This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

You know, John, you bring up an excellent point. I was just thinking the other day that there are illusionists and there are magicians. David Copperfield = illusionist. George Bush, the Neocons, politicians in general, the advertising industry/media. The difference between illusionists and magicians is this: Illusionists create momentary realities that they share with their audience. The illusionist's audience is always returned to the reality that they were familiar with previous to the illusionist's performance. Magicians on the other hand seek to confine their audiences indefinitely to a version of reality that the magicians have created for the benefit of the magicians. In other words, Magicians do not create illusions, magicians create realities.

Every person experiences a reality that is intrinsically different from all other persons. The objective of an illusionist is to get the audience to momentarily suspend their disbelief, drop their guard, for the sake of being entertained through deception. The objective of a magician is to get the audience to subscribe indefinitely to a reality that the magician has created for the benefit of that magician. Both the illusionist and the magician depend on deception in order for their tricks to work. There is a reason why black magic or black magick is called such. The illusionists never lets the audience forget that they have taken part in an entertaining performance. The audience always knows that magic tricks are being performed. The deception only goes so far. The magician, however, does not ever reveal that magic tricks are being performed. The magician seeks to keep the audience in the dark about what has occurred; what has been staged by the magician as a reality for the audience to believe in. A reality that would be under the control of the magician, that could be tweaked at will, for the benefit of the magician.

Spells can be broken, however. An illusionist will release the audience from a spell at the end of every trick performed. The audience catches its breath, understands that they are having fun, and gives credit to the illusionist for a magic trick well done. Magicians break spells only to suspend the audience under the spell of another trick. Great illusionists and magicians do not work alone. A troupe is necessary for assistance with staging and to draw distraction for tricks performed on a grand scale. A troupe also function as failsafe in the event that a spell is prematurely broken. Mistakes can be handled through the use of choreographed drama, comedy, dance, or other devices designed to distract the audience away from the failure of a trick. With great performances mistakes will be indistinguishable from intended results. A trick will, in fact, be performed as many times as is needed in order for it to be successful, though not enough times in order for mistakes to become obvious.

As to the subject of this thread and other 9/11 theories: "Shock and Awe." "The War on Terror." Slogans that create the intended result just by being uttered. That, my friends, represent the work of magicians. The use of methods and technology to create conflict that obscures the methods and technology being used. We are, in fact, using methods and technology in an attempt to address superior methods and technology for the sake of redress. "9/11 was an inside job!" Sound familiar? We've haven't broken the spell of 9/11, and we haven't sussed the methods and technology used to cast the spell. Or else the spell would be broken, wouldn't it? Arthur C. Clarke was right.

Originally posted by SteveR

Human remains were found at Shanksville?

www.usatoday.com...

By contrast, identification work at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pa., where two other passenger jets crashed on 9/11, has been complete since early 2002.

Analysts from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington matched remains to seven crewmembers and all 33 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville after passengers struggled with the hijackers. At the Pentagon, military medical examiners linked remains to 179 victims, including passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and people working in the facility. Five people who perished at the Pentagon could not be matched to remains.

and a somewhat interesting l'il tidbit from the same article.

In the Pentagon and Pennsylvania cases, nine genetic profiles that matched no known victims were presumed to be hijacker remains

Originally posted by SteveR
Human remains were found at Shanksville?

Source?

www.post-gazette.com...

Results 1 - 10 of about 585,000 for United Airline flight 93 passenger remains identified . (0.11 seconds)

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by luis9343

 

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

I believe "terrorists" were on the flights but i think they were flown the same way we fly our UAV's.The flight instructer himself said they were horrible and have no chance at being commercial pilots.Yet they did what expert pilots say would be hard to do.


[edit on 13-9-2007 by Project_Silo]

There is no way thats a plane at all:

1) it doesnt look like one

2) if it was a plane it fits into a hole that is 16ft and round??!!

3) If it was really a plane then why dont they just show us a few more angel's that they took from all the CCTV cameras around the area, not only the 50 or so angel's they have at the pentagon but the 20 or so angles from CCTV from outside of the pentagon area looking at the inpact zone and also the so called flight plath of the plane?

There is only one reason why they havent shown us that...Because it doesnt fit in with the offical story and it will show them to be full of #. it will also show us just why that hole was just so small.... !

Hello, I am a new ATS- member and I found a video that supports the missile theory, I don't know if you've seen it before but it is pretty interesting. Look closely and listen to what the guy filming and the woman say it was.

Here's the link.

youtube.com...


When the guy zooms out, you don't see a plane approaching, off course it's far away, but still you would see something I think. You do see in impact of something and the explosion.
The woman says; "That wasn't a plane", then the guy says' "It looked like a rocket, it was going way too fast".

