Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

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.


No, it was another thread in the weaponry section where some guy has say there was no such things as nuclear bombs. Even though we have seen it for over half century.




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
John Lear-

Do you do this stuff for fun or something?

Please show me the evidence of nukes in the WTC. Not heresay, not speculation that relies on future technology which cannot be verified. Evidence.

Please explain what an "independant" analysis of the engine at the crash site entails? Do you, John Lear, need to personally investigate any and all crash wreckage before you can use related media to make a decision?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about the official story. But holograms? Basically you're saying that because we don't know what kind of hologram technology the government has, we should seriously consider holograms, despite any and all contradictory knowledge. You're saying that maybe the government has found a way to make holograms cast a shadow, and that the engine and fuselage fragments, since they were never "verified", could be a plant, yes?

Ok, so this line of thought means that basically anything and everything we have seen, done, or heard for ourselves should be reconsidered, since the government could conceivable have faked it with some heretofore unknown technology.

Maybe I don't really work for Equifax; maybe when I think I'm working, really I'm compiling secret documents for the government. As a matter of fact, this is evidence that I'm doing so, because I don't know for sure that Carnivore or ITS or ATLAS isn't embedded in my software.

It's feasible then, that the towers were hit by UFOs, "Orbs", explosive socks, C-130s, cruise missiles, flammable fish, other buildings, my dog, or pretty much anything, and I should seriously entertain these possibilities simply because "we don't know what the government has".

Complete acceptance by only acknowledgement of slim possibility is ignorance, sir. And part of denying ignorance is keeping oneself firmly grounded in reality.

Holograms are a dubious theory at best. It does me no harm for you to believe it, or for anyone to believe it, since at least we're in agreement that the administration played a part in the deaths of all those people. But the lines along which people accept this theory leads me to doubt their sanity, since the official story is full of holes and is about 500 times more likely.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Astygia, I'm sure you must be familiar with Project Blue Beam. If PBB ever comes to pass, then it could be construed that 911 was a dress rehearsal executed to perfection.

I must say, I am truly fascinated by this thread, keep it going people - but without the insults thanks. I've noticed several times members have been asked to back up their theories with explanations (sound projection and shadows cast for instance) and then a particular member would ask 'yet again' for an explanation and I'm sitting here yelling "HEY! I read his written answer some 2 pages back!" - which to me suggests that the people who don't want to hear a word of this seemingly ludicrous theory aren't actually carefully reading the responses from opposing points of view.

I'm no expert in this but I'm open to possibilities - ANYTHING is possible. Remember what Phil Schneider said about black tech advancing some 45 years for every calendar year, we could be a couple of thousand years ahead of where we *think* we are at, so I'm frankly not surprised to read the cries of shock and denial here even among the most hardened of conspiracy enthusiasts. I say it again, will Project Blue Beam be the most shocking deception of all?


[edit on 2-10-2006 by RiotComing]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Your point is well-received. I have no animosity to brain, john, or anyone else for their beliefs, however the logic behind accepting this particular theory just sideswipes me. It took a long time, looking at many photos and videos, listening to many experts (many self-proclaimed), before I personally accepted that the evidence pointed to industry-grade explosives were used to bring the towers down.

Yet this hologram theory bases itself on video anomaly and unspecified technology, the latter of which thus far has only been backed up by a web page that's highly lacking in technical information, or any pertinent information for that matter.

The most disappointing part is how loosely the word "evidence" is applied to a theory, when little or no evidence actually exists to corroborate it.

This topic has gotten heated, and I suppose we should agree to disagree.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by Astygia



John Lear-
Do you do this stuff for fun or something?

Please show me the evidence of nukes in the WTC. Not heresay, not speculation that relies on future technology which cannot be verified. Evidence.


Astygia, the best I can do is tell you that I am convinced that nukes were used in the WTC bombings of 911. I do not know what you consider to be heresay and speculation so if you are interested you can pursue your own investigation.


Please explain what an "independant" analysis of the engine at the crash site entails?


An Independent investigation of the engine found at the WTC would be one conducted by P&W or Rolls Royce personnel familiar with those particular engines mounted to Boeing 757's.


Do you, John Lear, need to personally investigate any and all crash wreckage before you can use related media to make a decision?


