This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

reply to post by Freeborn


I agree with you completely. I believe there is a deep underlying conspiracy surrounding the attacks and believe our government, indeed, orchastrated a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to increase it's global dominance.

I believe this was done through affiliations with Arab countries that aided terrorist organizations and funded by the U.S. through laundering money through these countires (Pakistan). And that the attack was carried out by terrorist that hi-jacked two planes and flew them into the WTCs. I think there were controlled demolitions in the building.

What I don't believe is that there were missles or holograms involved. I do however believe that the planes could easily have been remotely controlled by laser guided systems through satellites. I think the whole operation was conducted from WTC7 and that's why it had to be evacuated and "pulled".

And I don't think the truth will ever be know because most American's don't REALLY want to know the truth. That's why they so easily accept the "Official Story" that many scholars say is physically impossible.

gee, all that video manipulation and resampling when all you had to do was watch the impact out of the corner of your eye and you would have seen the wings...nice editing work though, youcan actually see that the "missile" is a plane with wimgs...like we've been saying for 3???? pages now.

Originally posted by jaden_x

Thanks for the reply. i put that plane there for you guys to have an idea of the wing span and how there was no wing impact on the building as the object entered.

OK jaden_x, my bad. Please accept my apologies for being rude.

No, there couldn't have been any wing damage because there were no planes. No planes crashing into the WTC. There were no Boeing 767's flying into or crashing into the World Trade Center towers. There were no people in those planes that didn't crash into the WTC. It was an illusion.

What people were seeing were holographs, the technology of which are about 30 to 50 years ahead of where people think it is.

The reason people are so emotional about the 'no planes' theory is that they are embarrassed to have been tricked.

People tend to evaluate what they see in terms of what they know this minute not in terms of what 'could be' with superior techonology. Arthur C. Clarke said (smoeting like), "Advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And thats really al 911 was, was a magic trick. Wait, I mean Majic trick. My bad.

reply to post by johnlear


i apologize for this post mr lear but..."uh...What?!"
you are waaay out there!

surely you cannot be serious. tell me, do they have holographic video imaging equipment in Las Vegas?

surely you cannot be serious. tell me, do they have holographic video imaging equipment in Las Vegas?

Originally posted by johnlear

No, there couldn't have been any wing damage because there were no planes. No planes crashing into the WTC. There were no Boeing 767's flying into or crashing into the World Trade Center towers. There were no people in those planes that didn't crash into the WTC. It was an illusion.

What people were seeing were holographs, the technology of which are about 30 to 50 years ahead of where people think it is.

I know you probably seen this coming, but where is the holographic technology evidence to qualify you to make this assertion? Where have the people gone from these planes? How did they make gallons of jet fuel magically spurt from the direction of the impact? Or was that holograms too? Where would they have placed these holographic generators? What size are they? Can you give me links to them? Who has created them?

And why arent they being employed in modern warfare to scare the evil do'ers? Why are American soldiers dying when we could just as easily use holograhic uber-monsters, soldiers, massive infantry or tanks or planes to freak out insurgents? What a waste of patriotic life.

tell me john...does mrs. marilee know about this video holographic equipment also?

yah the OP was talking about the 1st building to be hit, not teh 2nd which is what everyone posted photos of.

that does look strangely like a missile. wheres the wings?

reply to post by runetang


I think you're mistaken. If you look back at the OP you'll see the comment "Pause on 29.5 seconds.", and this is where the plane hits the second building.

Originally posted by josephus maximus
such nonsense, you have a half a second of blurry video you're basing this thread on and five minutes of clear video debunking your own thread! it is so clearly an airplane. what a waste of time!

You would have realized that OP had actually recanted about an hour before you posted. You may have relized that had you actually read the posts. I guess a condescending attitude also facilitates the inability to read.

But one thing is certain; Muslim extremists hi-jacked two PLANES and flew them directly into the twin towers.

is that why some of the alleged hijackers are still alive?

What people were seeing were holographs, the technology of which are about 30 to 50 years ahead of where people think it is.

The reason people are so emotional about the 'no planes' theory is that they are embarrassed to have been tricked.

interesting, i agree that a huge part of the reason people don't want to even think about 9/11 being a inside job is because they would be humiliated, its like telling them this whole time all the emotions they invested, the anger the hate the sadness was for the wrong things.

The hologram thing sure is out there, but im open to many things though, i would like to know in more detail why you think its hologram.

Originally posted by josephus maximus

tell me john...does mrs. marilee know about this video holographic equipment also?

