Please stop with the crazy claims!

reply to post by Boone 870


Do you not at least find the turn without correction odd? Also many here are speculating these things as if the hijackers would be just calm cool and collected individuals and I find that really hard to believe.

And I find this one startling fact that makes the "OFFICIAL STORY" far less believable.

From the Star Witness Himself OSAMA BIN LADEN

UBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

CNN


How is it possible that these guys pulled any of this off when they weren't told of the operation UNTIL JUST BEFORE THEY BOARDED THE PLANES!!??

Now some might say Osama is lying, which then would invalidate anything he says and that in fact might make his claim and confession moot.

Some might say the tape is fake. However that still doesn't change this one hard to reconcile difficulty.

reply to post by talisman

"Muhammad Atta from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group. ... The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. ... Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group."

Source

He was referring to the non-pilot terrorist.

Originally posted by Boone 870
I do see some instruments that don't match up on both sides. That doesn't mean that the aircraft cannot be completely controlled from the right seat.

But why fly from the right seat, what if you need to get to something on the left side?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But why fly from the right seat, what if you need to get to something on the left side?

Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. There is nothing, nothing on the left side that the person sitting on the right would have to reach for to accomplish this profile.

Keep in mind that when the altimeters where reset at 18,000 feet during the descent that the right side altimeter was reset first and then 30 seconds later the left side was reset.

Now if Hani was sitting in the right seat, why did he reset the left altimeter? And how did he do it? Did he unbuckle his seat belt, get up, and reach over to the left side altimeter? Why did he reset the altimeters at all, he was going to crash the airplane? And how did he know what to set the altimeters to, he wasn't talking to anybody?

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Now if Hani was sitting in the right seat, why did he reset the left altimeter? And how did he do it? Did he unbuckle his seat belt, get up, and reach over to the left side altimeter? Why did he reset the altimeters at all, he was going to crash the airplane? And how did he know what to set the altimeters to, he wasn't talking to anybody?

Thanks for the post.

But why sit in the right seat to begin with? Most pilots i know do not sit in a copilots seat.

Yes that is strange, why he set those. Maybe because it would give him proper altitude to know how low to go to aviod the radar.

reply to post by Boone 870

Muhammad Atta from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group. ... The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. ... Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group."

Not at all.

That is just saying who the leader was. Then he specifically says...."THE BROTHERS WHO CONDUCTED THE OPERATION."

They didn't know till before they boarded the planes.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Netstriker

John, as I said yesterday, I am a little confused about your opinions.
You first state that no actual planes were used, but only holograms.
Then, you rely on FDR data from the planes as evidence.
Can you please explain your opinions?
Thank you.

Thanks for the post Netstriker. Let me say that the present debate on which seat the hijacker sat in I find ludicrous to the extreme. No hijacker, which ever seat, he sat could fly the Pentagon profile. No way. Did not happen. Could not happen. But that doesn't keep the uninformed from speculating.

You mean like speculating that a hologram hit the WTC towers? When asked for evidence you refuse to supply any to back up your sci-fi story? Keeping in mind you do claim to have the information.

That said, the original Holograph theory applied to the WTC only. Then when thevidence rolled in it appeard that it might apply to the Pentagon also.

The funny thing is you obviously have never even looked into the technology in any way or you wouldn't keep posting the incorrect name for a HOLOGRAM. This would be known as an UNINFORMED opinion John.

Then it appeared like Flight #93 (which didn't crash in Shanksville or anywhere else) was supposed to be the flight that crashed into Building No. 7. But for some reason, either the Holographic Projector broke or whatever, the Holographic Projection of Flight 93 could not be projected into Buiding No. 7.

Yep it broke. The biggest inside job in history and they didn't think to have a backup? right...

Quick action had to be taken and it was decided to simulate a crash in Shanksville of the alleged Flight 93, which, incidentally had already deplaned its passengers into the NAZA hangar at Cleveland.

Got any proof of this? A few good pictures of some dead passengers waving maybe?

