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: 24
2
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
still wondering where the sound came from if its a hologram??? i mean the oh if they have a hologram they have no problem making the sound for it just isnt enough




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Actually ignorant_ape my tongue was in my cheek


yeah right - typical lear flip flop - its a " fact " ony when confirmed in triplicate - and anything else he says is subject to summary volte face claiming " it was only jest " .

thanks fo playing

I always enjoy seeing you spin yourself up into the ceiling.

thanks for confirming that you post just to get cheep jollies from members reaction .

that is trolling .

however you are too dammed funny to put on ignore - carry on

you are great spectator sport on crappy mornings .



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
This is how it was done.

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). 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).

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.





Hi John do you seriously believe that this technology was used that day or are you just making us aware that it exists, also what is the possibility of the planes being remote controlled?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Congratulations - this has to be the silliest thread I've ever seen and is proof that some people like to make up this stuff and see how many people buy it.

A few points -

1. As has been asked earlier, where would a hologram projecter be placed to give the general flight path of the planes, no to mention their final approach?

2. How would the sound be generated?

3. How could it work so perfectly that none of the thosands of people who saw the planes noticed even the slightest flaw in the projection?

4. What happened to the actual people on the planes?

5. Why did plane parts shoot out of the other side of at least one tower?

I think that this flies in the face of Occam's Razor.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Hi all,

The explanations Skeptic has furnished regarding image artifacts is extremely relevant to this discussion, and cannot be dismissed. It would be rediculous to examine digital video seriously while not taking that into account.

That said, what we really need here is some high definition media. As far as I know, none is available of the impacts. An appropriate priority now would be searching for some. That is really all that can keep this theory alive, unless other potential evidence is uncovered.

Throughout this thread I interpretted John to be defending open mindedness, I am sure he can appreciate more than anyone the vast extent of classified military technology. Let's be realistic for a moment. No-one here knows what "they" have.

That truth alone cannot support this theory - but it does mean we can still acknowledge possibilities.


There is one thing that perplexes me, perhaps this can be easily explained, but why on all the 9/11 videos is there no impact sound? Not even a faint noise.. the only thing I hear is jet engines and a delayed explosion boom (a second or two after the plane dissapears inside). I am assuming that is when the jet fuel ignites, but should there not be a sound for the initial strike?

Let me know your thoughts.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
many people here , most notably John Lear , claim that poorly trained , low skill pilots would be incapable of ramming a plane into the ground

first the experiences of japanese ` kamekazi pilts ` during WWII - with < 10 hours yup, 10 hours instruction - they were still able to hit moving targets @ hi speed which were both taking evasive action AND putting up defensive fire .

that is far less " training " than the 9/11 pilots had , and a far more difficult manouver -- they 9/11 pilots hads no distractions -- and a much larger sitting duck target .



You must be kidding. At least, I hope you are.

While this is not the thread to discuss hijacker vs no hijacker, I can also unequivocally guarantee you that the maneuver on 9/11 was not only way harder to pull off than hitting an aircraft carrier in a manueverable piston-engined fighter, but it was also impossible to acheive without a solid and decent skill in airmanship.

If the supposed hijackers were really professional pilots with hundreds or thousands of hours flight time, don't you think the government spin machine would say so?

Judging by 9/11 footage, a conclusion like the one you have made is even harder to swallow than the fringe holograph theory.

Personally I think you should take a good, long, look into the evidence for remote control.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
many people here , most notably John Lear , claim that poorly trained , low skill pilots would be incapable of ramming a plane into the ground



Hrm... that's odd...
www.fantasticforum.com
(Bottom post of thread)

As I mentioned on Art's show last March it would have been a simple matter to train a non-pilot to:

Once in air and having taken over the cockpit to (1) reach up on the overhead panel and pull the ATC transponder circuit breaker (2) sit in the left seat and buckle up) (3) disconnect the autopilot (4) tune in the JFK VOR (5) turn the airplane towards New York (6) start a descent (7) when established on the heading and within 20 miles tune in the Colts Neck VOR and follow it (8) arrive in an arcing turn towards the north over Colts Neck VOR at 1000 feet (9) Visually pick up the first of maybe 4 major check points that would lead directly to the WTC (10) establish visual contact with the WTC (11) descend to 600 feet (12) when established on course to WTC and level at 600 feet put throttles full forward (aircraft hit at 605 mph according to last primary radar hit)(12) over last checkpoint, approximately 2 miles and approximately 12 seconds from impact travelling at 605 mph (aircraft is travelling 1 mile every 6 seconds) turn aircraft to 90 degrees right bank (no course change will occur because of speed) so that impact of place will cause the most damage to the most number of floors. Neither the pilot nor anybody in the airplane ever felt the slightest discomfort as there would not been enough time for any kind for sensation or pain to travel to the brain.


