Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

I didn't want to but I had to warn you. OK gang, that's it. Discuss this without personal barbs or the flags WILL fly further.



He deserves it, he is ignoring pure evidence, and lying to everyone... its a fact, he is an idiot.


Anyway,...

I'm looking for a video taken from a flying news helicopter of the second plane hitting. Anyone know where I can find it? It will totally disprove the hologram theory and show this guy more deflection. Let me know if you find it.


Oh no another warning! That hurts so bad.... (sarcasm).

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




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Brainsucker, keep up the good work. You know you are getting close to the truth when they start calling you an idiot. I've seen this happen a lot on ATS. I can understand where they are coming from though because if its ever proven that there were no airplanes then SOMEBODY is going to have to account for some bodies and if the 911Conspiracy goes to a grand jury there are going to be major problems for the conspirators with that one. Remember, "The louder they yell, the closer to the truth you are getting."



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Thanks Lear... I really don't care and maybe if I have time I will take a look at the CNN DVD footage to show you more magic planes.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
johnlear, he is lying about videos and photos, that multiple people have showed him. The only people the lie about direct evidence are the ones that have lost the argument. Insults are not last option, they are just nicknames for the way someone is acting.


I disproved his "hologram theory" a few post back by simply saying HOLOGRAMS DO NOT MAKE SHADOWS.

Yet he ignores it and keeps lying. Bravo!


-edit- um mods, I got TWO warnings for ONE thing.. you guys sure you know what you are doing?

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



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I requested shadow captures and your provided explosion images, of course the shadow then really kicks in. Because that was the only "tangible" thing, lots explosives; different types... Maybe the whole range.

BTW... The small image, yes... Well into the explosion; but previous to the anfo spectacle; aka explosion in development; no rebounding debri just a cloud of pulverized concrete expanding.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Originally posted by LAES YVAN



He deserves it, he is ignoring pure evidence, and lying to everyone... its a fact, he is an idiot.



LAES YVAN, I would respectfully suggest that you are protesting too much. I think that brainsucker has pointed out a few anomalies that should be further investigated. I would also respectfully suggest that your arguments would carry more weight were you to present them in a cool, calm, moderated fashion than calling brainsucker an idiot. Further I would like your evidence that brainsucker "is lying to everyone". He sounds cool, factual and in total control of himself unlike others on this thread. Thanks for you understanding.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
I requested shadow captures and your provided explosion images, of course the shadow then really kicks in. Because that was the only "tangible" thing, lots explosives; different types... Maybe the whole range.



That is why I showed this picture... and this video....



This picture is NOT from me, it is one of many people that have seen the shadows..


Hologram theory = dead



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by LAES YVAN



He deserves it, he is ignoring pure evidence, and lying to everyone... its a fact, he is an idiot.



LAES YVAN, I would respectfully suggest that you are protesting too much. I think that brainsucker has pointed out a few anomalies that should be further investigated. I would also respectfully suggest that your arguments would carry more weight were you to present them in a cool, calm, moderated fashion than calling brainsucker an idiot. Further I would like your evidence that brainsucker "is lying to everyone". He sounds cool, factual and in total control of himself unlike others on this thread. Thanks for you understanding.




John Lear I suggest reading this thread over again, I have been calm up into the point where he ignores evidence and lies...


He lied when he said "the picture was taken well into the explosion", when in fact the explosion didn't happen until milliseconds later.


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



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by LAES YVAN




I disproved his "hologram theory" a few post back by simply saying HOLOGRAMS DO NOT MAKE SHADOWS.


I sincerely doubt that you are privy to current hologram technology so I doubt in the extreme that you would know whether or not holograms cast shadows. Therefore I doubt that you have disproved his "hologram theory".



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
-edit- um mods, I got TWO warnings for ONE thing.. you guys sure you know what you are doing?


Yes they do. A quick review of the T&Cs would tell you that this CAN happen. There is also another factor here and that is you are insulting anther member rather then debating the issue.

If you continue to ignore this fact and continue to insult Moderators simply because they are doing their jobs...then we will have to enfore a "time out" until you can behave in a way befitting of an adult.

I hope we're clear on this.


Sorry for the intrusion. Please carry on with this discussion.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
youtube.com...

LAES YVAN: Just by looking at the Naudet video in youtube I will tell you one thing; that shadow is caused by the explosion (Letting aside the --MASSIVE-- bright explosion previous to any "event").

If I have some time... I will take a detailed look at the Naudet Brothers documentary and will prove to you that the shadow develops via the explosion.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by LAES YVAN




John Lear I suggest reading this thread over again, I have been calm up into the point where he ignores evidence and lies...

He lied when he said "the picture was taken well into the explosion", when in fact the explosion didn't happen until milliseconds later.


LAES YVAN there must be a better way of presenting your arguments than calling your opponent a liar. Surely, somewhere you must have better evidence (although I must admit that I haven't seen it). I think the evidence for a holographic projection of the WTC airliners is certainly worth investigating.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
there must be a better way of presenting your arguments than calling your opponent a liar.


That bold part is the problem here.

AboveTopSecret.com has been, and always will be about the collaborative exchange of ideas within an environment that aspires not to be confrontational are antagonistic. Referring to each other as "opponents" assumes a competitive stance that is contrary to our motto of "deny ignorance".

Knowledge is important.

Ideas are more important.

When ideas are exchanged in an environment like this, everyone wins.

Focus on the exchange, not each other.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by LAES YVAN




John Lear I suggest reading this thread over again, I have been calm up into the point where he ignores evidence and lies...

He lied when he said "the picture was taken well into the explosion", when in fact the explosion didn't happen until milliseconds later.


