Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
So far...

a)
No one has provided a picture showing the deflection debri cloud that the physical NIST model shows and I have provided a image with the plane completely inside the building and absence of deflection.
The deflection is something that EVERYBODY knows that must have been taking place there, and NIST accounts for. You see it everyday of your lives. I know for a fact that a good number of you have solved a simple collision problem by hand while studing. That was not a physic Boeing.

b)
At this point no one has explained why the plane is transparent (And I mean big transparency here, because I see the WTC corner behind the "plane" even without glasses). This just adds up the the proof (a).

On the demolition via non conventional devices...
Its proved by know, beyond any doubt, that the energy required to account for the pulverization of almost all the WTC concrete to micron levels in ~10 seconds can only be provided by one type of device:

You can read this thread in the Physical Society board (Undebunked):
911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?, Your advice & Input Required
/rgch7
In that thread the poster do the calculations, explains the devices used, shows you how the devices worked, accounts for the low radio levels, etc...

You have proof here on ATS too in a very interesting (Excelent) post that shows the problematic (Either you get all the concrete pulverized in a huge amount of time or get the ~10 seconds):
9/11 Calculated Collapse
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We must add up those ~280 cancers developed so far on that brave people that went in. You can look up this fact by yourself because it is EVERYWHERE.

This is not disinformation, only my personal views.

PD: I think John Lear has been very soft on the issue of the devices (Probably avoiding to upset some of you a little more)...
To me there are many unconventional devices (Shaped downwards) along the way of the demolition wave and probably something down under to make a hole keeping all the debri neatly in there (ie: while its decontaminated, etc). Please read PsyOrg to know how uncoventional devices can be shaped (Theory and facts behind this technology).

I wish to thank you all for your comments in this my first thread post
(On this difficult topic).


[edit on 3-10-2006 by brainsucker]




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Has anyone actually come up with a good reason why holographic planes would be used? I mean, if you're going to demolish the WTC in broad daylight killing 2,602 people, and leaving another 24 listed as missing, then whats a couple of Boeing 767s? Even if you subscribe to the theory that they alone were not enough to bring the towers down, what would be the arguments against their use as a decoy, or cover for the real cause of the buildings catastrophic failure?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The response to that is QUITE simple. And is the reason why this topic is taboo.

With planes you have patsies. Without planes (Fact) you can start forgetting about them and center on the real issues.

So "planes" and "conventional" collapse (Or near common demolition) its a must, to entangle the web more and more; the operation by now is cristal clear anyway.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
Mr. Lear said it was 'impossible' for all-but untrained average joes to pull off the kind high-speed manuevering necessary for the those planes to hit the towers. I believe him when he says that because he has documentation proving his expertise and experience in flying. If you've got someone nearby with a similar amount of credibility, specific to flying, and he/she claims that Mr. Lear is wrong

Like just about all the professional passenger jet pilots and instructors in the world who don't have a problem with any of the maneuvers carried out by the pilots on that day. If what was done was "impossible" don't you think those people, or at least some of them, might come and say so. I'd also really like to know what it is exactly that they did that was "impossible". Fly backwards? Bounce off the WTC like rubber ball?



If it bothers you so much, you're more than welcome to avert your eyes to a different thread... no one's forcing you to be here.

We are also welcome to attack ridiculous assertions made with no proof. Take it to skunkworks if you want to avoid that.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
With planes you have patsies. Without planes (Fact) you can start forgetting about them and center on the real issues.

Err...couldn't they have just planted explosives in the building and blamed terrorists? Hardly an urealistic plot as it terrorists had tried this before.

Of course the military plotters wanted to make it all as complex as possible and involve as many different people as they could.....



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
With planes you have patsies. Without planes (Fact) you can start forgetting about them and center on the real issues.


Why would the existence of "patsies" mater when there all going to end up dead?

Its also not going to be hard for anyone to find someone willing to take part in terrorism against the US, as I think the case of the Miami Seven illustrates quite beautifully.



