own country, than they have for soldiers of a country their 'at war' with?
the current world is so far removed from what television would have us believe, that there is a MASSIVE gap between people who read/listen the internet/radio, vs. people who watch/read/listen to TV/newspapers/radio.
the biggest difference, is that the internet has no pyramid heirarchy. it is a parallel interface with millions or billions of nodes. of course, this allows for ANYTHING, and only the very discerning can filter the noise based on it's CONTENT, and not HOW IT STANDS AGAINST YOUR CURRENT CONCEPTION OF REALITY. it is not east to throw out the bath water and keep the baby, when the bathwater is an ocean.


we learned from JFK, that a riddle is less easy, if not impossible to solve if it is wrapped in an enigma, right? that is one good motivation in itself, now include the good point john made about saving millions of dollars worth of equipment(which can then be retrofitted and used by the shadow community for weekend getaways at bohemian grove, or something). i glommed onto the idea that ALL or most of the passengers were in a kind of 'witness relocation', where they get new identities and new lives, after the "no arabs on autopsy" thread. the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon was brimming with military and government personnel, notably many raytheon 'fly by wire' remote guidance employees and execs from the global hawk program.

the positive identification of the dna from the pentagon was done by the military. once again, the foxes are guarding the hen house.

i still don't 'buy' aliens, but i don't make that an irrefutable 'NOT' in my mind. alien soul suckers on the moon are not impossible, just because i've never seen an alien or a soul sucker, or a soul, for that matter.

the same of holographic technology. just because i've never seen it, does not mean it doesn't exist, and that is true for all of us.

what i do know, is that planes have two stabiliser wings(it keeps them from spinning).


wow. long-winded.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join