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: 23
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by denythestatusquo



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?



Thats very possible. I actually hadn't thought of using the holograph at the Pentagon because of the overwhelming evidence of a missile. But a holograph would certainly explain why 'some' people saw a Boeing 757 or at least 'a large' airplane. Thanks for the heads up.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordWe 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.


Dear SkepticOverlord:

Thank you for responding to my post and for listing four links to support your findings.

I cannot provide any scientific retort to the video-clips shown on “youtube”. Intuitively, just by listening to the demeanor of the voices and what they are saying I am entirely certain that they are coming from “actors”. But of course I cannot prove this.

But that’s not important here. Since I have YOUR WORD, SkepticOverlord, that you watched these clips as real live feed on the morning of 9-11. That in itself overrides the “fakeness issue” of the TV footage, because the main question was the timing of the airing. I said 4:30 PM — based on secondhand information. You’re saying you viewed it “live”, and that’s firsthand knowledge. So it supersedes what Tim Canale (my source) reported.

All I can contribute to the “no planes at the WTC theory” is other people’s insights (along with my own of course). There are smart and knowledgeable persons on both side of the discussion — as with practically any issue. So for better or worse here’s another link to one of the many doubters of the physical presence of commercial aircraft in the 9-11 attacks; USAF colonel George Nelson — www.physics911.net...

George Nelson is a former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority with a 34-year Air Force career.


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
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.

I assume you're referencing this site: nineeleven2001.t35.com...
Could you help me out by posting links to the actual images. That page has lots of links to images and I'm not sure which you're referncing.
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by denythestatusquo



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?



Thats very possible. I actually hadn't thought of using the holograph at the Pentagon because of the overwhelming evidence of a missile. But a holograph would certainly explain why 'some' people saw a Boeing 757 or at least 'a large' airplane. Thanks for the heads up.


Mr. John Lear, what do you think or know of what happened with the 10-11-06 New York City "plane crash" into a building?
I have created a thread about this here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
From the footage, the plane in question appears to not hit the building but actually travel away from the buildings just above the water on the left side of the screen:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The Scooby Doo comment was sarcasm, but the question is, where was the projector? Can anyone go out on a limb and suggest where it may have been?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
while discusing fantasies of " holographic projections " of planes with lear .

ATS member denythestatusquo wrote :



Is that why witnesses claim it was an large commerical aircraft but all evidence points to possibly a missle or drone?


why do you insist on adding layer of complexity after layer of complexity

so far none of you have claimed that missiles / drones were used @ WTC 1 / WTC2

rather you claim " holograms planes " were projected at the towers - and bombs exploded within the towers

now you claim that a missile / drone was used at the pentagon - in adition to the " hologram plane "

especially as lear cleains that " no planes were used to save money " if you require a hologram @ pentagon to cover up the fact there is no plane

your claims of a missile / drone - are both an aditional complexity

and an unwarranted expence despite your claim the holograms are " cost savers "

according to internet souces - missiles / drones - odf any capacity run to hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions .

a large explosive charge - costs 10s of dollars .

why not use a bomb in the pentagon wall - and the " hologram plane" @ pentagon too ?

you are attempting to use differeing criteria to force one theory to encompass contradictory evidence .



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods



So for better or worse here’s another link to one of the many doubters of the physical presence of commercial aircraft in the 9-11 attacks; USAF colonel George Nelson. George Nelson is a former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority with a 34-year Air Force career.




Thanks Wizards, interesting read. You should take SO's account with a grain of salt as all of us were traumetized that morning and there is no telling what he saw or thought he saw. He might think he is honestly telling the truth about seeing the crash on TV but the memory might be a manifestation of what 'he thinks' he remembers during that traumatic day.



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

Originally posted by johnlear
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.


So what proof do you have that any of this technology exists today, let alone 5 years ago?

You might as well claim that the “explosives” were teleported into the building at the last second using quantum teleportation technology, or that Captain Kirk used a transporter to do the dirty deed.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods



So for better or worse here’s another link to one of the many doubters of the physical presence of commercial aircraft in the 9-11 attacks; USAF colonel George Nelson. George Nelson is a former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority with a 34-year Air Force career.




Thanks Wizards, interesting read. You should take SO's account with a grain of salt as all of us were traumetized that morning and there is no telling what he saw or thought he saw. He might think he is honestly telling the truth about seeing the crash on TV but the memory might be a manifestation of what 'he thinks' he remembers during that traumatic day.