LAES YVAN there must be a better way of presenting your arguments than calling your opponent a liar. Surely, somewhere you must have better evidence (although I must admit that I haven't seen it). I think the evidence for a holographic projection of the WTC airliners is certainly worth investigating.



You are joking right? Are you trying to say that TWO aircraft, video taped by many people and tracked by air traffic control almost to the point of impact were holograms!

The engines and other parts found in the aftermath count for nothing or were they placed there by government persons?

9/11 was a tragedy and i know Americans distrust the government but to say they used holograms is ludicrise. The fact that the government knew what was going to happen is almost certain, however i sincerely doubt that they'd need to use high technology when a simple commercial airliner is readily avaliable and cheaper to use.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
LAES YVAN there must be a better way of presenting your arguments than calling your opponent a liar. Surely, somewhere you must have better evidence (although I must admit that I haven't seen it). I think the evidence for a holographic projection of the WTC airliners is certainly worth investigating.


I think the theory has been pretty well debunked by just a few people here, and there is no evidence of holographic planes. There is evidence of shadows before the impact, and I guess I'm just some hick but I didn't know holograms (read:light) could cast a shadow. And there is evidence of leftover wreckage from the planes, as I think bsbray posted, but I guess that must have been planted.

I used to believe that planes hit the WTC, and then demolitions were ignited inside to bring them down. But I guess it's more likely that the government secret hologram technology to project holographic planes, complete with sounds, shadows, and glare, then somehow affixed at least one real engine and pieces of fuselage to this hologram, and pretended to fly them into the WTC.

When people resort to name-calling, it means they're angry, not wrong. LY shouldn't have allowed himself to get mad, but it's hard to keep a cool head when the person you're speaking with has serious problems with selective comprehension and partial acknowledgement.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord




Originally posted by johnlear
[
there must be a better way of presenting your arguments than calling your opponent a liar.



by skeptic overlordThat bold part is the problem here.

AboveTopSecret.com has been, and always will be about the collaborative exchange of ideas within an environment that aspires not to be confrontational are antagonistic. Referring to each other as "opponents" assumes a competitive stance that is contrary to our motto of "deny ignorance".

Knowledge is important.

Ideas are more important.

When ideas are exchanged in an environment like this, everyone wins.

Focus on the exchange, not each other.



Excellent point. Change 'opponent' to read "worthy idea exchanger".



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by dagebow



You are joking right? Are you trying to say that TWO aircraft, video taped by many people and tracked by air traffic control almost to the point of impact were holograms!


Holograms can be videotaped. As far as ATC I have seen no independent verification that any aircraft were tracked "almost to the point of impact". The only independent and truthful evidence of what happened that morning in the Air Traffic Control room was deliberately destroyed by an FAA ATC Supervisor.


The engines and other parts found in the aftermath count for nothing or were they placed there by government persons?


I know of no P&W or Rolls Royce engine parts found at the scene of the WTC that were independently confirmed to be part of a 757. There was an engine part found but as far as I know was never indepedently confirmed as part of a P&W or RollsRoyce engine found on a Boeing 757. As far as other parts I would like to see the flight and voice recorder.


9/11 was a tragedy and i know Americans distrust the government but to say they used holograms is ludicrise. The fact that the government knew what was going to happen is almost certain, however i sincerely doubt that they'd need to use high technology when a simple commercial airliner is readily avaliable and cheaper to use.


I would respectfully suggest that you wouldn't have the slightest idea what kind of technology the government had at its disposal and whether or not that technology would be used. But I would certainly doubt that your statement that an airliner "readily available and cheaper to use" would be of the slightest consideration considering their mass murder of over 3000 people."



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Its pretty much great discussion. However it seems he is in denial about the evidence many members have provided. I don't like the repeat of something like another member who says theres no such thing as nuclear bombs, even though many members counter that in that thread about it. Seriously, it was annoying.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Originally posted by Astygia




I think the theory has been pretty well debunked by just a few people here, and there is no evidence of holographic planes.


There are many videos of the airplanes crashing into the WTC. All of these could hve been holograms so nothing has been 'debunked' yet. Thanks.



There is evidence of shadows before the impact, and I guess I'm just some hick but I didn't know holograms (read:light) could cast a shadow.


As I mentioned previously no one on this thread including me has the slightest idea how the current hologram technology works. Therefore we don't know whether or not the hologram could cast a shadow.


And there is evidence of leftover wreckage from the planes, as I think bsbray posted, but I guess that must have been planted.


There is 'unsupported' evidence of leftover wreckage from the planes. I know of no independent verification that any leftover wreckage of the planes alleged to have been involved in the WTC crashes was found.

Not counting Atta's passport.


I used to believe that planes hit the WTC, and then demolitions were ignited inside to bring them down. But I guess it's more likely that the government secret hologram technology to project holographic planes, complete with sounds, shadows, and glare, then somehow affixed at least one real engine and pieces of fuselage to this hologram, and pretended to fly them into the WTC.


Except for the 'real engine' comment yes, I would say its not 'more likely' but certainly likely.


When people resort to name-calling, it means they're angry, not wrong. LY shouldn't have allowed himself to get mad, but it's hard to keep a cool head when the person you're speaking with has serious problems with selective comprehension and partial acknowledgement.


That would include you, I assume. ("I used to believe...It's more likely....I guess")...hmmm that is selective comprehension and partial acknowledgement but not a serious problem....)



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by deltaboy




Its pretty much great discussion. However it seems he is in denial about the evidence many members have provided. I don't like the repeat of something like another member who says theres no such thing as nuclear bombs, even though many members counter that in that thread about it. Seriously, it was annoying.



Sorry I missed that one. Who said there were no nuclear bombs? You mean at the WTC? There certainly is evidence that there was a nuclear bomb in the basement of one or both of the buildings.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join