What's gone down in Miami the past few days is a sham, pure and simple. The federal government callously used seven Haitian men - who hung out in a windowless warehouse in the poorest section of Miami - as unsuspecting pawns in some kind of sick political game




They also had another major problem. The al-Qaida representative who allegedly told them he had come "from overseas" to evaluate and finance their jihad was actually a government informant, authorities said.




The seven men thought they were dealing with an al-Qaida operative, but it was really an informant working for the government, the indictment said.




They were seven guys armed only with some new boots and a camera - all of which were given to them by the FBI.


It seems that "patsies" are two a penny. You sure as hell wouldn't have to worry about any of them surviving to tell the tale after flying a commercial jet into the side of a skyscraper. Why would the use of "patsies" be an issue at all?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Why not actually provide a real quote...not something by Alex Jones:

www.time.com...


Were they behaving as professional terrorists?

No, at least not according to the initial flood of reports that portayed them as strutting around a poor black neighborhood in military-style uniforms, wearing turbans, standing guard around the abandoned warehouse in which they lived and conducting late-night exercise drills, while telling neighbors that they had "given their lives to Allah." The basic habit of trained terrorists is secrecy and stealth; they do their utmost to fit in with their surroundings rather than stand out. The Miami seven, according to reports thus far, seemed to have been doing the exact opposite, behaving more like a Hollywood B-movie version of terrorists than the real thing.

Can amateurs and wannabes pose a real terror threat?

Yes, very much so. The London bombings last summer were carried out by a self-taught group of British-born men who had no direct connection with al-Qaeda, yet sought to emulate it. But that grouping, perhaps having learned from the Qaeda terror manuals widely available on jihadist web sites, seem to have observed many of the same principles of secrecy that a group like the 9/11 plotters would have . Friends, family and neighbors were shocked to learn that young men in their midst who seemed no different from any others turned out to be terrorists. The extent of the danger represented by such groups depends on their capacities: Are they able to operate undetected? Do they have the means to carry out attacks? Do they have workable plans for such attacks?


From the indictment it is clear that the men had no shortage of ambition, asking for al-Qaeda training to wage a "full ground war" to "kill all the devils we can." To his end, the group asked the undercover agent for a wish-list of equipment that included boots, uniforms, machine guns, bullet-proof vests, radios and vehicles — as well as $50,000 in cash. The group's leader also provided the government agent with "a list of shoe sizes for the purchase of military boots for his 'soldiers'." The idea that these seven men could wage a "ground war" in the U.S. seems to have more in common with the fevered thinking behind various deadly cults over the years than with the operations of international terror networks.



[Mod Edit: External tag correction - Jak]

[edit on 4/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Why not actually provide a real quote...not something by Alex Jones:


I linked to my source. How about you get your own facts straight before you tell others how to act?

Thanks.

[edit on 3/10/06 by Implosion]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by Slap Nuts



Stop it already... Stop with the no planes. Until you can produce a hologram projector or a patent for one just stop it.


Thanks for your input Slap Nuts. You remind me of that infamous bean counter at Los Alamos in 1942 when he told Gen. Groves that the U.S. Government was not going to put one more nickel into the development of the atomic bomb until they could see proof that it worked.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Johnlear - Who was that infamous 'bean counter'?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke



Like just about all the professional passenger jet pilots and instructors in the world who don't have a problem with any of the maneuvers carried out by the pilots on that day. If what was done was "impossible" don't you think those people, or at least some of them, might come and say so.


No. If there is one thing you do not want to do while employed as a pilot with an FAA license for an airline that is certificated by the FAA and that is talk publically about anything controversial. Ask me. I know.


I'd also really like to know what it is exactly that they did that was "impossible". Fly backwards? Bounce off the WTC like rubber ball?