John, I did see indeed as almost everyone else saw that day. But I'm really VERY sceptical of how they could take the tapes from all the different camera angles of the numerous news teams from the day. Then manipulate them to show holograms or............. well what do you suggest? I'm confused. John, can you please let me know how you could explain this?

Thanks X

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

in this picture, (link), you can see two different camera angles BOTH showing the SAME missing rear stabilizer wing, on the right side.
interestingly, that is not what the good conspiracy researcher was even pointing out with that image comparison.



that's it, above, overlord.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   


So what proof do you have that any of this technology exists today, let alone 5 years ago?


How is someone going to have proof of govt blacks ops technology? In all seriousness JL has given his opinion he has never claimed to my knowledge he had proof of the technolgy it would take, if he did then we would all be debating the merits of the proof and not what is currently being debated.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by etshrtslr]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by Xeros




John, I did see indeed as almost everyone else saw that day. But I'm really VERY sceptical of how they could take the tapes from all the different camera angles of the numerous news teams from the day. Then manipulate them to show holograms or............. well what do you suggest? I'm confused. John, can you please let me know how you could explain this?



Xeros. There is nothing to manipulate. Holographs are 3 dimensional. That means the image that is projected can be seen from any direction, left, right, up, down, sideways, crossways and it will still look the same.

If it were possible to project a holograph of a Boeing 767 over Manhatten, it would look the same to everybody, everywhere. People in buildings. People in sewers. People on the streets. People on the sidewalks, people in buses, people in cars. It doesn't matter where you are...its a three dimensional projection. The same goes for video and film. It records an image of a 3 dimensional holograph showing a Boeing 767 flying into the buiding.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Xeros




John, I did see indeed as almost everyone else saw that day. But I'm really VERY sceptical of how they could take the tapes from all the different camera angles of the numerous news teams from the day. Then manipulate them to show holograms or............. well what do you suggest? I'm confused. John, can you please let me know how you could explain this?



Xeros. There is nothing to manipulate. Holographs are 3 dimensional. That means the image that is projected can be seen from any direction, left, right, up, down, sideways, crossways and it will still look the same.

If it were possible to project a holograph of a Boeing 767 over Manhatten, it would look the same to everybody, everywhere. People in buildings. People in sewers. People on the streets. People on the sidewalks, people in buses, people in cars. It doesn't matter where you are...its a three dimensional projection. The same goes for video and film. It records an image of a 3 dimensional holograph showing a Boeing 767 flying into the buiding.


Thanks John,
Okay, well that's fine. I misunderstood you in a way. Why is it revevant for the delay in showing the second plane hitting (which I thought you were getting at previously?) The events as I'm sure you agree, are not confined to how people percieved the event ie. "of what 'he thinks' he remembers during that traumatic day" because wether or not they were holograms, we all can see the "fakery" in retrospect?

X

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
You should take SO's account with a grain of salt as all of us were traumetized that morning and there is no telling what he saw or thought he saw.


priceless - utterly fooking priceless

so we can dismiss any witness testimony we want - claiming they were " traumatised " can we

stange how CTers do not apply the same logic to people whoes " testimony " fits thier adjenda



He might think he is honestly telling the truth about seeing the crash on TV but the memory might be a manifestation of what 'he thinks' he remembers during that traumatic day.


ROFLMAO - now lear knows more about what SO remembers than SO does - priceless .

PS - lear - is this a " fact " or just your " discusion promoting conjecture " -- for the record ?

PPS - i was @ work on september 11th 2001 - but was working a slpit shift - so i came home at 17:00 GMT - and at that time the BBC had footage of BOTH planes crashing , and both towers collapsing

due to the time zone off set - it was 12:00 in NYC - noon , i h\ad been aware of the unfolding tragedy via radio and phone calls from friends - but didnt know the twowers had collapsed

there you have it - it [ 2nd plane crash ] was on UK tv @ 12:00 NYC time at the latest

do not tell me what i saw
i was here - you were not .



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJStomp
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.


Dear NJStomp:

Thank you for your follow up post. And I believe you. The difficult part for me here is to reconcile what someone like yourself actually saw and the seemingly non-existent physical evidence to support your sightings. I.e. no verifiable wreckage whatsoever, buildings constructed in ways that theoretically prohibit what appeared to have happened and no credible documentation visual or audio.

The plane issue is not a critical 9-11 research issue — the building collapses are. Still, it would be better if we understood the entire picture instead of just parts of the puzzle. At some point there will be an explanation for everything.

Thanks again for sharing your recollections.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/24/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape




priceless - utterly fooking priceless

so we can dismiss any witness testimony we want - claiming they were " traumatised " can we

stange how CTers do not apply the same logic to people whoes " testimony " fits thier adjenda


ROFLMAO - now lear knows more about what SO remembers than SO does - priceless .

