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.

 

This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Invalid Operandi


Originally posted by ModisOperandi
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.

If you want to keep posting in these forums, don't ever post anything like this again.

Among other things, ATS exists to give members a place to discuss topics that would be subject to censorship or ridicule elsewhere.

You have apparently failed to notice or understand the rather obvious glowing graphic tags that appear at the top and bottom of every displayed content page in the 9/11 Conspiracies forum.

Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the policies governing this forum and community-wide requirements for courtesy.

If you should experience further difficulty understanding or complying with these policies, please feel free to send me a U2U for additional assistance.

Disagreement with any theory or claim is quite okay and skepticism (as opposed to mindless cynicism) is indeed a worthy trait to cultivate, but rude commentary directed against other members is unwelcome and will not be tolerated.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

For instance, if sometime in the next few years the government says we are under attack by alien forces and they need us to cooperate and do certain things and they prove this alien attack by asking us to step outside and see the alien craft (that they are projecting) showing hundreds of giant flying saucers in the air, they do not want people to question whether or not those attacking saucers are holographs. They want complete, total and instant cooperation from a frightened public.




You can't be serious...
Even if there were technology that exists that can create that large or a holographic image that immense don't you think some hillbilly would shoot his gun at it and say, "HEY MA, my bullet went rite threw that critar!"

Then the truth would come out thanks to some hillbilly in overalls, god bless marica.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


Priceless

I like this argument




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Interesting thread.

The perceived anomolies as regards the airplanes seems to me to be a great distraction from what seems to be more easily understood evidences of oddities. (in my opinion)

" Is the official account so negligent with the facts that a much broader investigation should be initiated by a non-governmental agency ?"

- To those who answer - "no", I would never attempt to persuade them otherwise primarily on the strength of the plane anomolies. (I am not accusing you of attempting to persuade, OP)

There are so many compelling arguments surrounding planes, missles, CG, holograms etc., that it may seem to some to be a distracting body of evidence itself. Distracting from what ? In my opinion it could be the "squibs" of the WTC towers, blasting moments before successive floor failures. To that there is only two bodies of argument that I have heard:

1) The "piston" or "air compression" theory, OR
2) Demolition squibs.

I hope one of those Two Options would be provable. It just seems like it should be able to be definitively answered. If #2 is provable it would seem that a conclusion could be reached similar to any "obvious missle" conclusion.

And as for the missle or plane being a hologram...I personally do not doubt that such things could be done, but that leaves me with a nagging question in the event that the above answer is factually #2.....

Would the "squib explosions" be holograms ? I would think not, and if not, I suppose you could not erase them with a hologram either (?), only with CG ?

And yet at the end of that day...they were not erased.
What Are They ?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   


The fact is nothing is there. No pods. No Planes. All the videos you see are of a holograph or fabricated video. Any relatively informed individual, with a knowledge of aircraft construction, operation and accident investigation background, who is can understand sky scraper construction, how they are built and what they are stressed for, and who understands the rudiments of what it takes to soften steel girders, knows that:


Geez must have been some hologram - really fooled 50 of my fellow
co-workers on the floors above me who watched the second plane
hit the South Tower. So convincing ! I guess this also applies to all
the people in the building burned by the jet fuel as it blew done the
stairs and elevators. I suppose their burns (some of them fatal) are
an illusion too.

Apparently you suffer what we call in Jersey "being hit upside the head"
a few too many times......



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
How could I miss this brewing little pot in the 9/11 Forum?


regarding,
i176.photobucket.com...

The camera recording video has a slow frame rate, and the camera itself was moving. This is why the tower has zero clarity and the plane was one long thin tube.

If you look closely you can see the ghost of the engines.

[edit on 12/9/07 by SteveR]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by josephus maximus
reply to post by kleverone
 

I just happen to think that there are more mature ways of getting ones point across


Mature? mature would have been to diligently research something before starting a thread such as this. it was irresponsible and akin to chicken little running through town with his tiny tail tucked between his wee bit legs.

best regards,
Josephus Maximus III



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephus maximus
it was irresponsible and akin to chicken little running through town with his tiny tail tucked between his wee bit legs



And what do you 'get' out of making such comments?