Now... it's certainly possible for people to change their mind, I know I have regarding 9/11 events quite a few times. But John's been active on that forum for quite some time, and there are only two threads where both "9/11" and "hologram" appear... but John must not have noticed since we don't have the benefit of his comments on this topic within another context.

It can certainly be a challenging and valuable mental exercise to speculate on "what if" scenarios so that we remain well versed in the upper limits of what might be. However, when "what if" becomes "must have" without any new supporting evidence, this is when we run into trouble.

While a handful of the videos might indicate some compelling anomalies that appear to document portions of the plane disappearing, most of the stills and videos do not. Additionally, on one hand we can easily argue that we mere civilians have no clue as to the advanced state of top-secret holographic projection, on the other hand we anticipate such projects may behave as we've seen in Hollywood movies.


Given all we've seen and discussed on these issues over the years, I remain open to the concept that these flights were actual civilian passenger jets that were prepared for their task of the day... the preparation could include a long list of hardening, explosives, and remote control contingency plans.

And while we may not be completely aware of the possibilities of top-secret holographic technology, we can certainly speculate with reasonable accuracy that the following would be needed:
1) A large stable platform for projection (not a small rotor-driven drone)
2) Reasonably close platform for bright daylight projection
3) Unknown technology to "project" darkness
4) Large surface area sound emitters
5) Precisely placed explosives in the building to uniquely explode inward in the shape of an aircraft
6) Precisely place pyrotechnics in the building to create a fireball with inertia in the same path as the hologram
7) Precisely place catapults (or similar) in the building to expel aircraft parts with the same vector as the hologram
8) Precise holography that calculates and displays realtime light and shading consistent with the hologram surroundings


Now, in the past, I've researched and commented on Project Blue Beam and related skunk-like projects... so I'm aware of the technological aspirations related to having and using technology that is speculated in this thread. However, it's important to remember that the "Space Show" as attributed to Blue Beam was to create something that didn't exist. These aircraft exist... and it's infinitely easier to fly actual aircraft into the buildings... the details of which are speculated in countless other ATS threads.



These opinions are my own and do not indicate any possible management position, direction, or intent of AboveTopSecret.com, nor do they indicate any official editorial direction, intent, or mandate of any type.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I know this is hearsay but here goes. My friend knows a lady who owns a convertable. Well, she had her top down on 9/11 on highway 395. The plane clipped trees and the leaves fell into her car. She claims that she saw a passenger jet fly over her car and hit the pentagon. I know, hearsay but that was the clincher for me.

Edit: Wrong thread...sorry. I didn't read the rest of the title to see that it was WTC...not pentagon....duh.


Dear Griff:

Hearsay is permitted — don’t be shy. I also realize were in the wrong thread to discuss this — but not entirely. The same “magic tricks” that were used in NYC may have been applied at the Pentagon as well. Who knows. In any case the moderators can “move us” to another thread if necessary, we don’t have the “power” to do that. So, see ya in “Skunkworks!”.

There is no telling what kind of David-Copperfieldian stunts were pulled off on 9-11. Like seeing acts performed at a magic show — we know they’re staged but we still can’t explain them. Or are we to believe that the lady really got sawed in half? Magicians closely guard their “secrets”. They must, it’s the essence of their trade.

Here’s another link to one of the many professional pilots who don’t think planes could have been flown the way we were told they did. USAF captain Russ Wittenberg — www.arcticbeacon.com...

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/25/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by g60kg




Hi John do you seriously believe that this technology was used that day or are you just making us aware that it exists, also what is the possibility of the planes being remote controlled?


Good morning g60kg. First of all, in the above post, I made an error in saying "This is how it was done." What I should have said was "This is a possibility of how it was done."