PS - lear - is this a " fact " or just your " discusion promoting conjecture " -- for the record ?

PPS - i was @ work on september 11th 2001 - but was working a slpit shift - so i came home at 17:00 GMT - and at that time the BBC had footage of BOTH planes crashing , and both towers collapsing

due to the time zone off set - it was 12:00 in NYC - noon , i h\ad been aware of the unfolding tragedy via radio and phone calls from friends - but didnt know the twowers had collapsed

there you have it - it [ 2nd plane crash ] was on UK tv @ 12:00 NYC time at the latest

do not tell me what i saw
i was here - you were not .



Actually ignorant_ape my tongue was in my cheek but I couldn't find an appropriate smiley face. But thanks for your response. I always enjoy seeing you spin yourself up into the ceiling.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
There are some theories that are so far out there, even trying to explore it with an open mind is extremely difficult.

A great deal of the entire population of this planet witnessed the events of 9/11/01. And from that day to this, there are a multitude of unanswered questions, and potential conspiracies. There are some who are doing real research, snooping out facts, and on a quest for the truth. But when a theory as ridiculous as I've seen in this thread captivates some, and others protect and defend it with such passion, I really wonder who's agenda is ultimately being played out here.

If the objective is to trash the truth seekers, and die-hard 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it could be working.

At least here in the ATS community, almost any theory can be presented and discussed, but more important than that. This community can and will find a way to deny ignorance.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_GazzBut when a theory as ridiculous as I've seen in this thread captivates some, and others protect and defend it with such passion, I really wonder who's agenda is ultimately being played out here.


that it is a ridiculous theory is a foregone conclusion for you.
not for me.
i have always had an itch at the back of my mind that i could only scratch with absurd arguments. ie. the plane entered the building too easily. so, you either have a hole being opened before a real plane with explosives shaped to make a (cartoon) cutout like an airplane, or you have a fake plane with explosives blowing out a cartoon cutout of an airplane.
what's more absurd to me, is that that 'intense grid' of steel, would not visibly slow the plane, nor would the plane show any deformation(except parts of it winking in and out of reality).

now, i don't know if you followed the link to that ONE JPEG that clearly shows two cameras showing the SAME missing wing, but, to me just saying 'ridiculous theory' does not make it reappear, nor does it explain how that wing can just be NOT THERE.

but, anyway, when i'm denying ignorance(which often means throwing out my previous conceptions of what is real, unreal, possible, impossible), i don't merely ignore such a compelling evidence.

there is also zero deflection of debris. the ENTIRE plane enters the building. that is not very likely in the real world of physical collsions. sure, the inertia argument will carry a lot of 'weight', but for there to be no slowing of the plane, and no little bits of aluminum confetti or other plane debris bouncing off the impact point, is nigh unbelievable(see, i didn't say 'impossible', it just doesn't wash with my educated intuition).

and how about them weird hovering things? should we just 'ignore' them? is that not embracing ignorance?

the 'truth movement' is a herd of cats. i think it's best that way, personally. i wouldn't want to be a mouse around a herd of cats.




edited, because everyone's heard of cats.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by billybob]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
in this picture, (link), you can see two different camera angles BOTH showing the SAME missing rear stabilizer wing

Okay, thanks BB... here's some closer looks below...


The first one from your link

This does look odd, and is clearly very likely a still of a digital video (which is almost all imagery available online). It also looks like it's been improperly scaled with pixel interpolation which could result in smoothing some edges that might otherwise show the stabilizer.


This next one from the link

Clearly is taken from a digital video as we see the interlacing artifacts (horizontal jaggies)... and is also likely a tween frame... meaning it's take from between keyframes because of the very heavy compression artifacts. There's a dark horizontal compression artifact where the left stabilizer should be... but otherwise also looks like it could be missing.

However... remember... we need to look at as much material as possible when the source data (compressed digital videos) is individually inconclusive.


Here's a popular shot

Here we can clearly see the stabilizer.

And this one

While this is also a heavily-compressed digital video, we can indeed see a gray stabilizer against the blue-green of the building. And this angle further reinforces that the contrast of the stabilizer at this angle may have been an issue for the two images on the link you provided... meaning the compression of the digital video codec smoothed out the area of flat contrast where the stabilizer should be.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Again, just like I ask about proof of explosives, WHERE was the projector for the holographic planes??? I mean, 23 pages of posts, and not one person can pinpoint where it was or give me a solid answer.




top topics



 
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join