It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jury Trial !!! NO PLANES *ever* hitting *any* WTC & directed energy weapons used in WTC distruction.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer


i would also love to hear this from John's perspective also.

My next question as has been posted here in so many other threads
over the years is:
as you believe in the no planes theory , are you therefore of the opinion
that these flights simply did not exist or that they took off only to
be flown elsewhere where the people on board were either disposed of
or taken somewhere else?

what of the cctv of the alleged hijackers at the airports?
what about the families in mourning?
what of the dead passengers?
the black box recordings?
the passengers who made calls to their loved ones?

(Please bear in mind my questions are sincere,and in no way condescending, I am here to learn, I have gained a lot of knowledge since joining ATS and whilst I believe that 9/11 involved high ranking complicity, I am on the fence as regards the perpetrators of the actual physical attacks as I'm sure many others are but I live in hope that the truth will out eventually.)


Could I ask your thoughts on the above post I wrote earlier please John?
thanks




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

My opinion is that directed energy weapons are highly directional (thus the name) they had to be operated from directly over the World Trade Center. The heat of that directed energy is what caused the molten mess at the base which couldn't be extinguished and/or cooled for weeks.



Wouldn't that have also fried all the witnesses who were in the basement at the time of the attacks and afterward?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by SwatMedic



And the conspiracy theorists wonder why they cant be taken seriously.


Thanks for the post SwatMedic. I am a conspiracy theorist and frankly I could care less whether or not anybody takes me seriously. I am after the truth not a fan club.


If the 9/11 CT's are looking for credibility, they had better get their act together and shun nonsensical rantings like this one.


I am a 9/11 CT's and as I said above I am not the least interested in whether or not I look credible. I am interested only in the truth. I have an act, and it is together, but it has nothing to do 911. As to 'nonsensensical ranting' I would be pleased to debate the issue with you. Allow me to start:

What is your opinion of the QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Docket No. May 31, 2007 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff/Relator Dr. MorganReynolds on behalf of the United Stateof America vs. numerous defendants and the NATURE OF ACTION allegations No. 1 through 15, II. Jurisdiction (allegations) 16, III. VENUE (allegation) 17. IV. PARTIES (allegations 18-42,V. THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT (allegations) 43(a)(b) VI.THE NIST WTC INVESTIGATION (allegations) 44-49, VII. THE DEFENDANTS' SCHEME (allegations(50-53, VIII. FALSE CLAIMS AND FLASE STATEMENTS TO NIST (allegations 54-58 (and I refer specifically to 55.(d)(i)(ii)), IX. DAMAGES (allegations) 59 and the subsequent 7 (seven) CAUSES OF ACTION, PRAYER FOR RELIEF SE CLAIMS AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO NIST 55. d)i)and ii) specifically and with respect to VI. THE NIST WTC INVESTIGATION, VII. THE DEFENDANT'S SCHEME and the SEVEN CAUSES OF ACTION?


Stuff like this just adds fuel to the fire (sorry for the pun) for people to discredit and bury any progress they are trying to make.


I would respectfully request how the QUI TAM COMPLAINT and/or my theory is going to bury any progress 'they are trying to make'. Also, who might 'they' be and what is 'the progress' they are trying to make.


While I read, research, and listen to alternate theories, fantasy fiction only gets people to turn away from some of the more plausible arguments.


There are many who probably agree with your 'fantasy/fiction' comment.


Now I dont know if these high energy lasers came from the people on mercury or Dr. Evil on the moonbase but I think the most likely explanation is that they came from Mr. Lears imagination in order to perpetuate his "status" as the one stop know it all for government cover-ups.


If you took the time to read the QUI TAM COMLAINT you would know exactly where the directed energy weapons come from. So until you do let me respectfully decline to engage in useless dialogue.

But thanks for your post.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by pmexplorer



as you believe in the no planes theory , are you therefore of the opinion
that these flights simply did not exist or that they took off only to
be flown elsewhere where the people on board were either disposed of
or taken somewhere else?


