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.

 

A few questions to the no plane hit the wtc theorists

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
This is the part I was referring to...Maybe I'm reading it wrong? But it looks like you mentioned debris to me, and what do you mean then by 'they all got sucked inside'?...

i see now. no, you read it right, i just wasnt having a very articulate day that day. thats why its best to go with what i mean instead of what i say
hehehe jk

i said "sucked in" because the point of this thread was to ask why they were inside the building to begin with IF there were no planes involved. for me to have said "pushed in" would have implied that i had already decided that there WERE planes involved and im trying to be unbiased in posing these questions.


So I apologize, you didn't edit it I see that now, just couldn't remember what part I was referring to in the first place, so my bad on that...

all good, simple miscommunication. i also would like to apologize for the tone of my last response to you. i just felt like my integrity was being questioned and im sure you can understand why that might set me off.

i do appreciate you being big enough to point me to where i hadnt been clear and i really do appreciate the apology. i may not agree with everything you say, but i do respect you.
thats why youre my RESPECTED foe




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
...all good, simple miscommunication. i also would like to apologize for the tone of my last response to you. i just felt like my integrity was being questioned and im sure you can understand why that might set me off...


I understand totally, you've no need to apologize, that's why I went back and double checked for the second time and realised my mistake. I did a brain fart and the first time I re-checked it, I couldn't find the part I was posting about so assumed (bad thing to do) you'd edited it after-words without looking at the edit dates. I just jumped too quickly to a conclusion, something I don't normally do.

Anyway sry for disrupting the thread...



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
I disagree they could have been placed by "anyone". Only proffessionals could have done it, and ones who aren't affaid of heights. And the placement would have taken days(nights). Now why do I have to imagine all the specifics when I've asked you and John for this type of story for months?


not entirely true...in all honesty, i could, in a few hours, train YOU to place the explosives. the difficult part in demo is not handlilng or placing the charges, its doing the calculations and choosing the ordinance to do the job right.

really, if i did all that and prepped the detonators, caps etc all before hand, you could easily go down on a window washers platform and "take charge A and place it on column A like thus..." and all would go well.

not trying to prove witw's point, but when it comes to the facts and fictions of demo i like to try to make sure everyone is at least reading from a source that has real data in it. one of my biggest peeves is that so very many of those who totally believe the towers were a CD seem to get their information on explosives from hollywood movies. this is a great example. a fairly small bomb in the back seat of a car drops an entire building. huge fireball explosion. the whole bit.

BUT most people that talk about CD on 911 seem to think that THIS is pretty much accurate.

it is not.

in that clip i linked to (i didnt embed as its a copyrighted clip and i dont have permission to use it) that relativly small bomb took down the whole building and from the 93 truck bomb at the wtc we KNOW it takes more than one small bomb in the back of a car to bring down a building, or even a larger truck bomb for that matter.

now, most would say "well yeah but a truck bombs different than having charges on the core columns" and for once they would be correct.

if the plans i found were accurate, then on at least the 66th floor it would take 3.6lbs (HE yeild not gross weight) of explosives (using LSC's as they are the most efficient way to do it) to cut each column. now, griff cant tell me exactly how many one would need to fail to drop the building, but ive said before that if it took more than 50lbs of HE to do it, i cant see how it could possibly be quiet enough to have instantly ended this debate all together. well 50lbs means you have to be able to fail the building by cutting only 14 of the core columns. now, most of the engineer types around here often talk about how robust this building was so i have to wonder if losing less than 14 of those columns is enough to drop the building. if yes, less than 14 failing could fail the building then i have to ask how we can be so sure that the plane crash didnt damage enough to do it, and with more than 14 failed i cant see how the explosion wasnt heard by every single person in manhattan. (50lbs of HE makes a very impressive boom)

well its about this time that someone will invariably chime in with thermite. to which i invariably respond with the fact ive yet to see a demonstration of thermite cutting 2"+ thick steel plate horizontally. then as the debate continues someone will now bring up the fact that in 2006 someone applied for a patent for a "thermite cutter charge" and since a patents been applied for it MUST work. then to me a smart alec ill point out that not all patents are real world products and then provide a link to a patent for a flying saucer. and around and around it goes.