I, John Lear, would not need to personally investigate any crash wreckage to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or 757's crashed into the Pentagon. I would accept a flight recorder from that aircraft as long as that flight recorder was inspected by a person familiar with that flight recorder and inspection thereof provided he was not a current member or employee of NTSB.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not about the official story. But holograms? Basically you're saying that because we don't know what kind of hologram technology the government has, we should seriously consider holograms


Yes.


despite any and all contradictory knowledge.


Please state what that contradictory knowledge is and your basis for considering that it is contradictory.


You're saying that maybe the government has found a way to make holograms cast a shadow, and that the engine and fuselage fragments, since they were never "verified", could be a plant, yes?


Yes.


Ok, so this line of thought means that basically anything and everything we have seen, done, or heard for ourselves should be reconsidered, since the government could conceivable have faked it with some heretofore unknown technology.


Now I think your beginning to hear the music. Bravo!


Maybe I don't really work for Equifax; maybe when I think I'm working, really I'm compiling secret documents for the government. As a matter of fact, this is evidence that I'm doing so, because I don't know for sure that Carnivore or ITS or ATLAS isn't embedded in my software.


I would say that that is a reasonable assumption.


It's feasible then, that the towers were hit by UFOs, "Orbs", explosive socks, C-130s, cruise missiles, flammable fish, other buildings, my dog, or pretty much anything, and I should seriously entertain these possibilities simply because "we don't know what the government has".


I entertain all possibilities. I do not consider explosive socks, C-130's, flammable fish, other builidings or your dog possibilities. You alone are the one that decides what you should entertain as serious possibilities. I recommend that you consider holograms only because the technology is there.


Complete acceptance by only acknowledgement of slim possibility is ignorance, sir.


Ignorance by definition is to be uneducated or unaware. I do not fall into that category. "Complete acceptance of a slim possibility' is a belief. Not ignorance.


And part of denying ignorance is keeping oneself firmly grounded in reality.


The key phrase here is 'firmly grounded' which also means 'stuck to conventional wisdom' which sometimes can mean refusal to accept reality.


Holograms are a dubious theory at best.


Not so. It is current and operational techonology within the armed forces bag of neat tricks.


It does me no harm for you to believe it, or for anyone to believe it, since at least we're in agreement that the administration played a part in the deaths of all those people. But the lines along which people accept this theory leads me to doubt their sanity, since the official story is full of holes and is about 500 times more likely.


Unlikely, but I don't doubt your sanity.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Astygia, the best I can do is tell you that I am convinced that nukes were used in the WTC bombings of 911. I do not know what you consider to be heresay and speculation so if you are interested you can pursue your own investigation.



If nukes were used, the twin towers wouldn't be the only ones flattened. And even if you say its a dirty nuke, why don't the U.S. govt. pounced on it and say the terrorists are using WMD? That makes the American people really scared and give the Bush admin. more power don't you think?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Please forgive me if this has already been addressed.


Originally posted by johnlear

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.


I would like to know what these holograms were projected onto. Fair enough, the secret government has technology that we can't begin to conceive of. This is your belief system [b.s.] I can respect that. However, if we look at a high end holographic projection system, we soon note that they are not images from thin air at all:



Heliodisplay images are not holographic although they are free-space, employing a rear projection system in which images are captured onto a nearly invisible plane of transformed air. What the viewer sees is floating mid-air image or video. These projected images and video are two-dimensional, (i.e. planar) but appear 3D since there is no physical depth reference. While conventional displays have the benefit of being attached to a physical substrate, Heliodisplay projections are suspended in air, so you will notice some waviness to the quality of the projections.

Source.


These types of projections need to be projected onto "a plane of transformed air" How was this achieved with regards to the WTC? It would surely be a hell of a feat to project just a static commercial jet out in the open air, but realistic movement as well? Where do you think the planes were projected from?

A few more problems with holograms:



viewing a Heliodisplay image in direct sunlight is almost impossible. Images can be seen up to 75 degrees off aspect for a total viewing area of over 150 degrees- similar to an LCD screen

Source.


Not true 3D, not easy to see in direct sunlight. As I remember, 911 was a bright sunny day.

