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.

 

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I have a real problem here. I thought I read that one of the rules was not to bring bull# here and pass it off as fact. However Ultima1 and his clown posse are doing just that all over this site. My second issue pretains to the fact that I have seen several people that have become sick of their crap get zapped by the all mighty Mod. Why enforce half the rules.

Ultima1, You are ticking everybody off because you yourself don't have the type of evidence you are requiring of others, less in fact. You ask a question, reject any logical answers and call that evidence. Here is a question you ask on all most every thread: Why didnt any pilots key the mike. Here is my answer to your question. some did, several pilots and ATC discuss whether they heard a scream, ATC hears pilots begging for their lives. I suggest to you that the ones that did not key the mike were the ones trying to get out of there seats and fight. you cant have it both ways, you want to talk about pilot training and experience. Why waste time calling ATC, I think an experienced pilot would know that the could not do anything to help, time better spent getting out of the seat to defend yourself and call ATC later. You probably don't agree, nor will you probably respond because it is to logical and does not further your agenda. All your ridiculous questions can be and have been answered in this way, but of course you reject them.

If I am kicked off, I am Kicked off. But at least I made my stand.




posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet
Ultima1, You are ticking everybody off because you yourself don't have the type of evidence you are requiring of others, less in fact.


I have been posting evidence, i am sorry if it does not go along with what you believe. Why do the people who believe the official story have to call people names that are intelligent and do research to find out what happened that day?

No one on here that still believes the official story can post any hard evidence or official reports that support their theories or the official report.

What have you done to find the truth of what happened that day? I have done the following to find the truth.

I have filed FOIA request with NIST and FEMA.

I have e-mailed companies that were actually at ground zero.

I have been doing research for over 2 years, How long have you been doig research, What resources do you use to do research ?



[edit on 11-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Just as I expected, you just keep babbling your bs ultima1. I responded to your mike question, but instead of addressing that you just ask the same question over again.

I am calling you out, you are trolling, and you don't add anything to the progression of the conversation. Everytime you post it's just the same questions over and over. Why the Mods don't work their magic on you is a mystery.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet
I am calling you out, you are trolling, and you don't add anything to the progression of the conversation. Everytime you post it's just the same questions over and over.


What have you added? Show me the research you have done the websites you use. I can show you the research i have done, the sites i use, the companies i have e-mailed.

I ask the same questions because no one will answer them with any facts and evidence.

I challenge you to show me the facts and evidence you have to support your theories and the sites you use to get the information.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The First Rule


Originally posted by wsamplet
I have a real problem here. I thought I read that one of the rules was not to bring bull# here and pass it off as fact. However Ultima1 and his clown posse are doing just that all over this site.

Here's the rule in question:


Originally posted by SimonGray

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

The key to understanding this rule is the word "knowingly". Members are allowed to be wrong, are allowed to speculate, are allowed to voice opinions that may not be substantiated by facts and are allowed to make mistakes.

Differences of opinion or different interpretations of facts do not constitute deliberate deception, and where there is any doubt, we give the benefit of the doubt to the membership.

If you can prove that any member is deliberately posting false, misleading, or inaccurate information, please let us know.

Half And Half


Originally posted by wsamplet
My second issue pretains to the fact that I have seen several people that have become sick of their crap get zapped by the all mighty Mod. Why enforce half the rules.

Let's look at the second major rule:


Originally posted by SimonGray

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Intent to deceive can be difficult to prove. Abusive, hateful behavior, on the other hand, is evident to all who witness it.

I have banned a LOT of accounts since I joined the senior staff, and the overwhelming majority of those bans have been applied becuase of willful and repeated violations of this rule.

I'm a member of dozens of discussion forums besides ATS, and none of them tolerate abusive behavior.

ATS is no exception, and anyone unable or unwilling to recognize that fact has no place here.

Some Apologies Are In Order

I apologize to my fellow members for my previous post and indulging in unnecessary, off-topic drama in this thread.