of course then someone will also invariably bring up seismic data. interesting to me is that the researchers frequently pick up blasts from a quarry 20 miles away and they are setting off 80,000lbs of explosives and the seismic readings show 1-2 magnitude earthquakes and yet it would seem that the greatest waves from the wtc buildings were 2.1 or so. i think i can safely say that if 80,000lbs of HE were set off just before the collapse we wouldnt be having this discussion. (ok the 80k/lbs is probably ANFO so since no one planning a cd that day would use anfo (unless it was another truck bomb) that means it would have been more likely 33,600lbs TNT, 36,522lbs of Dynamite, or 25,075lbs of C4)
anyway, if anyone wants some reading on the seismic stuff click here
it doesnt agree with the cd theory but its fairly unbiased anyway.

but, i digress, again.

the point is that in the spirit of fairness i felt the need to point out that your statements that not just "anyone" could have placed those explosives (if there were in fact any explosives there) wasnt entirely accurate. any plot involving a CD on 9/11 would take a large crew, and the more training they had the faster and less likely to fail it would be, but as long as your supervisors were really good, it COULD be done with a team of grunts.

however, due to the magnetude of this op, if one existed, i would NOT use a team of joe blows and would want a full team of highly trained experts. cuz while yeah, i could train you to place my charges for me, in a covert op i wouldnt risk it. not with this much on the line.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
In all fairness to the Wizard I'll agree about the placement grunts thing, however the grunts would have to be able to read and understand geometry something not "anyone" knows. Nit picky I know.

Stand or die, I'm with you there.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I am a conspiracy theorist; I enjoy doing mental gymnastics over plausible conspiracies.


It seems to me that truthers rely on an overwhelming desire to believe in the worst in mankind, unmanageably large conspiracies that involve the CIA, FBI, NSA, NRO, etc, evidence that ignores important context and the willingness to go to, what I think, are really, really absurd explanations that defy any sense of reason or science.



[edit on 24-11-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]


Listen I believe without question planes hit there targets that day, but to actually believe that there wasnt a massive cover up of the fact that 911 was in the works, about to be completed and there was a massive amount of people that knew about it ...is without question suspending ALL reality here OP.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 



and i cant say i disagree with you honestly. i challenge anyone to find where ive ever posted that i buy the govts account of the happenings on 911 100%.

where i typically take a stand is with the CD crowd. i worked with explosives for the better part of 12 years and i see NO evidence of explosives being used anywhere. (though i still admit that wtc7 was odd at best, but i dont have any PROOF of explosives being used)

the point of this thread is this: there are a few members who are absolutly positive that NO airplanes of any kind hit the WTC towers on 9/11. one of these members has posted a photo that he's marked up to support his theory in another thread. i didnt want to derail that thread so i took his photo and started this thread to ask some very specific questions, and in the spirit of intellectual debate im going to suspend my skepticism about his theory in this thread in order to maybe understand where he/they are coming from and maybe learn a thing or two.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Hi there,
Thanks for responding to me. I read your post very carefully and wanted to apologize if my post in any way appeared to attack anyones' personal beliefs. My argument is not one of personal attacks.

I offer my opinion and nothing else. I completely understand others have their opinions too and accept that reality.

I struggle to articulate my opinions and present them in a way that others wont take personal offense. I know that arguing deeply held beliefs tends to get personal because of the emotional attachments we hold on either side of an issue.

Just know that my opinions are offered from a certain point of view (mine) and I don't willfully intend to insult or belittle anyone else.


To me, I think the truth is far less sinister than the conspiracies that float around. I don't think there is any doubt that the intelligence community knew that there was a threat out there involving planes. I don't think anyone disputes the dots that were being drawn. The failure was the inability of our guys to connect those dots.