A little more information about freespace projection:



One of the most frequent questions we get at Pangolin is: "How do I make 3D images float in mid-air?" This question probably comes because many people have seen special effects such as the "Princess Leia" scene from Star Wars.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a floating-in-midair 3D holographic freespace projection. There are various ways of approximating such a projection;

Source.


[edit on 2/10/06 by Implosion]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Originally posted by deltaboy




If nukes were used, the twin towers wouldn't be the only ones flattened.


They were 'clean' nukes from our inventory. They were used to weaken the lower structure of the WTC. The yield was to weaken the structure only, not to affect other buildings. The same 'clean' nukes are planted in Iran at this time.


And even if you say its a dirty nuke, why don't the U.S. govt. pounced on it and say the terrorists are using WMD?


They were 'clean' nukes and, ahem, we planted them. We don't want anybody to know that we planted nukes to weaken the lower structure of the WTC. Simply using high explosives on the rest of the WTC structure would not allow the WTC to totally collapse, as it did, in a single heap.


That makes the American people really scared and give the Bush admin. more power don't you think?


No. We don't didn't want the American people to think that OBL had nukes at that time. Now it is a different story.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Implosion, if Phil Schneider is to believed, maybe the problems you point out were solved sometime in the 1960s or earlier. Who knows what is achievable right now. video.google.com...

[edit on 2-10-2006 by RiotComing]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I swore I was going to avoid this topic from now on, but….


If these were in fact holograms, then what was NY ATC tracking on primary radar?
Primary Radar will not bounce back off of something that is not there, like a hologram….





posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by Implosion





I would like to know what these holograms were projected onto. Fair enough, the secret government has technology that we can't begin to conceive of. This is your belief system [b.s.] I can respect that. However, if we look at a high end holographic projection system, we soon note that they are not images from thin air at all:

These types of projections need to be projected onto "a plane of transformed air" How was this achieved with regards to the WTC? It would surely be a hell of a feat to project just a static commercial jet out in the open air, but realistic movement as well? Where do you think the planes were projected from?

A few more problems with holograms:

viewing a Heliodisplay image in direct sunlight is almost impossible. Images can be seen up to 75 degrees off aspect for a total viewing area of over 150 degrees- similar to an LCD screen

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a floating-in-midair 3D holographic freespace projection. There are various ways of approximating such a projection;


Implosion, its impossible to explain tomorrows technology in todays' terms. Remember what Arthur C. Clarke said? "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


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.

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."


First up get your facts correct - two 767's crashed into the WTC, not a 757. Image shown on the net can be used to verify the type of engines as that from a 767 flown by the airlines used on that day. I am an aircraft maintenance instructor for your information.

Secondly, its doubtful that the flight data recorder or voice recorder would survive that type of inferno. They may be built to withstand normal aircraft fires but the fires that enveloped the WTC exede these tolerances by a long shot. Again this is using knowledge that can be obtained freely. No conspiracy required.

Thirdly, why use high technology when we know 19 citizens, mostly Saudi flew the aircraft. It doesn't take a high amount of skill to fly an aircraft into a building. It does take a high amount of skill to land and take off however. How do i know this? I have flown simulators and i know their is a difference in the skill sets required.

If holgrams or other high technology has been used in 9/11 why not use it to defeat the terrorists or other countries who are against the USA?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by dagebow



First up get your facts correct - two 767's crashed into the WTC, not a 757. Image shown on the net can be used to verify the type of engines as that from a 767 flown by the airlines used on that day. I am an aircraft maintenance instructor for your information.


Thanks for the correction. The engine that was found in the street may have come from a Boeing 767.


Secondly, its doubtful that the flight data recorder or voice recorder would survive that type of inferno. They may be built to withstand normal aircraft fires but the fires that enveloped the WTC exede these tolerances by a long shot. Again this is using knowledge that can be obtained freely. No conspiracy required.


The WTC fire did, in fact, probably exceed the design of aircraft flight and voice recorders. I thought I had heard at some point that the recorders were found but that the data was not going to be released out of respect for the victims.


Thirdly, why use high technology when we know 19 citizens, mostly Saudi flew the aircraft. It doesn't take a high amount of skill to fly an aircraft into a building. It does take a high amount of skill to land and take off however. How do i know this? I have flown simulators and i know their is a difference in the skill sets required.


