Originally posted by FredT
Geeeee is this film bogus too? Seems like the F-4 went through that huge chunk of reniforced concrete.

That was with a much smaller aircraft with a whole lot less mass travaling at the same speed. Last I looked the walls of WTC were not make of 4+ feet or reinforced concrete

[edit on 9/23/07 by FredT]

! thing you are forgetting too. An F-4 was mostly made of steel, a 757 is made mostly of aluminum.

If a plane made mostly of steel could not make much of a pentatration into the reinforced conrete wall, how could a plane made mostly of aluminum travel throgh the walls and collums of the Pentagon?

If you look at the Purdue animation of the plane hitting the tower you can see the aluminum airframe being shredded as soon as it hits the steel beams. Also the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building.

There is no reason to prove the no plane theory wrong. It's some peoples opinion. You can't make them agree with you. If your opinion is the boeing offical is right, that's fine. I personally am going to side with the over 1000 engineers and investigators who say the plane did hit it. My choice. I'm sure there are some conspiracies out there... but not everything is a conspiracy. Believe it or not, some days the government does screw up, and somedays other countries are planning terrorists plots... Sometimes those two things just happen on the same day.

As for this other argument... there is no way a 767 can penetrate such and such... has anyone here ever seen a 767 fly into a similar structure before? A tornado can drive straw through a tree, and wood through thick concrete at under 300mph... were going to debate aluminum and steel at over 500mph?

[edit on 24-9-2007 by b309302]

Could you document this...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
! thing you are forgetting too. An F-4 was mostly made of steel, a 757 is made mostly of aluminum.

Thanks.

Actually, if you could provide me with the name of any aircraft manufactured in the last 50 years that was "mostly steel" I'd appreciate it.

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!

Mr. Lear is supporting a conspiracy with a conspiracy.

A conspiracy that planes could not hit with a conspiracy that we have technology which can produce an two enormous planes, visually apparent from miles away along with perfect sound systems that can follow, and transmit just as far and so sophisticated that they can be tailored to suit every individual's location.

Look up people before you believe them:

John is generally acknowledged to be a nut, or deranged apart from his loyal fan-base.

Not flaming here, just regurgitating what I've read.

--Oh! And John! Still waiting for -any- sort of evidence about that 'We have nuclear reactors on the Moon' thread.

Seriously, go check his stuff out before you instantly believe, or assume he knows what he's talking about -- In the conspiracy.

How to make a conspiracy theory...
1. Take an event and create an alternative theory to explain facts
2. Anytime someone presents actual facts that prove your wrong, claim it is part of the conspiracy
3. Ignore tens of thousands of credible sorces that claim your wrong, and only use the few that agree with you as an example.
4. Make sure it is something so ridiculous, that it would be impossible to ever prove you totally wrong.
5. Get a tinfoil hat

Yep I think this has it all...




[edit on 24-9-2007 by ATSS32]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by FredT
Geeeee is this film bogus too? Seems like the F-4 went through that huge chunk of reniforced concrete.

That was with a much smaller aircraft with a whole lot less mass travaling at the same speed. Last I looked the walls of WTC were not make of 4+ feet or reinforced concrete

[edit on 9/23/07 by FredT]

! thing you are forgetting too. An F-4 was mostly made of steel, a 757 is made mostly of aluminum.

OP I am a pilot and am telling you a 747 can be a 500 even 1000 mph. Ok by 1000 I would expect structual collapse but you get the point.

If the plane had descended by say 3000 ft in the period of about 30 seconds it could hit 500. Remeber that the plane did not travel at 7--ft from the airport it went at a couple of thousand and then descended right..

Oh also just a side note, I live in Miami and I might go to the mosque where the terrorists aboard those 3 planes prayed just before they took off. I will start another post asking if there is any questions to ask the priest or w/e the call them in that religion.

And there was definately a plane, how could we see it in the vids and even if it wasent how would you tell the people that lost family members on that flight that they never died and are at a secret national base or for that matter Area 51.

Ok im sorry for the craziness but yeah you guys are smart enough to get it.

Totally wrong. F-4's are mostly aluminum, some titanium and some inconnell
Some of the hydraulic lines are Stainless steel but that's about it. I worked in a Naval air rework facility on F4's. Where did you get the idea they were mostly steel?

An all-steel aircraft would fly as well as my watch, to be frank.

Originally posted by Xtrozero


Like i said though I do not know that guy's reasons to say what he says.

my guess is that the person asking
was likely coached into framing the question in the proper manner,
so as to get the desired & elicited 'answer'

the dialogue was likely staged...

because a conspiracy shrouded response/answer would gain the team a degree of noteriety and buyers of the story
and possible future book, screen-rights deals.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by St Udio]

I totally disagree with the hologram theory. But at least it is more consistent then the Tv FAkery thing, since the hologram theory takes into consideration the amount of people watching the event.

Recall that many people saw the event live and not on tv. After the first hit many peoples eyes were turned toward the towers. It would make no sense for anyone to plan an operation with no plane when most people would be looking.

Originally posted by Iblis

John is generally acknowledged to be a nut, or deranged apart from his loyal fan-base.

Thanks for the post. I am not sure how I could be 'deranged apart from his loyal fan-base' Iblis, (you might need a little help in sentence structure ), but there is no doubt that many consider me a 'nut'.

Not flaming here, just regurgitating what I've read.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

--Oh! And John! Still waiting for -any- sort of evidence about that 'We have nuclear reactors on the Moon' thread.

We are too. Both nuclear physicists, the one from Lawrence Livermore and the one from MIT promised to get back with us. We'll let you know as soon as we get the info.

Seriously, go check his stuff out before you instantly believe, or assume he knows what he's talking about -- In the conspiracy.

Again, Iblis, this is not criticism but you need to give your sentence structure just a tad more thought as in the above quote.

But your posts are greatly appreciated.

Is till have no reply on what you have to say on me seeing the plane coming in from when it was but a dot on the horizon.