Or are you just bored?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

If you look closely you can see the ghost of the engines.

[edit on 12/9/07 by SteveR]


i dont think anyone has noticed that if it is a "missle" then then it is a very very missle ( in relation to its altitude and in relation to other objects)



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Final Reminder

No more sniping or off-topic posts.

Stay on topic or don't post.

For those who may have missed it, please read this before posting further to this thread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on the topic. No one is entitled to derail this or any thread with personal attacks, off-topic comments or insults.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by jdismal




And as for the missle or plane being a hologram...I personally do not doubt that such things could be done, but that leaves me with a nagging question in the event that the above answer is factually #2.....

Would the "squib explosions" be holograms ? I would think not, and if not, I suppose you could not erase them with a hologram either (?), only with CG ?

And yet at the end of that day...they were not erased.
What Are They ?



My opinion is that holographs were used to to make people think a large Boeing 767 crashed into the WTC. The instant the holograph appeared to disappear into the tower prepositioned explosives blew a hole nicely outlining where the plane, if there had been one, would have impacted. Other explosives inside the tower simulated debris passing through the building and out the other side. The holograph was unable to simulate the telescoping effect of the 159 foot long jetliner impacting the 47 column central core of the structure barely 60 feet in from the window. Impact videos make it look like the the 159 foot long jetliner was slicing through butter.

When it was decided that everybody was paying attention first one tower, then the next was demolished using "Directed Energy Weapons, consisting of High Energy Lasers and or other operational but largely secret weapons that are, nonetheless, known to exist and know to have been deployed and/or deployable in the year 2001, before and after." (Qui Tam Complaint, VII. The Defendants' Scheme. Docket No. May 31, 2007 U.S. District Court Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Plaintiff.)

Prepositioned internal explosives with squibs where also used to accelerate and facilitate the demolition.

The squib explosions were not holographs. The holograph was the alleged airplane that allegedly impacted the WTC. No part of the WTC or the explosions or squib explosions were holographs.


edit: length of 767

[edit on 12-9-2007 by johnlear]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 

SNIP! Insults removed and post ban applied.




(Mod note: We'll discuss compliance with the T&C via U2U. --Majic)

[edit on 9/12/2007 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Mr. Lear, it is becoming quite frustrating that you seem to dodge my questions. You did the same in the thread where you claimed 600 million people live on Mars.

So I'll ask again, what would the point be in using a hologram? What does a hologram accomplish that a plane does not? If there were explosives in the buildings, why does it matter how much damage the airplane does as opposed to a missile? What proof do you have that holographic imagery was used?

Call me closed minded or a sheep if you want, but I personally don't care how popular you are on this site, or what your background is. If a new guy has to provide proof for his claims, then so do you. You're not above providing proof. Word of mouth from anonymous sources isn't proof. Taking your word for it isn't good enough.

So please, answer my questions and back up your claims with facts.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
just curious, was what john lear posted actually serious?

i think the act of planting explosives in the building would have been noticable to the people who actually worked in those areas on a daily basis?

[edit on 12-9-2007 by iluvhonda]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi




Mr. Lear, it is becoming quite frustrating that you seem to dodge my questions. You did the same in the thread where you claimed 600 million people live on Mars.



Please accept my apologies AGAIN NOM! I don't mean to dodge your questions. I actually have a life other than ATS which included finally changing my radiator then this afternoon taking my grandson to soccer practice because his Mom had to work. The soccer practive area is on the other side of Las Vegas and it is a good 45 minutes each way (at rush hour) not including the practice. When I finally got home at 7;30 I had to put all my tools away, close the garage, go to the water store and get 7 5 gallon waters bottles filled for my wife who won't drink well water like the rest of us. Then I grabbed a bite of dinner and then had to review the QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND (Docket No. May 31, 2007) United States district Court for the Southern District of New York, Morgan Reynolds, Plaintiff to be sure I hadn't missed anything beforeI made my last post. The darn thing is 27 pages long!