It may have been a combination. One flight may not have existed, one flight may have landed, one flight may have been flown elsewhere. Note: "Chic, I know you are alive and I know you are scared. Wish I could help you man but it was your choice. Good luck"


what of the cctv of the alleged hijackers at the airports?


I don't know if the cctv was real or faked but if it was real it was faked.


what about the families in mourning?


It was a tragedy.


what of the dead passengers?


If any passengers died it was a tragedy.


the black box recordings?


77 and 93 contained fabricated data. The WTC flight recorders or voice recorders were never found because there were no airplanes.


the passengers who made calls to their loved ones?


All of those calls were fabricated by the perpetraters.


Please bear in mind my questions are sincere,and in no way condescending, I am here to learn, I have gained a lot of knowledge since joining ATS and whilst I believe that 9/11 involved high ranking complicity, I am on the fence as regards the perpetrators of the actual physical attacks as I'm sure many others are but I live in hope that the truth will out eventually.


Some very mean kitties pulled this off. I hope they will be caught. But I have no illusions.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I'd have to agree, if the suit were frivolous it would have been thrown out. Just by the fact that this lawsuit has not been paraded on the mainstream media, to me, it suggests maybe it is not disinfo attempts and really has merit. If it were disinfo, it would be all over FOX by this time being torn apart and laughed at. Maybe once this suit catches momentum, FOX will spot a light on it and really make fun of it.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Thank you for taking the time to reply John, I appreciate it,
six years down the line I wonder if we really are
any closer to the truth?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I do not think he´s a lunatic...

One cannot deny the fact that the technology to pull off such a psy op is well within the capabilities of the defendants. Black tech or not.

Part of the inditement:



(...)it can be said that in the main, NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent because it intentionally conceals the fact that the buildings known as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center Complex, World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 were not hit by Boeing 767 jetliners and all such claims to that effect are glaringly and obviously blatantly false and are indeed, a manifested psychological operation (“psy op”) of the type that one or more of the defendants herein, including, without limitation, SAIC, specialize in.
10. Upon information and belief, such psy ops are and remain highly classified, secret instrumentalities of the military apparatus of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Some of the defendants are known manufacturers, developers, implementers, testers, and researchers or are otherwise participants in either the development of psy ops or the concealment of their true nature and capacities from the general public. Much of the secrecy apparatus under which psy ops are developed and were employed on September 11, 2001 (hereinafter generally referred to as 9/11/01) may, in fact, fall outside the purview of the normal, legally mandated decisional and command structure of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and may, in fact, be rogue


He just forgot a couple of defendants, that´s all.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   


It may have been a combination. One flight may not have existed, one flight may have landed, one flight may have been flown elsewhere.



If the lawsuit was stating that 9/11 was an inside job, the planes and passengers wouldn't be an issue, but in a lawsuit stating that there were no planes??? IMHO, no jury in their right mind would accept an answer like the one above.

When you have eyewitness accounts and video footage from multiple angles and multiple sources, showing planes hitting buildings, it would be a hard sell to convince a jury that the planes were holograms. And without having a solid explanation for what became of the planes and passengers, I think convincing a jury that there were no planes would be nearly impossible.

Jemison



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Originally posted by Jemison



If the lawsuit was stating that 9/11 was an inside job, the planes and passengers wouldn't be an issue, but in a lawsuit stating that there were no planes??? IMHO, no jury in their right mind would accept an answer like the one above.

When you have eyewitness accounts and video footage from multiple angles and multiple sources, showing planes hitting buildings, it would be a hard sell to convince a jury that the planes were holograms. And without having a solid explanation for what became of the planes and passengers, I think convincing a jury that there were no planes would be nearly impossible.

Jemison



Thanks for your post Jamison. If you ever have a chance to read the Qui Tam Complaint or acquaint yourself with the facts of the lawsuit I would be delighted to discuss them with you.

Until then please have a great day.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
John you are right. People need to read the details of the lawsuit. I read the whole thing and the case is very solid, very well presented. I have heard the "NO PLANES" theory before, although not widely accepted, I still say that it is very, very possible. Combine the energy directed weapons theory and the "what melted cars?" theory, and what you have is maybe more evidence that energy directed weapons were used.