We usually don't comment on account bans, but sometimes I think it's important to let other members know what the deal was, as in this case.

I could have done so more professionally, however, and am sorry I did not.

Our Topic: Hologram dudes, how was it done?

Hearkening back to the topic of this thread, I want to remind everyone reading this that respecting the rights of members to make their own decisions regarding what to believe is at the very heart of what ATS is about.

If you believe the 9/11 attacks were staged using holographic projectors, that's fine. If you don't, that's also fine.

If you have a problem with anyone else choosing to believe what they want to believe and feel entitled to attack them personally for doing so, that's not fine.

It is extremely important to understand and respect the difference.

And now, having said far more than I probably should have, I request that we stay on topic, confine our comments to the issues, and avoid further unnecessary disruption in this thread.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Are people really that afraid of the truth ?


Yes because if what CT'ers say IS true even a part of it, they would be faced with a problem... a government that has perpetrated an atrocity on its own people in the name of whatever goal they had...

If WE are wrong we would be labeled as nuts ( which we are already anyway) so what's to lose?

Thanks for the effort... though I see it bearing little fruit here...

and in my opinion once they start name calling, you have won a battle



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Showing declassified military documents that essentially say "we have a plan for this, here's some artists rendering of said plan, but whether or not there really is a working device is totally ambiguous" doesn't prove anything.


Sure it does...

It shows they are/were planning things of that nature..
It proves intent, especially Operation Northwood...
And it certainly shows that there are those in power that would even come up with ideas like that.. AND put it in an official recommendation that went all the way to the top and was vetoed by the President (Northwood)

IF they did this... you really expect someone to find the official "we did this and this is how" documents? Would the plan and operations not be way above top secret?

And declassified military documentts are at LEAST 10 years behind what we actually have if not more

So what does it prove?

That they did conceive such devices
That they would use them against the 'enemy" in a heart beat
That they could conceive and draft such a plot and expect it to PASS CONGRESS (Northwood)

And with all this going on back and forth for 7 years now, it would not surprize me in the least if something else major were to happen soon and all this will be forgotten

Sheeple have very short term memories



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes because if what CT'ers say IS true even a part of it, they would be faced with a problem... a government that has perpetrated an atrocity on its own people in the name of whatever goal they had...


If you know anything of history, governments have done atrocities.

Lets start with something pretty recent, WWII.

The British break the Germans codes. They decode a message that says the Germans are going to bomb a town called Coventry. Now if the British worn the town or send planes to take out the bombers the Germans will know they have broken their codes. The British governmnet let the Germans bomb the town.

We have had our own atrocities. A place called Pearl Harbor.

Here endith the lesson>



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
That they did conceive such devices
That they would use them against the 'enemy" in a heart beat
That they could conceive and draft such a plot and expect it to PASS CONGRESS (Northwood)

And with all this going on back and forth for 7 years now, it would not surprize me in the least if something else major were to happen soon and all this will be forgotten

Sheeple have very short term memories


You sight Northwood several times, wasn't there going to be an actual airplane used in that operation? Now I can't prove that holograms weren't used but I can certainly argue against it. It's not just common sense, it's freinds who live in New York and told me of their day and the days after, it's a backround in science, and it's a little thing I like to call logic.

Say your trying to trick everybody in to believing that Muslim fanatics highjacked 4 airplanes so they could fly them into buildings. Why not use real planes?



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

IF they did this... you really expect someone to find the official "we did this and this is how" documents? Would the plan and operations not be way above top secret?

And declassified military documentts are at LEAST 10 years behind what we actually have if not more


The document being discussed was NEVER classified.

It was an Air University project.

It was published during the final draft stage, and was available for Joe Citizen at that time.

AU does this sort of thing every other year or so.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Isn't it funny how the hijackers knew how to work the transponder and the autopilot but did not know how to work the radio.