I disagree. 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. The reason I say this is because the skill required to manhandle an aircraft of that size at that speed would have been impossible for those alleged pilots. The control forces at sea level at that speed are very, very heavy. To keep the airplane lined up at about 800 feet from the ground at 8 miles per minute is inconceivable for that skill level particularly in view of the fact that they had never done it before.

I appreciate your corrections. Thanks.


If holgrams or other high technology has been used in 9/11 why not use it to defeat the terrorists or other countries who are against the USA?


I don't think the object of the excercise is to defeat them. The object is to use them as a reason to take away our rights.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
ok wow...now ill just assume for arguements sake it was a hologram 99.9 repeating it wasnt a hologram but what fun would the arguement be...where did the sound from the planes come from??? can you please answer that



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
There is a serious flaw with the arguement here, it may or may not have been shown. The "deflection" thing is only possible when a SPHERE hits a plane. a airplane is not a sphere. An airplane in aerodynamic, and therefor would penetrate the building easily.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Originally posted by BlueSkyes




ok wow...now ill just assume for arguements sake it was a hologram 99.9 repeating it wasnt a hologram but what fun would the arguement be...where did the sound from the planes come from??? can you please answer that



I would assume that any sufficiently advanced techonology that would be able to display a moving three dimensional object would also be able to supply the accompanying sound.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Wow,i miss the days when i could read a whole topic,and it remained a respectable discussion.

Anyway,while i at this point in time dont think the planes were holograms,i will continue to keep an open mind about all theories/ideas. Especially after i've seen various video/pics/reports of angular cut support columns in the basement levels,and pools of molten steel underneath the rubble. All this after the official reports themselves said the fires never got near melting point.

Never thought i could go along with the nuclear device idea,untill i researched what would be needed to assist in weakening of the bldg,and the fact that we can make and do have very small nukes. A nuclear explosion doesnt have to be big to be hot. At this point in time i believe things about 9/11 that i thought i'd never buy into.

So i thank john lear and the op for not responding to the personal/un personal negative remarks with other negative remarks,and keep on keepin on.Maybe sometime down the line we'll find evidence for the hologram theory.

Anything and everything is worth taking a look into these days. No matter how bizarre it may seem.


[edit on 3-10-2006 by spanishcaravan]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by spanishcaravan]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Hm…
I would still like to know how a hologram makes a primary radar reflection?
You cannot bounce primary radar off of thin air.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
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."


hey, cheers, man! EVERYONE calls me an idiot!

i think truthseeking may be like falling.
it's not the fall that hurts, it's that sudden TWIST(or 'stop' for those metaphorically challenged) at the end.
it seems there's always a twist.
like, the twist is 'ground' (if i could get mcluhanesque for a pheonome), and it is the twist that must be studied.

good work, yourself, old man(old man, in the endearing sense(perhaps heard with an english accent), seeing as internet text lacks tone).

and, huge kudos to brainsucker!

i like the expression, 'the plane BUTTERS it's way into the building', best. no stutter, no crumple, no deflection. the mass of the cloud we do see does not match the width of the wing.
wings are long. yet the impact shows three distinct regions of explosion, not a line which tapers from the fuselage to the tip.

i don't think there were any planes, at this point in MY investigation, and i know it's a VERY unpopular notion amongst the 'truth movement'.

gladly, the 'truth movement' is actually 'organised' as a mass of COMPLETE ANARCHY!!!

this allows fuzzy solutions to difficult problems, where an empirical pyramid of sequentially accepted cause and effect allows no 'fudge room'.

the most damning aspects of the official story to me, now, are some of the most obscure.

the punch out in c-ring at the pentagon.
the taxi and the lamp posts at the pentagon.
the BUTTERY descent of tower seven. (not so obscure, but still EXTRAORDINARILY OBSCURED FROM THE PUBLIC)
the BUTTERY entry of the plane into the tower(along with missing airplane parts pre-impact. i've seen this in MANY pictures. almost ALL. the planes are HAZY at best. i don't think motion blur cuts it. half the wings are missing, and you can see what's behind them. i've ssen TONS of pictures of jets in motion, and i don't remember invisibility as a feature of most.).



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
another great question...how does the hologram show up on radar...or is that another one answered by if they have hologram technology that sophisticated that they can fake it?





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join