Marilee is from Philadelphia, Mississippi and doesn't believe much of anything. The only reason she believes that flying saucers exist is because in 1987 at 2pm in the afternoon 2 of them flew right behind our house about half up Frenchman mountain. They flew from the north end to the southend of the mountain. My 11 year old daughter and her friend were there also. We call them "Marilee's flaming tuna cans", because thats how she described the 2 that were flying in formation."

As to 911, she doesn't believe there was any conspiracy and we don't discuss it much.

However just this morning I briefed her on the details of the Morgan Reynolds lawsuit. Reynolds does not address the holographs in the lawsuit so I have to address them for him. When I got done explaining how it worked to her, she was speechless which is the first time that ever happened since the beginning of time. I know she is not going for it yet but I am making headway.

reply to post by luis9343


They were Muslim extremists; were the perpetrators those blamed for it?
I don't know.

A very complicated issue and like I stated before one that I don't usually post on, even though I do read a lot of the 9/11 threads.

I suspect that somewhere, deep inside all the disinfo and pure BS there is a conspiracy.

They were planes that flew into the twin towers, end of.
How, why, who by etc remains to be proved.
Talk of missiles detracts from the real truth.

Flight 93, The Pentagon etc, who, why, what, how?
Again, I don't know but I do know that the amount of bickering within the conspiracy community only helps to prolong the debate and keeps true investigators from discerning the truth.

reply to post by johnlear


Is there any reference sites that we can take a look at to find out more on the holographic imaging. I know the technology is classified, but any sites that might speculate on how this would work? You said you explained it to someone. Was this information obtained from an aquaintence by word-of-mouth or from researching? The reason I ask is because I know you have a lot of friends that have, or have had access to privilaged information.

You have a point in the reference that people think in terms of what they know. I'm not saying I'll buy into whatever information is out there (maybe that's the side of me that doesn't want to be embarassed) but I'd certainly like to find out more on the subject.

I hope you're not taking this in a condecending manner. I'd honestly like to find out more on why many people believe this theory.

Originally posted by tyranny22

Is there any reference sites that we can take a look at to find out more on the holographic imaging. I know the technology is classified, but any sites that might speculate on how this would work? You said you explained it to someone. Was this information obtained from an aquaintence by word-of-mouth or from researching? The reason I ask is because I know you have a lot of friends that have, or have had access to privilaged information.

I know of no site or any place else where you can find out about the present state of holographic technology. Thats the way the government wants it and that is the way it is going to be.

The information I obtain is usually by word of mouth or I should say, 'slip of the tongue' because I never ask for, or attempt to obtain information that I think the possession of would harm me or any member of my family.

And I can think of one area of information that if I were to type in on Google would have the NSA at my door in minutes.

Originally posted by johnlear
No, there couldn't have been any wing damage because there were no planes. No planes crashing into the WTC. There were no Boeing 767's flying into or crashing into the World Trade Center towers. There were no people in those planes that didn't crash into the WTC. It was an illusion.

John I've always thought you had some pretty outrageous ideas/theories floating around here, but this however isn't one of them. I always wondered what your take on 9-11 was and I am glad to finally read part of it. This understanding though is not something many will accept for various reasons. The same will be true for the next "event" this administration keeps alluding to.

You're right on the money with this one, John.

reply to post by johnlear


Wow, dude. Between this and the 600 million people living on Mars....


This is a hologram?




This?




How about the hole? Is it a hologram too?




How about the live coverage of it? Was the plane put in with CGI? How about the dozens of home videos? Did they round up all of those and put a CGI plane in there?

There is absolutely no evidence of a missile. There is no point to use a missile or a hologram.


I haven't been here very long, but from what I've seen out of your posts, you make wild claims and never back them up. All you do is dodge the questions. How you got your own forum and how you're so big on this website, I'll never know. It seems you're free to make what ever claim you want without providing the slightest bit of proof, while others do the same thing and get warned and banned.

Like josephus maximus said, things like this bring down the credibility of this website greatly.

[edit on 9/12/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Here Here! and cheers Josephus Maximus! This thread has been started by fringe idiots! They should only serve as speed bumps on the road to exposing the truth. Let us dismiss them and move on.

At the 29.5 sec point it's an airplane too. If you look closely you can see the tail and the reason it looks like there are no wings is because the camera angle is in line with the 45 degrees of bank that the plane was in when it hit, so you are looking at the wing tip dead on.

You know it is posts like this that give the serous conspiracy guys a bad name.