[edit on 13-9-2007 by soulpower]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by soulpower]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by soulpower]

Originally posted by soulpower

Hello, I am a new ATS- member and I found a video that supports the missile theory, I don't know if you've seen it before but it is pretty interesting. Look closely and listen to what the guy filming and the woman say it was.

Thanks soulpower. Whats interesting is the jet airliner in the background audio starting at :20 and lasting to 1:35. I wonder who that was?

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.

A couple (off topic) questions John, but still concerning holographs. Do you think the "Phoenix Lights" craft could have been a holograph? And as far as projecting holographs, is it possible we have sattelites that can do it, or does the holographic projection eminate from the object which is being disguised?

Peace

There was more than one video that caught this missile!!

Naudet Brothers



People would argue that the light just shined at the right moment to make the wing appear but this is false. In the first image there SHOULD BE a dark wing, not an invisible one. Also, if you look at the other videos that show a "jet" the wings are lit up the entire time on those. This is obvious CGI. These images above were taken by the "Naudet Brothers". Those are the same guys that took the famous "first impact" videos. If you watch carefully on the first impact video, you can see one of the Naudet Brothers just so happens to aim the camera at the WTC1 when the jet impacted. Same thing with the second impact, this guy was filming the spectators? Then all of a sudden pans up to the towers at just the right moment. If you watch the video in full you can even see they edited the video and cut out some very important frames from the video!!! THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING!! I think th Naudet Brothers were placed there to film 911, and they had prior knowledge.

Heres the video:

Google Video Link

When you watch the video above, take note of what frames they cut out.

Now here is the other image that shows no wings...





[edit on 13-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

It is almost as if the wing just shows up at the very last second. Weird!

Peace

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.

Greetings, Mr. Lear,

I was wondering if you were familiar with this picture? There are also pictures available of plane debris on the streets, but I notice you specifically said "inside". Your comments would be appreciated.

img213.imageshack.us...

Originally posted by Dr Love

A couple (off topic) questions John, but still concerning holographs. Do you think the "Phoenix Lights" craft could have been a holograph? And as far as projecting holographs, is it possible we have sattelites that can do it, or does the holographic projection eminate from the object which is being disguised?

Peace

In my opinion its possible that the Phoenix lightrs could have been a holograph.

As far as who or what is projecting them I would guess that the secret satellite we have in orbit around the earth have both holograph projecting capabilities as well as Directed Energy Weapons consisting of High Energy Lasers.

I don't know exactly how the holographs work but an uniformed guess would be that they do not eminate from the object which is being disguised. That discipline is called is called 'cloaking' or 'stealth technology'. Holography is the projection of a person, place or thing into a place where it is not.

It takes a lot of techonology to fool ALL the peole ALL of the time.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by ModisOperandi

 

My friend. In the video, where I told everyone to freeze, looks more like a missile than an airplane.

AAC

but of course it would look like a missle, because both are aerodynamically designed. i got an almost perfect pause at 29.5 seconds, +/-. i can see its a plane. i can SEE the right wing.

ive worked on the grounds of airports and have learned that from a distance, planes appear to morph into strangely shaped things. its all illusion, based on glint, heat, etc.

this video shows nothing that supports the conspiracy theories.

I am surprised no one mentions the lack of logos on the plane in any of the videos i've seen ...

I am surprised no one mentions the infrared targeting laser visible from at least 2 cameras [most cameras have infrared filters so they thought this would not be noticed] in this video its visible at 1:08:10- 1:08:18 - Its not a reflection, as it shows from this angle and in another vid its visible from a very different angle .. but darnit I am having a hard time finding that second camera ...

reply to post by jaden_x


I really like when you look at the pics and notice that the building has already started to explode before the plane even crashes. Funny how that is, eh?

reply to post by 42Cliff


42Cliff, this thread was talking about the visible laser and ICF lenses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The planes were moving very quickly, and on video, especially compressed video (which you're analyzing - I find that hilarious), they will blur.

Looks just like a blurred plane.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by Meatclown
I personally believe the missile theory, that looks nothing like a plane.

This looks nothing like a plane?


???

This isn't even the screencap from 29.5 seconds.. as a matter of fact, it's not even the same perspective or tower..

Originally posted by soulpower
Hello, I am a new ATS- member and I found a video that supports the missile theory, I don't know if you've seen it before but it is pretty interesting. Look closely and listen to what the guy filming and the woman say it was.

Here's the link.

youtube.com...


When the guy zooms out, you don't see a plane approaching, off course it's far away, but still you would see something I think. You do see in impact of something and the explosion.
The woman says; "That wasn't a plane", then the guy says' "It looked like a rocket, it was going way too fast".

Look at this video. Guess you need to listen to her as well.

@ deltaboy

That footage and the womans comments are from the first plane that hit WTC, I was talking about the second plane that hit.
I'm just bringing this up and not deciding anything here.