That said, I believe that the subject of holography pertaining to the WTC events of 911 deserves more investigation. There are many unanswered questions about the WTC event including, "Where is the debris of the airplanes?" to warrant a look. As in the Pentagon and Shanksville 'supposed' crashes we have no wreckage to speak of. The ill-informed will point to a turbine section or a wheel or a piece of metal and are convinced that this represents all that remains of a 200,000 airliner. Of course, legitimate and experienced aircraft accident investigators know this cannot be true. So considering the FACT that there was no airplanes in the Pentagon or Shanksville crashes I think we should consider there might have not been any airplanes at the WTC.

What I find interesting is the 'hysterical' reaction on this thread to the proposal that it might have been a holograph we saw crash into the WTC. We even have 2 "Amigos' weighing in and trying to influence the discussion. People are not generally accustomed to thinking about things like this in terms of techonology that might be sufficiently advanced as to be considered "Magic". People resent the fact that they may have been fooled and they don't want to admit that such a thing could happen. And they will take any and all necessary steps to protect that ego.

I prefer to look at all sides of the question, any question. I particularly like to challenge the statement, "This has already been debunked," because usually whatever it is has not been 'debunked' but merely slandered and ridiculed to the point nobody wants to pursue the matter.

As to your question about remote control, yes, I believe that if it was not a holograph, that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC were remote controlled. There was nobody inside them, no pilots, no passengers. There were certainly no Arab pilot hijackers as it would have been impossible, not unlikely, but impossible for a pilot with limited experience to have accomplished that feat of hitting the WTC in a single pass for reasons I have outlined in detail in other threads.

The other thing I find very interesting is that in the effort to draw attention away from the investigation of holographs is that it is proposed that the subject matter "is drawing attention away from the real investigation." One amigo even cited a "911 Truth Analyst" (I presume one of about 200 million of us) who allegedly called the holograph theory "rubbish". Now thats an odd statement to make on one of the worlds largest conspiracy forums.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
many people here , most notably John Lear , claim that poorly trained , low skill pilots would be incapable of ramming a plane into the ground



Hrm... that's odd...

www.fantasticforum.com


appologies - but waging from the mire of john lear fact / fiction / speculation " to encourahe discusion " is beyound my patience right now .

but this post :

lear single post

sort of addresses the issue - thats the best i can find in the time i am prepared to allocate .

please note that his senario of " flying 5 feet off the ground " is a strawman

the pentagon plane was on a terminal dive - it did not hit the pentagon with wings level - the only time it was ever " 5 feet off the ground " was milliseconds before impact - after striking the genset housing - that was over 10 feet high

it cliped light poles @ heights of about 5m

further it did not strike the pentagon with wings level - so it is posible it was loosing stability due to ground effect interference

but by that point it did not matter - its foward velocity was faster than any rate of roll .

there you have it - lear not only claimed that he did not believe the plane was flown into pentagon - but also gave spurious reasons why it was in his opinion imposible .



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
FAO : SKEPTIC OVERLORD

does this answer your querry ?


Originally posted by johnlear

As to your question about remote control, yes, I believe that if it was not a holograph, that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC were remote controlled. There was nobody inside them, no pilots, no passengers. There were certainly no Arab pilot hijackers as it would have been impossible, not unlikely, but impossible for a pilot with limited experience to have accomplished that feat of hitting the WTC in a single pass for reasons I have outlined in detail in other threads.
.


i will let some one else locate the thread where he says that hitting WTC is impossible - but hitting WTC was a very simple procedure

and to address the external site you quoted - yes it does seem lear has flip flopped

do i get a cookie



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Where were the projectors? it is a simple question that none of you want to answer.

Also, the planes that hit hte WTC came from 2 different directions, so does that mean that there were 'two' projector sites that were used?

The remote control aspect of this is funny also, since people are claiming that a trained pilot would have a hard time hitting the WTC.Tell me logic on how someone could 'remotely pilot' the plane but could not manually fly it? more crickets...

Note that DARPA is currently working with a future gen technology for holographic images with a few corporations that was reported in early 2006, but there is nothing on the scale that is suggested that would have been applicable in 2001 that can be found or even referenced.

There is conspriacy theory, and there is fiction. When the 2 start to blur, the arguement is lost.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i will let some one else locate the thread where he says that hitting WTC is impossible -

It's in this very thread --> Single Post

I have written extensively about the skill required to fly a Boeing 767 and hit the WTC at 400 to 500 kts. I have 19,000 hours of time most of which is in 3 engine and 4 engine large transports. I have much of that time instructing both in the aircraft and flight simulators. I categorically state that it is impossible, not unlikely, but impossible for a pilot with the limited skill of those who allegedly flew the aircraft to have hit the WTC.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The remote control aspect of this is funny also, since people are claiming that a trained pilot would have a hard time hitting the WTC.Tell me logic on how someone could 'remotely pilot' the plane but could not manually fly it? more crickets...