Think about the number of people that would have to be read-in on an operation that size? Those with direct involvement would be in the hundreds. Those with partial knowledge would be in the thousands and those having peripheral knowledge (fueling the planes, servicing the planes beforehand, saw something "unusual", those seeing window washers planting shaped charges, etc, etc, etc) would be in the multiple of thousands. There would be a literal library of evidence that would be impossible to ignore.

Instead we have half-truths, misinformation (not a deliberate operation, but rather those with shady credentials/motivations propagating false information that on a best-case scenario chooses to ignore context) and flat-out misrepresentations of fact. For truthers, the answer to hard evidence is usually involves discrediting those presenting counter-evidence, claiming to have special knowledge of events that nobody else does (and of course no actual evidence to support those claims is proffered) and pointing to a gigantic, shadowy, wisp-like organization that is somehow manipulating events behind the scenes.

If the towers just fell down, the various speculations that truthers engage in would have some interesting possibilities. In other words, if there was some sort of detonation caused by something other than two big planes full of thousands of gallons of JP4 I would take conspiracy theories more seriously.

When presented with actual findings grounded in documentable, science-based facts, truthers point to your lack of faith, or your willingness to believe "the man", or massive a psy op involving holographic projectors (seriously guys?), or the Jews did it (!!!), or ...........our very own government who can't seem to manage road construction without serious incompetence somehow pulled off the biggest, most complex, deepest conspiracy of all time in front of a world audience who would like nothing better than to discredit America in general and GWB in particular!

I think what caused 9-11 is patently obvious and is out in the open. Intelligence failure (didn't connect the dots), coupled with fantastic timing (often used as "evidence"), opportunity (again, an intelligence apparatus that did not connect the dots, nor seemed that tuned in to the seriousness of the threat(s) ) and thousands of gallons of JP4 contained within the bodies of two very large, fast moving objects caused the events of that terrible day.


[edit on 25-11-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
well, im still waiting for someone to get back to me with some viable answers to my questions. doesnt necessarily have to be johnlear but as he seems to have the most backround to dispute the validity of the official story about planes hitting the towers i would have liked to hear his thoughts on my questions. which by the way im still willing to consider with a totally open mind.

but anyone with a really good, technically sound theory on this matter is more than welcome to answer.

thanks in advance.


six

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I think you may be waiting for a long, long time. From what I have witnessed from other threads is the same argument that the Wizz gave you earlier, but when asked to produce proof it is always "Its top secret and no one knows the capabilities. It just exsists". No other proof other than that statement is given. I have watched many things blow up in my career, granted not as many as you, (nor have I caused them to go boom...lol). I have never seen anything explode inward in the fashion that would cause the damge noted by Mr Lear. I also do not understand the Wiz's stance of no wreckage, no bodies etc, when there are clearly photos of above said evidence. It just rings as hollow arguments to me.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 



heh, well, i was serious when i said i would suspend my skepticism and consider their theories fairly. but, while ill be fair about it, i will be a hard sell cuz from a technical "how would i do it?" standpoint, im totally at a loss how ANYONE could answer my questions in a manner that works.

but, that isnt to say it couldnt be done. i just dont know how.

but i know what you mean about the "they could" comments. one response, and ive seen it in another thread recently, that just makes this vein on my forehead pulse is "well we dont know what kind of research the govts done into anything, they could have these secret explosives..." (or clever words to that effect). if for no other reason than because if "they" were testing anything than it would be guys like me (though not necessarily me personally) who'd be testing this stuff...and secret or not, grunts talk to each other. we LOVE talking about blowing things up and when someone has worked with something none of the rest of us have, they LOVE to brag about it. sorry guys thats just how it is. so, speculate all you want...doesnt do ANY good, we might as well say it was dragons that did it.

at least the guys who firmly believe it was mini H bombs have SOME science and research to cite as the basis for their sources.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles,

You’re looking for something that cannot be found — definitive proof of what EXACTLY happened on 9-11. This quest of yours is unreasonable, unrealistic and unnecessary.