See if you can rent an hour in a Boeing 767 simulator. I'll put you in the left seat, over New York (yes, simulators can be visually placed anywhere in the world and the buildings are all there) I'll show you how to operate the throttles (push them forward!) and basically what makes the airplane go up and down and left and right and you can answer your question yourself. Then you could talk about your experience here on ATS and we would not have to suffer comments like, "Fly backwards?" and "Bounce off the WTC like a rubber ball?"



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke



Err...couldn't they have just planted explosives in the building and blamed terrorists? Hardly an urealistic plot as it terrorists had tried this before.


Well, yes. But one of the objectives was to destroy the buildings for the insurance money. It would have been highly unlikely than even Al Qeada could have planted explosives so throughly in the building to cause that kind of collapse. After all there was fairly heavy security in the WTC at the time placed there by Larry Silverstein himself so without an airplane to cause the fire Larry's security force might have looked a little suspicious particularly since they had replaced the former security team only several weeks prior to the attack.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by Implosion



Has anyone actually come up with a good reason why holographic planes would be used? I mean, if you're going to demolish the WTC in broad daylight killing 2,602 people, and leaving another 24 listed as missing, then whats a couple of Boeing 767s?



Cheaper. Our government is not going to waste money when it doesn't have to.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
OWW C'Mon People?

holographic projection?
Thoes holographic projection Planes shure Were Loud when Aproaching the WTC,

Where Did They Hide the 50,000,000 Watt Speakers for that???
Where Did the Real Planes Go With all the REAL People on them that Are Missing?

I'm Going to Launch a Brick at an "Angle" Through my Kitchen Window with Huge force to See If it Just "Bounces off"

is that ok?
Because aparrently it is, And I'll be sending you a bill for a new window





P.S> John lear

"waste money" The U.S. Government Wastes money 24/7

[edit on 3-10-2006 by TrentReznor]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Slap Nuts



Stop it already... Stop with the no planes. Until you can produce a hologram projector or a patent for one just stop it.


Thanks for your input Slap Nuts. You remind me of that infamous bean counter at Los Alamos in 1942 when he told Gen. Groves that the U.S. Government was not going to put one more nickel into the development of the atomic bomb until they could see proof that it worked.


No problem.... they proved themselves quite rapidly after his statement though didn't they John?

So did they nuke it or not then?

Where were the projectors?

Have we seen them in use eslewhere?





[edit on 3-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Slap Nuts



Stop it already... Stop with the no planes. Until you can produce a hologram projector or a patent for one just stop it.


Thanks for your input Slap Nuts. You remind me of that infamous bean counter at Los Alamos in 1942 when he told Gen. Groves that the U.S. Government was not going to put one more nickel into the development of the atomic bomb until they could see proof that it worked.


And people here call me a disinfo agent? This place is turning into starting to turn into Fairy Tale Central where someone can claim anything, and some waterhead will call it fact.

Why don't I beat you to the punch Mr. Lear and go ahead and say WTC 1,2 and 7 never even existed, they were holographic images that fooled NYC residents all those years. So inreality noone died that day, it was just a big hologram, so I guess there's no conspiracy after all, cause if the buildings didn't exist, and the planes didn't then nothing happened that day. With that said NYC never even existed, it's a ficitional city, nobody lives there, NYC is actually a plot of land filled with rolling hills, and trees. What you think you've seen of NYC is really a hologram. The Pentagon didn't exists either, and neither does Washington D.C., it's all holograms. Is this believeable to you people? It should be, I have just as much proof to back up this theory as Lear does his.

You know it's phychobabble like this, that make the entire conspiracy community look like nothing other than a bunch of gullible fools.

Warn me, ban me whatever, but this place is starting to get pathetic fast. Lear, I love your stories that sound like something out of some 3rd rate sci-fi b-movie, I really do, cause each and every day they make me literally laugh my ass off. You come out with these fairy tales, and all the sheeple start to eat it up, like the gullible sheep they are. I'm amazed so many people believe the crap that comes out of your mouth, when you have zero legitimate proof. You people are just as bad, if not worse than Bush sheeple.

