Why there were no planes at the WTC

no planes ? Such an idea really doesn't deserve being dignified by being acknowledged, but with the writers strike, the only good entertainment these days is ATS

Originally posted by brainsucker

We've got a theoric simulation and a "real" experiment that do not match at all.

Then the theory is wrong. Hence a "theory".

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
no planes ? Such an idea really doesn't deserve being dignified by being acknowledged, but with the writers strike, the only good entertainment these days is ATS

Now all you have to do is prove when and where the photos were taken, who took them and if any parts match the planes.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


I guess those plane parts are quite shine to be dig out from the ruins. Maybe they polished them for investigations.

That video indeed is compelling. I noticed how the narrator emphasizes the sound of the jet engine when it hits, as to the debunk the hologram theory, even she didn't mention it. Hologram wouldn't make any sound right?

On youtube I encountered this video, where user 6HT3 says:

The 2nd plane was a hologram. Before you even think that, that is to science fiction, know that the US Air Force has been using hologramed B-2 stealth bombers in the Middle East since the summer of 2005, and the US military admitted in late 2004 that they perfected cloaking technology.

I mean, I am confused. Does anyone know more about this hologram technology? Is there very informative threads here on ATS about it? I tried to search some, but found only threads not so informative

In case johnlear happens to read this:

Originally posted by johnlear
This is how it was done.

This paper (www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm)

That link didn't work anymore.. Could you post working one, please. Thanks

This whole thing seems very interesting so I couldn't resist myself necromancing this thread. I tried googling stuff about hologram technology and hologram projecting, but surprisingly I couldn't find anything informative. If someone knows good sources to look, even if they are books and stuff, please let us(ATS) know. Thanks

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
no planes ? Such an idea really doesn't deserve being dignified by being acknowledged, but with the writers strike, the only good entertainment these days is ATS

I did not witness any of that type metal flying out of either WTC tower. That is a roof of some non-identified building.

How is it all that metal escaped without any carbon residue, if there was supposed to be an explosion alleged to be caused by alleged planes, and then entire 767s alleged to be "swallowed" by buildings, plus, alleged raging carbon based fires inside buildings? What metal there is, in the photo you presented, looks in fairly pristine condition all considered.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You would think that that large chunk of WTC 1's facade in the background MIGHT give you a clue as to where the picture was taken.....

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

You would think that that large chunk of WTC 1's facade in the background MIGHT give you a clue as to where the picture was taken.....

It certainly is not at ground level based on the background. It appears to be some level of roof terrace on some unidentified building. Since you brought it up, exactly which surrounding building was it that photo was taken? Please name it. I have no idea, which is why I called it unidentified roof.

Furthermore, I do not understand your irrelevant point. Perhaps you could qualify that as well?

I believe it is what was left of WTC5...not QUITE sure, but pretty sure.

And if you didnt understand my post in response to Ultima...then feel free in the future to NOT respond to posts you dont understand.

reply to post by OrionStars


Because that particular chunk of metal transited the tower and landed on another building OUTSIDE of the fire.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Because that particular chunk of metal transited the tower and landed on another building OUTSIDE of the fire.

Fair enough. Since you are so positive of that, please validate it with physical evidence, plus, the exact tower from which you are so certain it came.

That background looks a little odd in the photo. I cannot pinpoint what is odd about it. It just looks odd compared to the forefront.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I believe it is what was left of WTC5...not QUITE sure, but pretty sure.

Unless, WTC 5 had roof terraces at some level(s), it could not be WTC 5. It has to be a building with some level(s) of roof terraces. That is what the photo states as well.

911research.wtc7.net...

There you go. You can click on all the other links on that page for yourself.

reply to post by brainsucker


Yes, quite possible.

One reporter said explosion and never said he saw a planw, it was someone
else the said plane.

One video shows the plane wing dissapearing before hitting the wall.

Due to TV camera angles from the north, the plane had to be snuk
it as the small explosion in the south.

Those particular Airline flights that didn't exist for that day might
be part of demands on them, same for some TV coverage.
They were told by someone.

If you want a plane or two in the mix, that might be possible if
the air phone conversation is valid. A middle eastern voice is not
Saudi hijacker confirmation. It might be Israeli.

Its against presidential policy to side with the terrorists so its case
closed on this bugger.

ED: Did they ever put what pieced they had together.
Truthers want open investigations and the Pentagon hit is the
stonewallingest of all.


[edit on 2/2/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

There you go. You can click on all the other links on that page for yourself.

Thank you very much. I just did. This is what it states above the photo:

911research.wtc7.net...

Remains Exiting the Towers

One of the few, if only, official documents detailing the remains of the aircraft is FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It documents some aircraft parts that passed entirely through the buildings, landing some distance away. FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 175:

Part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5
A piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC
An engine on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC

As I suspected, before you placed the website in your post, those photos are from FEMA as well. Which explains why the one you posted looks so surreal. I do not recall any roof terrances on WTC 5. However, I will research WTC 5, if I can locate any of it still intact having any roof terraces.

I do not see any roof terraces on WTC 5. I did not recall any, but just I wanted to be certain I did not miss what might have been there"

911research.wtc7.net...

Any one ever see internet forum posts or pages on the internet
with photos of the plane parts saying that the parts did not
look like the proper airliner parts.

One reason for lack of big plane debris is the big planes didn't crash.

The engine at the Pentagon and NY street were too small for the airliners.
There were plane parts.
And an engineer with manufacturer's photos of the airliner engine and
the engines found could make the call.

In fact you might not need an engineer to make a call on that recognition,
but an expert helps. A Rolls Royce engine was not identified in the Pentagon
engine photo. The NY engine looked too small to one observer.

Actually several of the engine parts found at the Pentagon were identifible as parts of a Rolls Royce RB.211 engine, the type of which was mounted to AA flight 77 registry number N644AA. Next?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Does a pile of junk suddenly make the fact that the 5 "live" videos of the second attack shown on September 11, 2001 are really BAD FAKES go away?

You mean the videos on the internet that have been altered as opposed to the live transmissions that day? I wish everyone on the internet were honest and didnt alter videos to flame insane conspiracy theories, but they arent.

I cannot help it if you choose to believe in spite of ALL the evidence that there was a huge US conspiracy that day. Fact remains, all the engine parts that were recovered, match the parts that you would expect to find in the crash of a 757/767.




reply to post by ItsHumanNature

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Then the video or web page with engine maker employee that could not
recognize the engine was a lier.
There is no way to tell except that circumstances tend toward no engines
if TV Fakery mean no planes at all.
Thus the photographer is suspect or any witnesses that saw an engine.

Some engine and parts could have been blown out of the pentagon
or WTC. Pentagon video shows nothing outside, wing gas tanks
did not explode at Pentagon, WTC 1&2 or PA.

No criminal investigation lets the Fed off the hook, as simple as that.
Same as with Kennedy and Tesla conspiracies. (JFK JR also)
Fed action is the overall authority.

Aliens did it. No US criminals. This must have been the Alien attack
we hear so much about.


ED: This is not a court of law, no one proves any thing here,
its only a court of conspiracy ideas. Only one part of the
internet the roll on and on. CT has apparently found a home on
the net.



[edit on 2/24/2008 by TeslaandLyne]