Whether you like it or not, all of us, and this includes you, are forced to have an opinion about 9-11. If you choose to remain ‘neutral’, well then you’re automatically part of the OT mainstream movement because they’re the ones in charge. While you wait and “analyze” and ask for ‘verification’, policies driven by 9-11 events are being crafted an implemented — constantly.

You have doubts about explosives having been used to smash holes into the WTC towers. Well guess what, in a sense I do to, but for different reasons. I strongly suspect that THE MAJORITY of impact hole images floating around on the internet are big-time fakes. But I cannot prove this, and it’s not all that relevant. What is important to understand is if you don’t think bombs did the damage to the perimeter columns, why do you keep defaulting back to the OT story that airplanes did it? There’s even less evidence — as in none — to support that scenario!

Here is, once again, a link to an (accidental) eyewitness interview which I believe to be authentic, as in not staged. Who said there was a plane? It was a bomb!
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles,

You’re looking for something that cannot be found — definitive proof of what EXACTLY happened on 9-11. This quest of yours is unreasonable, unrealistic and unnecessary.

then why in the HELL are ANY of us here? seriously? if we're all just wasting our time, why bother?



Whether you like it or not, all of us, and this includes you, are forced to have an opinion about 9-11. If you choose to remain ‘neutral’, well then you’re automatically part of the OT mainstream movement because they’re the ones in charge. While you wait and “analyze” and ask for ‘verification’, policies driven by 9-11 events are being crafted an implemented — constantly.

i remain neutral becuase ive YET to have any alternative theories hold any more water than the strainer i use for my pasta.

seriously, peoples knowledge of demo comes from hollywood so its not hard for them to accept CD theories as gospel. sorry, but my knowledge of demo comes from blowing things up and i DO NOT SEE IT.

so whats that leave me with?

now, you may have noticed im conspicuously absent from your discussions of Hbombs. well thats because my knowledge of nuclear weapons falls short of the generation of devices you hypothesis would have been used. my knowledge of nuclear warfare is how to keep our guys alive AFTER the detonation of yer standard russian icbm warhead. ill admit, most of what i could teach our boys was somewhere between a 'warm fuzzy feeling of safety' and 'put yer head between yer knees and kiss it goodbye'. so since i have little to offer to any discussions, i dont waste my time or yours with it. but i think its no secret how much stock i put in such theories yeah?



You have doubts about explosives having been used to smash holes into the WTC towers. Well guess what, in a sense I do to, but for different reasons. I strongly suspect that THE MAJORITY of impact hole images floating around on the internet are big-time fakes. But I cannot prove this, and it’s not all that relevant. What is important to understand is if you don’t think bombs did the damage to the perimeter columns, why do you keep defaulting back to the OT story that airplanes did it? There’s even less evidence — as in none — to support that scenario!


ahh which brings us to the crux of THIS thread. i took a photo that john himself had done a markup on to use to make a point. his stance is that the hole in said photo was made by explosives.

now, putting aside my personal opinions and bias' i posed a few questions so that i could better understand his theory and possibly learn a thing or two. ive said before that given all my experience, that i could not have punched that hole in the wtc with HE and have all of the debris shown in the photo end up inside the building nor could i have caused those columns to bend inward. if john or anyone else has an explaination that will cover this then maybe i win on two counts. i understand his position and i learn a thing about demo i didnt know before.

is that unreasonable?



Here is, once again, a link to an (accidental) eyewitness interview which I believe to be authentic, as in not staged. Who said there was a plane? It was a bomb!
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


so one eyewitness counters how many? that makes sense to you? just wondering

but seriously, im sorry you feel im wasting my time for asking for an explaination of an event, and not for 911 as a whole, just this ONE event on that day, from a man or group that has presented a particular theory that i dont fully understand.

if you feel so strongly that im wasting my time then i appreciate you looking out for me but i would invite you to also not concern yourself to much about it. hell im dying anyway, all i got is time these days.

ps, maybe its just my comp, but that link has nothng on it.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

then why in the HELL are ANY of us here? seriously? if we're all just wasting our time, why bother?