John, can you point me in the right direction to were I can get started in reading about holographic technology?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
There are videos of some very suspicious looking ' cloaked ' aircraft at the Towers when turning to dust. The films show dots of light an wavy looking forms that appear to come and go from view, much like a cloaked Stealth fighter might be able to do. If the beams were from a space based weapon system, that would account for what we see; however, I do not think that it is beyond the realm of possibility that some ' stealth ' type aircraft were used with on board energy weapons used to demolish the Towers.

It has to be one or the other; either a plane with cloaking ability was used, or a space based system was used, no other really feasible possibility exists given the evidence we have so far. Nothing else fits the results we see.

No one has answered my question: If it was NOT a high energy weapon that turned the Towers into dust, then WHAT was the LIKELY alternative? Hmm? Tell us please someone what would have accounted for what we see in the films if it was not a high energy directed weapon? Since not ONE official story believer has been able to come up with an alternative that has some measure of common sense and liklihood attached to it, we can assume that the energy was derived from a directed energy source.

What is the alternative? It is not gravity, or fire, or anything that can be explained with physics as a standard, so what could have done it if NOT a directed energy weapon? Tell us please, you believers in the official lie.

We keep waiting and wondering when we will get an alternative to what is obviously the most likley scenario, but it never seems to come.Why is that? Why cannot the official story supporters ever tell us what ELSE makes these same effects known and observed? It is all too plain and clear that ONLY a directed energy weapon could accouint for what is seen, plain and simple. All guesses and suppositions cannot match the likleihood of an advanced weapon based in space or on stealth craft.

I cannot take the time right now to hunt down the Youtube videos I have seen that show the lights and blurry aircraft flying in the sky above the dustifying Towers, but they are there and if anyone can find them, I would appreciate it. I am NOT talking about the obvious bireds, I am tlaking about some very anomalous videos that show craft in the sky masked by some technology.

But the main thrust, that directed energy weapons were used, is the ONLY scenario that fits the facts. No one has propsed a better answer yet.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
From the document:

"Then by intentional and admitted modification and narrowing of the scope of that stated objective and mandate, NIST openly declined to carry it out. That modification was at the behest and with the urging, backing and/or combined manipulative power of the defendants, acting singularly, collectively, overtly, covertly and otherwise."

Is there any proof of the above statement? Are there documents to prove this compilicity? And what was it? Working singularly, collectively, which is it? Or is it all based on speculation of what could have happened?

From the document:

"Their individual and collective expertise, and that of their employers, could have been, but was not, used for purposes of calling attention to the fact that the effects seen and left by the pattern of destruction of WTC1,2 could not have been caused by jetliner impacts. Instead, defendant chose to use its expertise to commit fraud based on either withholding information or manipulating information and by then accepting payment improperly."

So, if you were a company that had anything to do with Direct Energy Weapons or any other aspect of 9/11 and your findings don't support the theory that planes did not hit the towers, you are guilty? And which is it, withholding or manipulation? Is there proof that either were accomplished and with intent?

Court cases are not build on what people could have done, and did not, rather on what they actually did.

This case seems to lack anything specific.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Originally posted by WeaponsOfMassDistraction




Court cases are not build on what people could have done, and did not, rather on what they actually did.



Yes, < ahem > that would be the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of 3000 Americans.


This case seems to lack anything specific.


Apparently you don't know how to read or you don't understand the judicial process.

But thanks for the post and keep on pluggin'.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Yes, but keep in mind that this is just the preliminary documents for the case. Any evidence available to prove those claims will obviously be presented in court. Until then, I don't think the smartest thing to do is show all of your cards to the opposition.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Ok... a lot of IF's here but...

IF it was possible... and IF it did happen.. then how do we know what is real and what isn't?

I mean we trust what we see right??? We all saw planes crash into the twin towers, whether in real life or on TV, we all saw it.

We on ATS always ask for photographic evidence, so, aside from CGI,
if it is possible to produce holographic images on a huge scale in real life, as they are suggesting in this lawsuit, how can we trust our own eyes?

I mean illusionists are able to make us 'see' all sorts of things that are seemingly impossible.

I am not suggesting that the theory is correct in this context, but it does make me question my abilities to decipher what is actually real.

How would I know if I've been duped??



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
We have no wings, tails, engine cores, center setions, wing planks or portions there of, no flight recorders no voice recorders, no wheels, tires, hubs, stringers, ribs or portions thereoff, no hydraulic cylinders, no oxygen cylinders, no aft pressure bulkheads, no forward pressure bulkheads, no keel, no acutators, no pilot's windshields, no Jeps, no nothing that might prove that a Boeing 767 ever penetated the north or south towers, and was found in the footprint of the collapsed towers.


But the passport from one of the terrorists survived undamaged! Boy, those passports must be made of REALLY strong material.




[edit on 14-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
All I was saying is that this case seems to be built more off of speculation than actual evidence. If there was hard evidence that showed complicity and the criminal intent of the defendants, that they intentionally manipulated or withheld information, it seems we would have heard it by now. I guess we'll have to wait and see what they have up their sleeves.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by Copernicus





[But the passport from one of the terrorists survived undamaged! Boy, those passports must be made of REALLY strong material.
Copernicus]



Yes, the passport of Satam Al Suqami (earlier and erroneously attributed to Mohammed Atta) was found several blocks away from the north tower. Suqami was allegedly one of the hijackers in Flight 11 and was a muscle-hijacker, not a pilot.

The alleged crash and disintegration of flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center took .20 seconds or 1/5 of a second. In that time we are asked to believe that the passport of Satam Al Suqami flew out of his jacket pocket, waited until there was a crack large enough in the fuselage to fly out of, then miraculously escaped burning in the huge gasoline fire that ensued, then magically floated down to the street where it was found by a passerby.

Now. If you believe the above story of Satam Al Suqami's passport then you will believe that 911 was engineered by Osama bin Ladin and carried out by 19 hijackers.

Whats got me confused is how did Osama bin Ladin, in a cave in Afghanistan get a hold of the controls to the Directed Beam Energy Weapon that the U.S. Space Command has in that secret satellite in orbit around the earth from which the high energy laser was fired to finish off the job the alleged airplanes started? Huh? Answer me that.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Hi John.. Ive come to respect your thoughts and input on here..
Thus in my earlier post in this thread I thought it was disinfo...
I am sertinly not a government shill, But can sertinly say I am misinformed. And when I see "no planes" "energy weapon" in a thread. I tend to get into a mind set where I cant allow myself to read any further into this.. As it sounds like none sense, from where I am standing.

If you wouldnt have come in and said what you did.. I would still be thinking the same thing.. (Thanks for the reality slap)

Prehaps there is more to this than I willing to give credit for..
I just know, when I talk to my friends and family it was hard enough to convice them it was an inside job.. No way I can convince people there where no planes at all...

I just dont think Im the man for the job to ty to explain this to them, people are going to have to read and study this themselfs.

You made a good point, and allowed me to see things from a different point.. I have been open minded enough in the past to allow myself to consider almost anything..

Thus if people want to go with this thats fine.. I honestly thought this was something to discredit those who belive differently.. And as you stated I am very misinformed, so I sorry I tried to come in here and blow the whole thing off.. I am only human, and tend to jump the gun..
Thanks for putting this into perspective..



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Whats got me confused is how did Osama bin Ladin, in a cave in Afghanistan get a hold of the controls to the Directed Beam Energy Weapon that the U.S. Space Command has in that secret satellite in orbit around the earth from which the high energy laser was fired to finish off the job the alleged airplanes started? Huh? Answer me that.


He has mad skillz?


One thing that have always bothered me about the beam weapon theory is that they did actually find molten steel in the wreckage after the north building. From what Ive read about the beam weapons, they pulverize steel. It doesnt seem they make it melt. But I could of course be wrong about that.

Then its the issue of explosives in the buildings. Those would on the other hand explain the molten steel, but why would they have explosives in the building if they were going to use a beam weapon?

Clear it up for someone who is confused. Help your fellow man.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join