An Air Force jet flew over Shanksville, did a couple of noisy barrel rolls (pretending it was the non-existant Flight 93) and somebody set off some explosives in the field Flight #93 allegedly crashed in.

The hole was 'salted' with a bandana, a passport, a turbine wheel and the first video of the supposed Shanksville rash appeared on TV about 5 pm in the afternoon about the same time as Buiding No. 7 was controlled demoed. They didn't have their Holographic projection but the bujilding had already been slated for demo so they just had to 'go for it' and hope the public wouldn't notice the incredible missing Boeing 757 and hijacker pilot crashing into Bujilding No. 7.

And nobody was seen scattering body parts and wreckage everywhere? Who's body parts were used if the real passengers were deplaned?

Hey, they've gotton away with it so far. Who can argue with success?

Or reality. Oh you can with no evidence

As Craig Ranke continues to unravel the Pentagon crash it appears that several planes may have been used to simulate that crash. I watch Craig's research with intense interest. So it seems my theory that a holograph was used in the Pentagon crash may be wrong.

Once again, it's called a hologram John. And don't forget to finish the sentence by saying you're wrong about hologram planes hitting the WTC's.

But I still hold the holpgraph theory for the World Trade Center towers. In other words a Holographic projection was used to simulate both airplnes flying into the towers, explosives were then used to simulate the crash and explosion and Diret Energy Weakpons (molecular disassociation) were used to drop both towers.

So first we have hologram planes hitting the buildings, setting off conventional explosives then super death beams were also aimed at the buildings to finally drop it. Why use hologram planes and super death beams when you can drop a building with conventional explosives? Make it even more simple, why not fly a real jet, full of explosives, into the buildings? Why use to advanced technologies that could fail and according to you DID, when you can use a more basic, more reliable technology to pull it off.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Boone 870

 

Do you not at least find the turn without correction odd? Also many here are speculating these things as if the hijackers would be just calm cool and collected individuals and I find that really hard to believe.

And I find this one startling fact that makes the "OFFICIAL STORY" far less believable.

From the Star Witness Himself OSAMA BIN LADEN

UBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

CNN


How is it possible that these guys pulled any of this off when they weren't told of the operation UNTIL JUST BEFORE THEY BOARDED THE PLANES!!??

Now some might say Osama is lying, which then would invalidate anything he says and that in fact might make his claim and confession moot.

Some might say the tape is fake. However that still doesn't change this one hard to reconcile difficulty.

Well, there is plenty of evidence showing they went to flight school so we know this is incorrect.
Also, you're assuming the translation was correct.
Also, you're assuming CNN reported the translation correct.
Also, you're assuming that if the translation was done correct, Osama wasn't using the attack as a publicity stunt and the statement was worded to make what happened seem real simple to encourage support for more attacks.
Also, you're assuming that a terrorist/mass murder isn't a lier.

reply to post by jfj123


translation is correct.

The problem is he is the Gov star Witness and if we start saying he was lying then all of the other claims become questionable. The next point is that he has no reason at this point to lie, no logical reason if he is telling the truth about being behind the attacks.

According to him they knew nothing of the plan until before they boarded the planes, they might have went to flight school. But they didn't know much beyond that according to the Star Witness.

reply to post by talisman


Here's what Osama bin Laden had to say:

We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time [8:00 am in New York and Washington]. ... Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center. ... After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it. ..."

Source

The pilots knew what targets they were going to hit long before they boarded the plane's.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by jfj123

 

translation is correct.

The problem is he is the Gov star Witness and if we start saying he was lying then all of the other claims become questionable. The next point is that he has no reason at this point to lie, no logical reason if he is telling the truth about being behind the attacks.

Actually there is a logical reason. By lying and saying that they had no training, he is showing his followers that they can damage the United States easily and quickly without be trained except to follow Allah.