Damocles, we are here to exchange ideas and views. Whoever’s theory suits us best is the one we should ‘go’ with.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that unless you receive definitive proof, evidence that complies with your most strictest of standards, then you are not willing to “choose sides” in the 9-11 debate. And that — remaining neutral — I believe is a ‘luxury’ you are morally not entitled to. Practically it doesn’t make a difference. We’re all part of the ‘system’. If you live and work in the U.S., you are automatically part of the 9-11 policy ‘machinery’. But ethically, if you refuse to take a stance in this debate, you are playing into the hands of the OT crowd.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Post Scriptum, I just tried that link and it worked!

[edit on 12/1/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Wizard, i do say this with the utmost respect, becuase while i may disagree with you on many things i do admire the strength of your convictions.

however having said that, i do find your attitude towards me in this thread a little off-putting.

for example:


Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Damocles, we are here to exchange ideas and views. Whoever’s theory suits us best is the one we should ‘go’ with.


see, here i cant disagree with you, but is it at ALL unreasonable that if im going to "go" with a theory that it has even a little bit of realism behind it?

following on in that vein:



Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems to me that unless you receive definitive proof, evidence that complies with your most strictest of standards, then you are not willing to “choose sides” in the 9-11 debate.

thats a crock of dung and i think you know it. first of all, if you read this thread closely ALL i have asked for is a good, TECHNICALLY SOUND working theory to explain the photo in the OP. AGAIN while most peoples knowledge of explosives comes from hollywood, mine is not. so for me to ask for a working theory that fits what i personally know to be true of the nature of explosives i dont think is totally unreasonable.

i apologize if im not going to put aside years of experience and training to blindly follow a theory that defies everything i know. so if that means my standards are too strict then honestly i say go me. you can disagree but do YOU not hold evidence to some self determined standard thats acceptable to you? id sure like to believe that you dont blindly follow any theory that ends in the govt being complicit in the attacks just to justify your personal politics.

if my goal was to prove that you were wrong would you not hold my evidence to a high standard or would you abandon all you believe just on the power of my say so? if you would then maybe my respect is misplaced.


And that — remaining neutral — I believe is a ‘luxury’ you are morally not entitled to.

well im sorry i dont seem to fit your moral code, but i think ive earned the right to my opinions regardless of what they are. i mean afterall i spent most of my adult life sworn to die to defend OUR rights, so where is it written that im not allowed those same rights?

but thats a topic more suited to BTS than here so ill let that go for now.


Practically it doesn’t make a difference. We’re all part of the ‘system’. If you live and work in the U.S., you are automatically part of the 9-11 policy ‘machinery’. But ethically, if you refuse to take a stance in this debate, you are playing into the hands of the OT crowd.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

all i can say there is "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE" man...




Post Scriptum, I just tried that link and it worked!

[edit on 12/1/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]


musta been my machine then. ill try it later



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

And that — remaining neutral — I believe is a ‘luxury’ you are morally not entitled to.

well im sorry i dont seem to fit your moral code, but i think ive earned the right to my opinions regardless of what they are. i mean afterall i spent most of my adult life sworn to die to defend OUR rights, so where is it written that im not allowed those same rights?


Damocles,
absolutely you are entitled to whatever views you choose. You can remain neutral or in pensive mode about 9-11 as long as you please. Nearly everyone else is, so you’re not unusual.

What I’m saying is that IF 9-11 is a false flag event, then we are
— stealing goods (oil) from another country
— stealing another country’s sovereignty (Iraq)
— killing people at will
If you are un-certain how 9-11 happened,
then are you still okay with our foreign policies?

And if 9-11 was staged then we domestically
— killed ca. 3,000 innocents
— injured thousands more severely (you and I would be quite upset if we ‘only’ lost an eye or similar)
— exposed millions — the citizens of New York City — to very poisonous air

If you are un-certain how 9-11 happened,
then are you still okay that 9-11 is no longer in the ‘news’ and was never genuinely investigated?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by Damocles



john,
just a quick question here. IF there was in fact no plane that struck the building, and im willing to suspend my disbelief for a minute and consider your answer fairly, how did those seemingly large sections of the outter walls come to rest INSIDE the building?


Thanks for thread Damocles. I am on this site about 12 hours a day and somehow I missed this thread until tonight.

The answer to your question "how did those seemingly large sections of the outter walls come to rest INSIDE the building", is I don't know. I don't know a lot of things about 911. I do know it took many years to plan it and there was a lot of 'magic'. By 'magic' I mean a technology base that is unknown to us rank and file civilians.

I posted the story below in another thread but I think it is applicable here because it shows where I am coming from. I am not saying I am right but I am saying this is what currentrly think.

I take a lot flak over the holograph theory. I don't mind the flak because there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that holographs were used to project Boeing 767's crashing into the towers which they did not do. There were no planes and I am a 'no planer' (derogatory insinuation accepted).

That said I am posting the story below because it clarifies the holograph theory and it clarifies my position on the holograph theory and 911.

THE HOLOGRAPH THEORY

The holograph theory is a theory that the government used holographs to depict Boeing 767's crashing onto the World Trade Center.

Holography was invented in the 1940's and has gradually evolved from small little projections using light in a darkened room to where we can now project 3 dimensional, totally realistic images with heat, light and sound.

A few years ago a small group of television executives were invited to a briefing on what television held for the future.

They met in a small private auditorium in Hollywood. On the stage in front of them, no further than ten or fifteen feet was a podium. The lights were not dimmed in the auditorium.

An elderly gentlemen with a east European accent walked to the podium and gave a 10 minute, rambling and rather boring speech about the history of communications. As he talked he walked back and forth on the stage, in front and in back of the podium, gesturing at his points.

After he finished his presentation he thanked the audience and disappeared like a light had been turned off.

This small group of television executives has just seen the future of television. They were watching a holograph. And it didn't need a screen.

The television of the future will be a holographic projection in your living room. It will look, sound and smell real but there is nothing there. It's just a holographic projection.

This demonstration took place about 5 years ago and represents where civilian holographic technology was then.

Military holographic technology is 30 to 40 years ahead of any civilian application and what was used to stimulate Boeing 767's on 911 had been in inventory for at least 10 or 15 years: the ability to project 3 dimensional images that had heat, light and sound.

My opinion is that the E4-B Command and Control airplane had a holographic projector and used that holographic projector to project an image of a speeding Boeing 767 flying into the World Trade Center.

I imagine that the controls for the holographic projector have world wide maps on a screen and with a mouse you can place a "Start here" and a "Finish here" symbol, select the type of craft, select the speed and select other options. The projector probably has a range of about 5 or 10 miles. I would imagine that the projector does not have to be pointed directly at the path but probably within about 30 or 40 degrees.

My opinion is that 911 was orchestrated from this E4-B using false telephone calls, false crew communications, false transponder codes, holographic projections and also contained the detonation buttons for the controlled demolition of both the World Trade Center Towers and Building #7.

The Command and Control E4-B also has on board the controls for a space based Directed Energy Weapon which used molecular disassociation to obliterate the WTC towers, in perfect timing with the controlled demolition which was needed to cut the steel girders into 30 foot sections for easier handling.

Holographs have been around for over 50 years. The technology to project holographs is far beyond anybody's imagination.

Which is why it was so successful.


I am not trying to derail your thread Damocles or avoid your question. What I am tying to say is that with a techonology base that is unknown to us rank and file civilians anything can and is possible.

So, can bombs be placed inside a building so that when they went off the force would be in the opposite direction? Probably.

