Can a 767 Fly 500MPH @ 700ft Altitude? Boeing Official Says: Ha Ha Ha! Not a Chance!, page 14
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14    15    16  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 03:58 AM by GreenFloyd
Originally posted by TrevorALan

Originally posted by johnlear


Here is a page from a government manual on techonology expected to be operational in 2025.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that they might be a little ahead of schedule.


You can suspect all you want but you can't claim that because someone WANTS this technology that means it exist. Look at the latest Time magazine, the US Marines cant get their neat rotating wing plane to work, and that is far less of a technology leap than daylight hologram.

I don't know if it is "unreasonable" to assume it is think it could exist, but the burden is on you to prove it overwhealmingly, not on people who don't believe to disprove your dreams.


Dear TrevorAlan,

I hope you saw the 2 YouTube videos, one of Al Gore and another of a beautiful young lady doing an erry dance, both were holographic projections. Both were very impressive, I imagine they would be even more so if viewed in person. The dancer was of particular interest to me as both a dramatic demonstration of what these machines can now do, and as an homage to Thomas Edison's famous flm clip, circa 1895, The Edison Film.

That being the case, as Mr. Lear hints at, the true state of the art @ 5.6 is no doubt more advanced than what we see in the above mentioned examples.

How far advanced? I wish we knew!

Investigators out to deny ignorance and reveal cover-ups must be careful about prejudice and preconcieved notions. We all have them and they do effect our perspective and eventual conclusions or acceptance of facts in light of the evidence at hand.

Or in this case, the absence of evidence thereof.

That, to me, remains the hardest fact to accept and causes endless consternation.

I suspect we all feel that to some extent, that's why we're here.

I am also sure most of you understand unravilling 911 is about much more than the very detailed question this thread ask. No. The meat of 911 is in the basic questions, the who, what, when and where that guide the investigation of all crimes.

Consider: even if we could, without a reasonable doubt, answer this question. What in itself would it reveal? Would it be likely to give insight into answering any of those basic and most important questions? I doubt it.

Cheers


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 05:34 PM by craig732
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by craig732


Real planes would be too risky. A real plane would have crashed against the building and fallen down in front of many eyewitnesses.


Since 9/11 there have been 3 other instances that I know of where planes have flown into buildings. (There may have been more, these are the 3 I thought of off the top of my head.)

One was a teenager in Tampa, Florida.

Most of the plane entered the building. It did not crash against the building and fall down.

Tampa plane crash into building pic

One was a famous baseball player in NYC.

The plane fully entered the building. It did not crash against the building and fall down.

NYC Plane Crash Into Building Pic

One was the Pirelli Building in Milan, Italy.

The plane fully entered the building. It did not crash against the building and fall down.

Milan, Italy Perilli Building Crash Pic

These were all small, light planes crashing into buildings with stone or concrete and glass fascades.

Why would a plane weighing many, many times these small planes, going many, many MPH faster than those planes, crash into a glass and aluminum fascade, bounce off, and then fall into the street?


[edit on 2-10-2007 by craig732]


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:04 PM by CB_Brooklyn
Originally posted by craig732
One was a famous baseball player in NYC.

The plane fully entered the building. It did not crash against the building and fall down.

NYC Plane Crash Into Building Pic



Come on. This was obviously an "inside job". They found his PASSPORT on the street? Remind you of anything? Besides, why would a baseball player carry a passport on a private, local plane ride?

Have you seen the info here?
killtown.blogspot.com...



reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 08:59 PM by seanm
Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

One was a famous baseball player in NYC.

The plane fully entered the building. It did not crash against the building and fall down.

NYC Plane Crash Into Building Pic

Come on. This was obviously an "inside job". They found his PASSPORT on the street?


Too bad you are so inexperienced with forensic investigations of aircraft crashes. Finding a passport, even undamaged, is nothing uncommon. Just as other paper products survive all manner of horrific airline crashes.

Admit it, CB, you have given us enough evidence that you really don't know what you don't know. Don't you think it's time to stop the silliness?

Remind you of anything? Besides, why would a baseball player carry a passport on a private, local plane ride?


A connecting flight to an international flight never entered your mind, did it, CB?

I have had passports since a kid. I have ALWAYS traveled with my passport, even domestically. A big deal? Apparently, to you.

You really need to do some research, CB.


reply posted on 6-10-2007 @ 10:25 AM by seanm
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by seanm
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. So the absence of photos is evidence of absence of debris?

The passport and other debris was found on the street below the crash sites in WTC 1 and 2. Do you deny that is possible?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam again. So now the absence of "official reports" means the absence of evidence and proof that the flights crashed?

No wonder the 9/11 Truth Movement is so befuddled.


No, the absence of debris is evidence.


Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have no evidence that debris is absent. You claim that there are no photos of debris.

But yes reports state that the FBI took over 40,000 photos, we have not seen a percentage of that.


Whether those photos were taken or not is irrelevant to the evidence of the crashes.

We also have not seen an actual video or photo of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, a building with cameras on it and cameras on surrounding buildings.


Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. The existence or non-existence of photos or video is irrelevant to the evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Possible but very unlikely more then 1 passport and ID would just happen to be found in and around a aircraft crash scene with fire involved.


Happens all the time.

Without the official reports we have no evidence of what really happened. No facts or evidence to support the official story.


That is a logical fallacy. The evidence of what happened is not dependent on the existence or absence of any reports whatsoever.

I keep having to remind 9/11 Truthers that there is no "official story." There is only the evidence from hundreds of different sources which all lead to the conclusion that that 4 planes were hijacked and crashed into WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon, and the ground in Shankesville.

Again, you are doing nothing but committing the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance repeatedly.
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14    15    16  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags