Can a 767 Fly 500MPH @ 700ft Altitude? Boeing Official Says: Ha Ha Ha! Not a Chance!

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

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




posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

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...



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Yeah, they couldn't find the black boxes - practically indestructable masses of steel, equipped with radio locators and designed to go to hell and back - but they found a passport made of paper?! Oh, lordy...



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin-d
Yeah, they couldn't find the black boxes - practically indestructable masses of steel, equipped with radio locators and designed to go to hell and back -


Funny little story about the emergency beacon on aircraft. A guy buys a house not knowing that the guy that had it placed a emergency bacon from an old aircraft in the basement. While he was cleaning out the basement he unknowingly knocked over the beacon and set it off. A little later he had a knock at the door, it was the Civil Air Patrol search and rescue. They had picked up the signal from the beacon and had thought a plane went down in the area.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   




I wonder how your father would feel about you getting into the disinfo business, John. Somehow, I think he'd be rolling in his grave about now.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Gorman91





Mr. Lear, I saw a plane. Not a see through plane, not a missile with flame rockets, not a small plane, just a big fat old plane.



Thanks for the post Gorman91. You and many others saw the same thing. A holograph is indistinguisable from the real object but that is difficult to imagine when you are thinking in techonology of the year 2007.

Try any figure out what they might have 50 years from now. When you are able to imagine that then just imagine that they have that now.

If you can't imagine what they might have 50 years from now, relax. You are not supposed to.

Thanks for the post and your input. I greatly appreciate it but PsyOps will appreciate it much more!



I am sure some here will appreciate that you have such a well developed imagination, John.

I am sure you understand that most us prefer to live in the real world for very good reasons.

But DO dream onwards!



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I don’t understand. Is half the ATS readership going crazy? Why aren’t more paying attention to what John Lear has said. He’s been repeatedly stating that while 500 mph at sea-level might be possible for a 767, at speeds above Vmo (357 knots) deafeningly loud alarm noises go off inside the cockpit making the plane un-flyable for amateur (highjacker) pilots. If people (foolishly) insist on arguing with him, they should at least address his very specific points, such as that one.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



Now really, how can anyone argue when Holograms hit the towers and not 767s???



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Projected holographic images with accompanying sound is technology that may be 50 years advanced from where we think we are at this point in time.


Backing down, John? First it was definite; now it's just "may be."

Remember our lessons as kids: it's much easier to tell the truth to begin with than try to track lies.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
Too bad you are so inexperienced with forensic investigations of aircraft crashes.


So where did you get your crash recovery experience from? I received mine in the Air Force.

Maybe you can tell me about the FBI and NTSB crime scene reports that we do not have, or why the FBI only spent 5 days at the Pentagon crime scene after stating it would 30 days?



[edit on 5-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Too bad you are so inexperienced with forensic investigations of aircraft crashes.


So where did you get your crash recovery experience from? I received mine in the Air Force.


So, do you deny that paper products are often found after plane crashes involving fire?


Maybe you can tell me about the FBI and NTSB crime scene reports that we do not have, or why the FBI only spent 5 days at the Pentagon crime scene after stating it would 30 days?


Maybe you can tell us if you deny that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, AA11 hit WTC 1, and UA175 hit WTC 2.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
So, do you deny that paper products are often found after plane crashes involving fire?

Maybe you can tell us if you deny that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, AA11 hit WTC 1, and UA175 hit WTC 2.


Thats intelligent, answer a question with a question.

There is usually all kinds of debris found at a crash site. But strangely no photos of the types of debris with the 9/11 crash sites. But to answer your question paper products are usually found away from the crash site not right at the site due to fire.

We do not know what hit the towers or the Pentagon becasue we do not have the official reports. To state that flights 11, 77, 93, and 175 crashed that day would just be a theory.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
So, do you deny that paper products are often found after plane crashes involving fire?

Maybe you can tell us if you deny that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, AA11 hit WTC 1, and UA175 hit WTC 2.


Thats intelligent, answer a question with a question.


Since that was the subject you were replying to, I steered you back on topic.


There is usually all kinds of debris found at a crash site. But strangely no photos of the types of debris with the 9/11 crash sites.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam. So the absence of photos is evidence of absence of debris?


But to answer your question paper products are usually found away from the crash site not right at the site due to fire.


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?


We do not know what hit the towers or the Pentagon becasue we do not have the official reports. To state that flights 11, 77, 93, and 175 crashed that day would just be a theory.


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.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

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

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.

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



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm


So what actual physical evidence do you have that planes hit the towers or the Pentagon if we have no photos, videos or no official reports. And do not say witnesses because the witnesses could not agree on what they saw.

You have no actual facts or evidence to support your theory of what happened that day. No photos, videos with reports to match them to the planes on 9/11 or any other official reports from the investigating agencies.

Show me where several passports and IDs have been found intact at aircraft crash scenes prior to 9/11.

As far as an official story, the official story is what we have been told by the media. Which has been proven to be missing or left out lots of infomration.



[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm


So what actual physical evidence do you have that planes hit the towers or the Pentagon if we have no photos, videos or no official reports. And do not say witnesses because the witnesses could not agree on what they saw.


Let me get this straight. If there are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.

Let's be real clear here. Is that what you want us to believe, Ultima 1?

I want you to state for me so that there is no confusion exactly what you mean.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
Let's be real clear here. Is that what you want us to believe, Ultima 1?

I want you to state for me so that there is no confusion exactly what you mean.


I will make myself as clear as i can.

After 6 years we have not seen even a small percentage of evidence, also not much evidence to support the official story.

1. No FBI and NTSB crime scene reports.

2. No reports matching any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

3. No reports as to where the parts were taken.

4. No actual photo or video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon with cameras on the building and on nearby buildings.

5. NIST still cannot tell us how builidng 7 collasped.

Just to name a few.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Let's be real clear here. Is that what you want us to believe, Ultima 1?

I want you to state for me so that there is no confusion exactly what you mean.


I will make myself as clear as i can.

After 6 years we have not seen even a small percentage of evidence, also not much evidence to support the official story.


As you know, there is no "official story." Why do you deliberately misrepresent the facts?


1. No FBI and NTSB crime scene reports.

2. No reports matching any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

3. No reports as to where the parts were taken.

4. No actual photo or video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon with cameras on the building and on nearby buildings.

5. NIST still cannot tell us how builidng 7 collasped.

Just to name a few.



Now, answer my question directly with no excuses and evasions this time, ok? I repeat:

If there are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.

Let's be real clear here. Is that what you want us to believe, Ultima 1?





top topics
 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join