Thanks again for the thread Damocles and sorry for the delay in answering.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Your the master John, at avoiding the tough questions about the explosives. If the explosions witnessed on 911 were real, to set something up like that and time it all out would be just short of incredible. Now if you beleive the explosions were also holograms then what did the damage that has perplexed Damocles?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by infinityoreilly



Now if you beleive the explosions were also holograms then what did the damage that has perplexed Damocles?


No, the explosions were definately not holograms. Please accept my apologies if I didn't make that clear.

What I was saying was that anyone who has the techonolgy to make holograms certainly has the technolgy to create strange acting explosives.

While we normally associate explosives 'exploding' maybe they can 'implode'. Sure it sounds ridiculous but the fact is I don't know how they managed to make those extrusions bend inwards.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
What I was saying was that anyone who has the techonolgy to make holograms certainly has the technolgy to create strange acting explosives.


I follow you there, but am still skeptical your theory on the whole hologram deal.

There's just to many things that this type of technology would have to overcome to be effective in its appearance to cameras and eyewitnesses.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   
John,
thank you very much for taking the time to offer your input into this thread. I know you have a lot of irons in the fire on this site so i do apprciate your taking the time to field my questions.



Originally posted by johnlear



The answer to your question "how did those seemingly large sections of the outter walls come to rest INSIDE the building", is I don't know.

ya know, thats about as honest of an answer as one could hope for. you could have shoveled a load of BS out here for me but you didnt. in my world there are only two types of answers that are acceptable in most cases. one is the unadulterated truth supported by facts. the other is a simple "i dont know". an i dont know takes character. i can respect that.



I don't know a lot of things about 911. I do know it took many years to plan it and there was a lot of 'magic'. By 'magic' I mean a technology base that is unknown to us rank and file civilians.

well, this is where it gets problematic for me and why ill most likely never totally agree with you, but who said we had to agree on everything yeah?
up until a year after the attacks i wasnt a rank and file civillian. i said in another thread that if "they' had this super duper explosive stuff it had to be tested and it woulda been a guy like me (though not necessarily me personally) that woulda been testing it. grunts like to talk to other grunts and while they may not tell the avg civililan their stories if they think youre cleared as high as they are (and i was in most cases) they just LOVE to talk about blowing sh...tuff up. and we love our toys...so if someone has a new toy, even if they are SUPPOSED to stfu about it, they dont. its just the way it is...and ive never heard even a rumor about something that could produce ANY of the results we witnessed on 911.

now, as im willing to admit im not by any means the end all be all in the demo field...ill admit that sure...its POSSIBLE that theres stuff out there in our system that ive never even dreamed of and no ones talked about. just explaining why i have issue with the CD theories regardless of if the planes were real or not.

the story you shared with us about the hologram tech was an interesting read to be sure. and as ive no possible way to refute it, ill not even try. im going to file it in my "well, i suppose anythings possible" folder along with the "cd involving super secret demo ordinance" theory and call it a day




I am not trying to derail your thread Damocles or avoid your question. What I am tying to say is that with a techonology base that is unknown to us rank and file civilians anything can and is possible.

well i personally dont feel youve derailed anything and again i appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us here. well me at least



So, can bombs be placed inside a building so that when they went off the force would be in the opposite direction? Probably.

well, im going to respectfully disagree with the stipulation that hey, never said i knew EVERYTHING about demo.

but, you have to understand that its my opinion that what MOST people know of demo comes from things like the lethal weapon 3 intro i posted earlier in the thread. so when most people talk to me about what demo can or cant do, hmmm how can i relate this...OH, ok, for me its like if someone told you that they could pull a 767 in a 7g turn like it was an F22 with no problems. you'd kinda roll yer eyes and think "uh huh...on crack" so you'll forgive my skepticism in these regards i hope



Thanks again for the thread Damocles and sorry for the delay in answering.

no problems, thanks again for your input.


Wizard...should it be the same to you, i think im going to just have to say i respect your opinions, i admire the strength of your convictions, but overall i disagree with you, and leave it at that lol

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Damocles]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join