Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Don't even give these "no planes" people a chance, they are insane.

What on Earth do you think everyone saw on 9/11? A hologram?? News flash, holograms can not make SHADOWS.


Very sharp thinking, but I'm sure there will be some explanation involving a missile with a hologram of a plane projected over it to account for this.

Earlier someone mentioned sound; explain how the holograms produce sound too? And glare?

EDIT: brainsucker, you wanna see the shadows? Watch the footage.



[edit on 2-10-2006 by Astygia]




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Provide a capture please.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Here you go, brainsucker
.
Invisible pink unicorns flew into the towers, only holograms were projected onto them from building 7, which is why they brought it down too. The sound was projected from futuristic sound technology that even experts in the audio industry don't know exist. And I can back this up with websites about LRAD- a noise generator which can aim sound.

You see the fallacies here? Vague references and the like? We know the government was involved, but stuff like this makes the whole truth movement a sick joke. There's nothing wrong with entertaining and researching, hell I'd help you find out research it, but touting such a theory as proof when you yourself have said you don't know how it could work is just ignorant.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
Provide a capture please.


Answer my question, fourth time asking it now.

Why are you so interested in disproving all other theories and making it clear that nothing but a hologram hit the towers? Whether some think it's a bomb or a hologram or just plain government ignorance, either way we are united that the administration had a hand in it, yes? So what makes it so important to discredit the work done by truth movement to prove it was a hologram?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
Shadows? Please, please show us one of those "shadows".

No shadow here:
www.youtube.com...

No shadow there:
youtube.com...

Aside from the huge anfo explosion shadow.



www.youtube.com...

Look at the shadow of the first plane hitting. You can see it right before it hits..

You may not be able to see it during the second plane hit because of the angle of the sun. This was in the morning, the shadow would be behind it.


ALSO, how do you explain away the massive jet engine sound?? Do you think they set up HUGE powerful 3D sound systems that can produce a 3D sound effect of a jet at 150db? Look at the firefighters, the only reason they saw the jet hit, was because of the sound the jet made before it hit. They looked right at the jet.

Trust me, there were planes...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

I like to show this video. Watch and capture as the plane impacts at :23 sec. Full screen is better. Look at some of the debris being "bounced" away from the building just before the explosion.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
You know, this video also shows your so called "deflection" that you say doesn't exist.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
if you guys find it so hard to believe that the goverment have holographic technology then i guess you are not ready for the things that are truely shocking.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Tabooooo:

+Demolition via non conventional devices.
+No planes.

Why is that ?
I will tell you... That is because those are the smoking guns of this crime. And right now are proved true beyond any doubt (Physics).

Pentagon : no plane.
Pensilvania : no plane (Shanksville mayor stated "there was no plane").
WTC : no planes.

Logistics at work.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
www.youtube.com...

I like to show this video. Watch and capture as the plane impacts at :23 sec. Full screen is better. Look at some of the debris being "bounced" away from the building just before the explosion.


Yup, there is MORE deflection, just like NIST. Even though I don't fully agree with the NIST reports, they did get the EXTERNAL info correct. But I don't think they have a clue what happened INTERNALY.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
We don't find it hard to believe that the government has holographic technology; we find it impossible that holographic planes hit the WTC.

EDIT: Brainsucker, you still refuse to answer my question, why is that?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
if you guys find it so hard to believe that the goverment have holographic technology then i guess you are not ready for the things that are truely shocking.


Holograms are made of LIGHT. They can NOT make shadows, which I clearly see in the videos.



[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
if you guys find it so hard to believe that the goverment have holographic technology then i guess you are not ready for the things that are truely shocking.


Hey I believe such technology exists. Just not to the point of moving or destroying objects. Not to mention that parts of the "holo" plane are continuing to move through the building.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
Tabooooo:

+Demolition via non conventional devices.
+No planes.

Why is that ?
I will tell you... That is because those are the smoking guns of this crime. And right now are proved true beyond any doubt (Physics).

Pentagon : no plane.
Pensilvania : no plane (Shanksville mayor stated "there was no plane").
WTC : no planes.

Logistics at work.



So you are going to totaly ignore my points of view? How did they create the shadows, and how did they create the 150db jet sound, and project it in a 3D enviornment where anyone could find the exact position of the jet just by its sound?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
No deflection there, go back to page one and check the status of the "plane", it is inside the building (No deflection seen); and the massive explosion is starting to burst.

Naudet brothers; same song... Blur and massive anfo explosion. BTW no shadow there.

Astygia: Page 2
"""I don't know how it was done, it could be holo-tech or could be PLAIN AND SIMPLE
digital dubbing... I am not discarding anything (Aside from the fact that there is no plane). """

I answered your question inmediately; that was some time ago.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by selfless
if you guys find it so hard to believe that the goverment have holographic technology then i guess you are not ready for the things that are truely shocking.


Holograms are made of LIGHT. They can NOT make shadows, which I clearly see the videos.




personaly i think it could have been a orb displaying an hologram and yes i wouldn't say
it's impossible for it to emit a shadow because i'v seen crazier things.


it just doesn't seem right to me the way the plane crashes into the building.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
No deflection there, go back to page one and check the status of the "plane", it is inside the building (No deflection seen); and the massive explosion is starting to burst.

Naudet brothers; same song... Blur and massive anfo explosion. BTW no shadow there.



Dude, I am going to embarass you as I am going to take an image of the impact and debris being left behind before the explosion from various videos I posted. Give me a couple of minutes.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Brainsucker i think you've found something that suits your believes yet you don't fully understand the concept.

Example Number 1. By your NTIS examle if i take a 4x2 piece of wood and throw it against a thin piece of cellophane, the wood will deflect and not go through. Reality - cellophane is pierced and wood doesn't deflect according to NTIS program.

Physics which is what the NTIS program is based on takes the assumption that the body moving has less mass (intertia) than the body being struck. If the body has more mass (intertia) a different set of rules apply.

Newtons laws of motion explain all this.

Law 1 Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In this case wood (aircraft) will continue to move at said speed until another force is applied to it.

Law 2 The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. In this case, the higher the mass and acceleration, the higher the applied force.

Law 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If i fire a bullet into a human, the bullet will not deflect until its interia is slowed down and it strikes bone for example. The bullet is also damaged and compressed by the sudden impact of hitting the human body in many cases. Newtons third law explains this last bit.

This also applies if i fire a bullet into a car for example. The bullet will enter and with reduced inertia start to deflect within the car as it stricks objects.

With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC, but upon hitting beams/structure inside the WTC, the aircraft would have broken up, slowed down and stayed inside the building. Glass and other small pieces would have fallen down but due to the overall intertia of the aircraft, it would not deflect as per the NTIS example.

Appling all the laws, the plane is flying at say 400 knots. Already it is overcoming drag to keep this speed up and will continue to do so until thrust is reduced or is hits something. Plane then hits the building - it doesn't stop imediately. Interia keeps it going forwards due to the second law. The third law is applied by the slowing down of the plane as it strikes the WTC the opposite reaction being the structure giving way to the plane asorbing its impact to a degree.

NTIS deflection does not apply to this situation due to the above laws.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
BTW no shadow there.


You sir have lost your argument, and are denying FACT.






[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
You will not embarass me... Because you could not provide a shot of the plane debri deflecting (A shown by NIST), aside from the columns and chunks of building blowing out by the massive combined internal explosion.
Anyway I'm very interested in seen more work about this.


Good try with the shadow but thats very loooooong into the explosion.

"With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC, but upon hitting beams/structure inside the WTC, the aircraft would have broken up, slowed down and stayed inside the building. Glass and other small pieces would have fallen down but due to the overall intertia of the aircraft, it would not deflect as per the NTIS example."

Here we go... The NIST simulation of the impact is not real, it has to do with something that happened let's say in Dresden at the end of WWII. I understand; NIST is not modeling the reality of the WTC impact... It is doing some other work.

>>With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join