Also its funny how the pilots did not roll the plane to knock the hijackers off their feet to keep them out of the cockpits. But the hijackers knew to roll the plane to knock the passeengers off their feet who were trying to gain access to the cockpit on flight 93.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Isn't it funny how the hijackers knew how to work the transponder and the autopilot but did not know how to work the radio.



I've talked with a commercial pilot or 2 since 911 and the transponder is easy to off if you know how and autopilot, if you know how, doesn't make the airplane just fly straight it'll do everything you tell it to do except maybe land.

So if you are a self absorbed fanatic wouldn't you consentrate on the things you needed to know?

PS sorry in advance of this next link(if it works!), very technical and boring but it's the next preemtive strike against the hologram theory.
www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1998035264&IA=WO1998035264&DISPLAY=STATUS



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
I've talked with a commercial pilot or 2 since 911 and the transponder is easy to off if you know how and autopilot, if you know how, doesn't make the airplane just fly straight it'll do everything you tell it to do except maybe land.


But wouldn't they want to know how to work the intercommif they wanted to talk to the passengers to keep them at bay ?

I mean if they were so well trained on how to fly and how to use the autopilot you would think they would know how to use the intercom.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But wouldn't they want to know how to work the intercommif they wanted to talk to the passengers to keep them at bay ?

I mean if they were so well trained on how to fly and how to use the autopilot you would think they would know how to use the intercom.



If 1 or 2 of the highjackers stayed in the passenger area with what may have been a bomb then the intercom is a moot point, what do you need to say after killing a flight attendant or passenger then killing the pilots and taking over the plane?

You see I haven't given up on the actual terrorist theory, just the part that says they trained in a Cesna and then got lucky.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

If 1 or 2 of the highjackers stayed in the passenger area with what may have been a bomb then the intercom is a moot point, what do you need to say after killing a flight attendant or passenger then killing the pilots and taking over the plane?

You see I haven't given up on the actual terrorist theory, just the part that says they trained in a Cesna and then got lucky.


Only the hijackers on 1 plane stated that had a bomb. Besides we have the transcripts of the hijackers trying to talk to the passengers to keep them quite and at bay, so why wouldn't they at least know how to use the intercom?



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Besides we have the transcripts of the hijackers trying to talk to the passengers to keep them quite and at bay, so why wouldn't they at least know how to use the intercom?



Well first we would have to accept the transcripts as factual evidence. But I see your point the com link is pretty easy, if you know how.

So your saying when the highjacker was trying to talk to the passengers, he instead made radio contact with ATC?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
So your saying when the highjacker was trying to talk to the passengers, he instead made radio contact with ATC?


Yes, it just seems odd that if the hijackers knew what they were doing when it came to the transpoder and the autopilot but did not know about the radio or intercom.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
the best argument for a hologram is the possibility of getting the operation f***ed up with a normal plane. the huge risk of a plane that wouldn´t hit ´correctly´was much too high, thats clear.

too low, too high, just at the edge, with just one wing, whatever.
they had to be absolutely sure, that this would be a PERFECT ALMOST HOLLYWOOD SHOW.
OTHERWISE THE OTHER PLANS IN THE DRAWER WOULD HAVE BEEN IN DANGER.

(we all saw the faked TV shots, of course and most of us realized that that fraud years after through the internet.)



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
(we all saw the faked TV shots, of course and most of us realized that that fraud years after through the internet.)


I'll agree here that there are anomilies with the MSM's account of the days events, I disagree with "holograms" as an explanation for eyewitness and other general public accounts. As I've stated elsewhere, I have friends and relatives in the aviation field whom I have conversed with about the required abilities to fly 767s into the WTCs, and considering the weather and other conditions I could probably hit the target if I practiced in a simulator. The weather was probably the single biggest factor in choosing 911 as the date of the attack.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


John Lear said on C2C, he couldn´t do that. he immideately thought it is a scam.

My first idea was remote drone planes.but he whole physics of the collapse is fishy.We discussed that.



new topics




 
2
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join