This is a much more probable scenario that remotely projected holograms.

Automated controls systems and remote flight management are pretty sophisticated at a civilian level. We can assume that military systems are likely even more advanced and potentially very accurate... witnessed by videos of smart bombs and cruise missiles.


[edit on 25-10-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by esdad71
The remote control aspect of this is funny also, since people are claiming that a trained pilot would have a hard time hitting the WTC.Tell me logic on how someone could 'remotely pilot' the plane but could not manually fly it? more crickets...


This is a much more probably scenario that remotely projected holograms.

Automated controls systems and remote flight management are pretty sophisticated at a civilian level. We can assume that military systems are likely even more advanced and potentially very accurate... witnessed by videos of smart bombs and cruise missiles.


I also believe this could have been a probable method the site below illustrates the capabilities the 'global hawk' program has acheived, this is probably nothing compared to what it is really capable of if we go according to John Lear who suggests that the military are 50 years ahead of conventional technology

www.af.mil...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
NJStomp....if you were at times square you would not of been able to see the planes fly into the trade center. Unless they were showing it on the jumbo-tron. The Trade center is over 50 city blocks away. There would of been to many biuldings in the way, unless you were getting breakfast at the Marriot in Times square at their rotating restraunt (excellent food & view by the way).

I watched the 2nd plane hit from my office at 25 broadway (~3-4 blocks away) and was ~1 block away when the first tower fell.

Planes flew into the building and no explosives were used.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   


People are not generally accustomed to thinking about things like this in terms of techonology that might be sufficiently advanced as to be considered "Magic".


What is a hologram? Is it not an illusion? Then why is it people are so willing to except illusions preformed by magicians but completely disregard the possibility that what they saw on 9-11 might have been an "illusion".
For those of you that are disregarding the possibility check these famous illusions out and tell us how they were done.
And if you cant tell us how they were done then how can you say that some form of an illusion was not done on 9-11.
statue of liberty
walking through glass
flying



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

Planes flew into the building and no explosives were used.


that is a bold statement how could you tell that no explosives were used?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape




appologies - but waging from the mire of john lear fact / fiction / speculation " to encourahe discusion " is beyound my patience right now .


Apologies accepted. Take a couple of aspirin, try some deep breathing excercise. Maybe you could even take the time to familiarize yourself with spell check.


please note that his senario of " flying 5 feet off the ground " is a strawman

the pentagon plane was on a terminal dive


Your alleged Boeing 757 was not diving. If it had been the vertical stabilizer would have made a mark on the top of the Pentagon. There is no mark. Thats the reason you have to decide between the 2 allegations: either is was 5 feet off the ground and the tail was not high enough to make the mark or it was in a slight dive and you have to explain why there is no mark.


- it did not hit the pentagon with wings level - the only time it was ever " 5 feet off the ground " was milliseconds before impact - after striking the genset housing - that was over 10 feet high. it cliped light poles @ heights of about 5m


Your choice: 5 ft. high and no marks on the lawn, no tree damage, light poles knocked over (not thrown clear after being hit by an aircraft traveling 500 mph) or,
diving, missing the poles, no mark of the vertical stabilizer at the top floor of the Pentagon.

You can't have it both ways.


further it did not strike the pentagon with wings level - so it is posible it was loosing stability due to ground effect interference


The airplane was traveling about 700 feet per second. How much stability do you suppose it could lose in less than a second that would have made any difference?


but by that point it did not matter - its foward velocity was faster than any rate of roll .


Rate of roll is measured in degrees per second. Forward velocity is measured in statute or nautical miles per hour. What is the connection you are proposing, pray tell?


there you have it - lear not only claimed that he did not believe the plane was flown into pentagon - but also gave spurious reasons why it was in his opinion imposible .


Spurious? Try this one, (yours) "Its forward velocity was faster than any rate of roll." Question: Would that rate of roll be in statute degrees per second or nautical degrees per second? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Ok, there's a bunch of people posting here throwing snide comments around. Let's post with decorum please.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join