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.

 

Clear Image of Flight 175

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

It is my opinion that no 911 perpetrator would risk crashing a real airplane into a building. Too many things can go wrong. It is just not logical. 4 planes out of 4 hit their target? I don't think so.


Logic has never been one of your strong suits. Too many things can go wrong with flying planes manually into buildings, but using unproven holographic technology to project planes crashing into pre planned 'super implosives' simulating a plane crash to fool the world on live television would be easy? Riiiiiight....

To be clear, 3 out of 4 planes hit their target, the terrorists weren't aiming for a field in Shanksville. Thanks for your comments, no matter how logically impaired or factually inaccurate they are.




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You misunderstood the article.

"You can take control in order to refuel the UAV and to fly it wherever you want," he says. "You can have multiple controls for multiple missions. That's a possibility." Among those possibilities is the politically sensitive issue of arming UAVs. While it may take time, "we think it's the right way to go," Bernardis says. "UCAV is already on the horizon, and cheaper [versions soon] will be at hand."
They make no mention of KC 767 UAVs. They are talking about using manned tankers with future and existing UAVs like the predator that they already have.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I, for one, am not going to be so certain holograms cannot be successfully used even on 9/11. I maintain that anything is possible until proved to be impossible.

Are people familiar with the magician trick of disappearing elephants and buildings? Many, many people pay to see those shows. Magicians are paid extremely well for putting on those shows. People, in the audience, will swear they see a real elephant or building having disappeared. The illusion is that strong for them witnessing it in person.

Yet, it is simply a high tech 3D hologram. Experts, in use of hologram, can convince people something real is there that is not there. Until people can actually reach out and touch what they think is real, they will believe it is real. That is how strong the illusion is.

Whether or not holograms were used on 9/11, is not something I have seriously considered. But I will not say, with any definitive assurance, it was impossible. It was highly possible from what people believe are planes - to what we believe was seen as impact explosions - to some hole where nothing could be seen but dense black carbon smoke. The technology for holograms is that highly developed.

Holograms appear in 3D, which is why people think they see a "real" elephant or building disappearing via a magician, a person with a bag of illusion trickery. It has been that highly developed since long before 9/11. Time could only result in better and more illusion provoking, convincing development.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You misunderstood the article.

"You can take control in order to refuel the UAV and to fly it wherever you want," he says. "You can have multiple controls for multiple missions. That's a possibility." Among those possibilities is the politically sensitive issue of arming UAVs. While it may take time, "we think it's the right way to go," Bernardis says. "UCAV is already on the horizon, and cheaper [versions soon] will be at hand."
They make no mention of KC 767 UAVs. They are talking about using manned tankers with future and existing UAVs like the predator that they already have.




Those were Italians discussing that. They were discussing it because the technology has been there and successfully used in passenger jetliners since 1984. Unless someone is privvy to top secret experiments done by the Pentagon and DOD, no one can say with any assurance when development was completed and started to actually be used without public knowledge.

I am far more inclined to take the word (I cannot disprove) of an ex-USAF military officer and physician, whose job duties were to perform forensic investigations of military aircraft, than the word of some skeptic, who cannot prove it is not true. Particularly, when all circumstantial evidence so strongly points to something being true rather than untrue. It is called investigation and putting pieces where they most logically fit for the big jigsaw puzzle picture.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

If I said it could very well be the flight in question - would that be a logical fallacy by your interpretation?
(carefully avoiding any absolute declarations
)


One cannot legitimately conclude that because something is not proved true then it must be true. That was my point of placing the definition as counterpoint to your logical fallacy point of argument.

The fact is, if something cannot be proved true or untrue by either opponent, it then resorts to illogical fallacy of circular argument going nowhere aka tail chasing, if they keep pursuing that same course of arguing.

No case has ever been resolved with illogical circular argument and never will be.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Does anyone think that if someone is going to sit as pilot or co-pilot, in the cockpit of a commercial passenger jet, that person should know how to operate the controls of that said jet?

Otherwise, how is that person going to make the purported air manuvers, only expert military jet pilots can make, plus, hit a target where intended?
Who has actual bona fide proof any of those alleged hijackers had that type of flying experience with the Boeing 767 or 757, to do that. Proof is not because the "official" report and media alleged they did.