Also, to admit that his people had to be trained in the United States shows weakness.

reply to post by Boone 870


That doesn't at all clear up the dilema. They knew that they were on a mission and probably even knew the time and date. But the actual details of the mission weren't discussed untill they boarded the planes.

possibly only Atta knew the full plan.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by talisman]

reply to post by jfj123



Only *IF* he knew the tape would be released on such a wide scale. He didn't know he was being taped and he surely was contradicting his earlier statements about not being behind the crimes.

If anything it is totally illogical and doesn't make sense since he would in fact end up looking like a liar. That wouldn't help his cause.

reply to post by talisman


Are you suggesting that Atta called the other three hijackers while they were on the airplanes to let them know what their targets were?

i]Originally posted by jfj123

You mean like speculating that a hologram hit the WTC towers? When asked for evidence you refuse to supply any to back up your sci-fi story? Keeping in mind you do claim to have the information.

The funny thing is you obviously have never even looked into the technology in any way or you wouldn't keep posting the incorrect name for a HOLOGRAM. This would be known as an UNINFORMED opinion John.

Once again, it's called a hologram John. And don't forget to finish the sentence by saying you're wrong about hologram planes hitting the WTC's.

Thanks for the post jfj123.





Jfj123 I have taken the liberty of notifying the Pentagon that they are in error calling the hologamic projector a holographic projector

Attn: Department of Defense
Pentagon

Re: http//www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4

Dear Sir,

We here at AboveTopSecret.com pride ourselves in our knowledge of technical information and data.

Our resources are vast and varied.

The reason I am writing to you is that you have inadvertently called your hologramic projector a holographic projector.

Our hologram expert jfj123 has just brought this to my attention and I feel it important to notify you that even those these plans for a hologramic projector are for future reference that you should correct your spelling and nomenclature.

Jfj123 has assured us that nothing of this nature exists now and although some of us believe differently the fact of the matter is you are spelling hologram incorrectly.

Please feel free to contact jfj123 here at AboveTopSecret.com if you have any questions about the correct spelling of hologram.

Thank you

johnlear

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention jfj123, it is greatly appreciated.

reply to post by johnlear

Jfj123 I have taken the liberty of notifying the Pentagon that they are in error calling the hologamic projector a holographic projector

I thought you were older then 12?

I never called it a hologramic projector.
When you use the term holograph it is incorrect.
When using the phrase holographic project, that is correct.

I would assume an adult wouldn't act so childish so I must assume you are not an adult. Do you parents know you're using their computer?

Originally posted by jfj123
I would assume an adult wouldn't act so childish so I must assume you are not an adult. Do you parents know you're using their computer?

So what about the Volumetric Display?

reply to post by johnlear


Although you don't seem to be able to handle yourself maturely here, I will respond anyway.

The Airborne Holographic Projector is a proposed idea. There are many proposed ideas that aren't currently available due to technology restrictions, funds, etc.

Here's some accurate info about HOLOGRAMS and HOLOGRAPHIC DISPLAYS and HOLOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY.







source
www.defensetech.org...

Now on to my next point. Mr. Lear, you have been asked for quite some time to produce ANY evidence that holograms of the necessary sophistication can possibly exist. You have had at least one dinner with a holographic expert in which you were told EVERYTHING about holograms. Now you produce a one page future weapons proposal after all that. No other detailed info? Why did it take so long to even get that little scrap?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I would assume an adult wouldn't act so childish so I must assume you are not an adult. Do you parents know you're using their computer?

So what about the Volumetric Display?

I posted all the information I was able to find and all types of Vol. Displays require a screen as I've shown. I can't find any that do not require a screen. My assumption is that either all the sites/references I've looked at are wrong or the Wiki entry is wrong. Have you found a second source that shows a Vol. Display is possible without a screen?

Originally posted by jfj123

I would assume an adult wouldn't act so childish so I must assume you are not an adult. Do you parents know you're using their computer?

No, but they just saw your post and put me on restriction. Happy Holographs....er Holograms...er..whatever!