Saturn doesn't really look like Saturn right? Should any of you sheep be given koolaide by Mr. Lear I suggest you not drink it.

Oh, and NYC is still a hologram, when you think you're visiting NYC you're actually part of a computer program, that's nowhere near the east coast. YAY I'm a groudbreaking hero too!

[edit on 3-10-2006 by WithoutEqual]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrentReznor
holographic projection?
Thoes holographic projection Planes shure Were Loud when Aproaching the WTC,



more important, how many projectors did they have to make planes appear to fly downtown? people heard that first plane and when they looked up they saw the thing flying downtown. they were standing farther north from the site and the projection would have had to cover more than a mile or two.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I've been on this site for a few years and yet this is my first post.

There is no other place on the net like ATS! I think the moderators do an outstanding job. There is so much knowledge on this site but there is also fairy tales which are indeed very entertaining.

John Lear let me tell you that I absolutley enjoy your post. I apreciate the fact that you dedicate your time on ATS.

As far as your holograms goes.....How do you explain the people that die in those planes?....Forgive me if you have given an explanation already and somehow I miss it.

I live across the street from someone who die when the first plane hit the tower. This person has live across from me for about 14 years. I've talk to him, had beers with him, been to ball game with him, watch him raise his family ect. This person is real and so is his family.

Would someone kindly let me know what happend to this man ? since so many of you claim that there were no planes.

Thank you



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Not throwing my hat in with either side here but has anyone looked into the sway of the building on impact?

When the planes hit (or didn't) there should have been some recoil from the impact which could tell us conclusively whether or not these were holograms. I don't know if there's any data on this or if it can be determined from the videos though.


There are accounts from survivors that experienced this. He's one from Brian Clark.


www.pbs.org...



There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather than up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.

For seven to 10 seconds there was this enormous sway in the building. It was one way, and I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over. That's what it felt like. Now, on windy days prior to that there was a little bit of a sway to the building. You got used to it; you didn't notice it. The window blinds would go clack clack as they swung. As I said, for a good seven to ten seconds I thought it was over—horrible feeling—but then the building righted itself. It didn't sway back and forth; it just went one way, it seemed, and then back, and we were stable again.


I try to keep an open mind about everything, and I fully agree that we are decades behind even hearing about most of technology that is actually out there. I dont disagree that someone has such a device capable of executing such an event because most science is born out of science fiction & the like, but the hologram thing is way out there on the fringe, IMHO.

Someone else stated in this thread that if there was that much technology & power available already then why not just cut to the chase & get what you want w/o all the extra hassle of the people, places & things that would have to be dealt with?

John Lear mentioned that it would be cheaper than the cost of the two 767's, and that's the reason for the holograms. . .but I have to believe pulling something like this off would cost much, much more taking into consideration all the extra work involved.

Again, IMHO-

"Occkam's Razor" squared with respect to this issue. Good discussion though.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by WithoutEqual




You know it's phychobabble like this, that make the entire conspiracy community look like nothing other than a bunch of gullible fools.

Warn me, ban me whatever, but this place is starting to get pathetic fast. Lear, I love your stories that sound like something out of some 3rd rate sci-fi b-movie, I really do, cause each and every day they make me literally laugh my ass off. You come out with these fairy tales, and all the sheeple start to eat it up, like the gullible sheep they are. I'm amazed so many people believe the crap that comes out of your mouth, when you have zero legitimate proof. You people are just as bad, if not worse than Bush sheeple.

Saturn doesn't really look like Saturn right? Should any of you sheep be given koolaide by Mr. Lear I suggest you not drink it.

Oh, and NYC is still a hologram, when you think you're visiting NYC you're actually part of a computer program, that's nowhere near the east coast. YAY I'm a groudbreaking hero too!


Thanks for your input WithoutEqual. Your comment:

"Oh, and NYC is still a hologram, when you think you're visiting NYC you're actually part of a computer program, that's nowhere near the east coast."

is truer than you can imagine.





top topics
 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join