So I'll ask again, what would the point be in using a hologram? What does a hologram accomplish that a plane does not? If there were explosives in the buildings, why does it matter how much damage the airplane does as opposed to a missile?


A holograph was used for both airliners at the WTC and the airliner at the Pentagon. By using holographs whoever perpetrated 911 saved themselves 3 perfectly good airplanes. No airplane crashed, nor was any debris of any consequence ever found at Shanksville so I am not counting that one.


What proof do you have that holographic imagery was used?


There was no wreckage of any kind every found INSIDE of either the north tower or the south tower. You would hve to know a little about airplane construction to know that this was utterly impossible if a Boeing 767 had crashed into either building.


Call me closed minded or a sheep if you want, but I personally don't care how popular you are on this site, or what your background is. If a new guy has to provide proof for his claims, then so do you. You're not above providing proof. Word of mouth from anonymous sources isn't proof. Taking your word for it isn't good enough.

So please, answer my questions and back up your claims with facts.


I have done the best I can and will stand by for any more questions. Again please accept my apologies for being late on this answer.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


There was plenty of wreckage inside the Pentagon, and there was debris on the outside.

I remember seeing wreckage from the Twin Towers somewhere, but I don't remember where. If I find it, I'll post it.

But even if there wasn't, that automatically means no plane crashed there? I mean, in the case of Flight 93, yeah, there should be plane debris. But millions of tons of concrete, steel, and glass crashing down on plane debris after a huge explosion is a little different than crashing into the ground.


As for you not answering my questions because you have a life outside of ATS, I understand that and that's not what I'm faulting you for. It just seemed that every time I asked you questions, you posted afterwards answering people who posted before and after myself, so it appeared as if you were dodging my questions.

So I apologize for being hostile.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Friendly Fire


Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
So I apologize for being hostile.

Sorry to butt in again, but if politely disagreeing with Mr. Lear and requesting that he substantiate his claims should ever be considered "hostile", then send me packing. :shk:

I have insisted that members be polite in their disagreements, but pray no one would misconstrue that as discouraging honest inquiry and candid discussion with respect to this or any topic.

Lively disagreement, dissent and debate are at the heart of what ATS represents.

Let the facts be presented and the members decide for themselves!



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I see I've created a monster, for that I apologize. I truely only wanted to add an artical of interest to the debate between the missile and the hologram theories. I thought that the still frozen shot of the airplane/missile
would be a good peiece to debate over.

That said, I don't think it is at all ridiclous to post this thread considering all the different sides of the debate. Just because this seems to cater to the side in which some have zero allegiance, doesn't make the OP an idiot, or a chicken little running around spineless. It makes him the kind of person that sees the purity of debate, rather than the intolerance of others. I never told anyone anything except that at 29.5 Seconds the airplane looks like a missile, and I STAND BY THAT.

The rest is semantics.


AAC



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
When I finally got home at 7;30 I had to put all my tools away, close the garage, go to the water store and get 7 5 gallon waters bottles filled for my wife who won't drink well water like the rest of us.


Well water in Nevada? You made that up!



...nor was any debris of any consequence ever found at Shanksville...


Except for the flight data recorder, pieces of a demolished airliner and the remains of the passengers, highjackers and crew. I'd call that pretty consequencial debris.

United 175 was being tracked by air traffic control. It made it to norther New Jersey when the highjacking occured and the transponder was turned off. Radar tracked it during it's change of course for Manhattan. At what point during that journey did the airliner become the holograph?

John, you seem like a hoot to have at a dinner conversation. But this is ATS so: What in the world, if anything, has convinced you of this holograph theory? Can you please answer that question while, simultaneously, denying ignorance?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
the remains of the passengers, highjackers and crew.


Human remains were found at Shanksville?
Source?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join