A flight simulator is not the same as actually flying those planes. If people believe that flight simulators were used by any of the alleged, please provide proof, not being told what was supposed be, but valid proof. That means accessing those records from flight schools and having the flight schools sign an affidavit those records are accurate and valid.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by tezzajw
(I might have missed it in the thread - but has the photographer been identified and confirmed? Pictures without a photographer are too suspect for me to believe.)


Very good question.

The picture comes from this gallery

Aaron C. Traub is the photographer. He owns the pictoral website HereIsNewYork.

His resume (no longer available from www.atraub.com...) found at:
Who is Aaron C. Traub
"School of Visual Arts Fall 94 to Spring 97

"Completed a Master's Degree in Computer Art with concentrations in Internet and virtual reality programming and design. "State of mind" is a real-time Virtual Reality application written in C allows users to navigate and interact in a realistic 3D environment. "


Thank you for researching that. It is extremely helpful in determining whether a photo is authentic or virtual reality illusion. Knowing the biography of people has always been a highly valuable resource for me, in determing the highest probability pieces, in cases where necessary physical evidence is missing.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 




Those were Italians discussing that. They were discussing it because the technology has been there and successfully used in passenger jetliners since 1984.


Sorry, you are wrong. Did you read the article that you posted about the Italian KC 767? They did not mention anything about unmanned flight control of the tanker. They were talking about UAVs and UCAV's that they may have in the future.

Can you prove that the technology was used in passenger jetliners since 1984?



I am far more inclined to take the word (I cannot disprove) of an ex-USAF military officer and physician, whose job duties were to perform forensic investigations of military aircraft, than the word of some skeptic, who cannot prove it is not true.


Even when he's wrong? Do you believe that Rumsfeld was running the DOD aircraft crash exercise a month before he was sworn in?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870





Do you believe that Rumsfeld was running the DOD aircraft crash exercise a month before he was sworn in?



Yes, and probably as far back as 1975 when he was President Ford's Secretary of Defense.


It's always the same guys, same job. Just different names for their positions. Get it?


But thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
thats a holograph obviously









... lol jk good post



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


I get it.

Apparently, OrionsStars' source doesn't.

He has Rumsfeld running an exercise for the Department of Defense one month before he was sworn in. Seems like bunk to me!



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870




Apparently, OrionsStars' source doesn't.

He has Rumsfeld running an exercise for the Department of Defense one month before he was sworn in. Seems like bunk to me!


Yes, in fact he was. And guess who was helping him? Chic Burlingame. Now you know who Chic is? Right? Do you know why 'they' murdered his daughter Wendy a few months ago?

I'll give you three guesses. That should be enough for you based on the posts I have seen you make over the past several months. If not you can apply for more.

Thanks again for the post.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars

Sorry, you are wrong. Did you read the article that you posted about the Italian KC 767? They did not mention anything about unmanned flight control of the tanker. They were talking about UAVs and UCAV's that they may have in the future.


From whom do you think the Italians would be getting their KC-767s and UAV tech? Perhaps from those in the US, who have spent years in research and development successfully testing before going public with it?

I have already have substantiated, at least twice, that UAV tech in commercial passenger jetliners was successfully tested and available in 1984. If you read these discussions, you will find it in at least two posts. Or, to save time, you can Google Wiki Boeing 720 NASA UAV testing or any other key words bringing the same result.

If people are going to legitimately counter point opponents' arguments, the only legitimate counter point arguments are those which can definitively prove an opponent to be incorrect. Simply telling another person that person is wrong, is not legitmate counter point of argument. Opinion is never legitimate counter point of argument.




Even when he's wrong? Do you believe that Rumsfeld was running the DOD aircraft crash exercise a month before he was sworn in?


Please prove the author is wrong or please drop it. Simply saying he is wrong because you believe he iswrong is not proof. Thank you in advance for complying with one or the other request.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Yes, in fact he was.


He was?

I thought he was a member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999 - 2000). Do the members of this commission usually run MASCAL exercises for the Pentagon?


Now you know who Chic is? Right?


I don't know him personally, but he seems like a standup guy. He retired from the Navy long before 9/11 and the MASCAL exercise that OrionStars' source is referring to. I pointed this out to you on another thread already.


Do you know why 'they' murdered his daughter Wendy a few months ago?

I'll give you three guesses. That should be enough for you based on the posts I have seen you make over the past several months. If not you can apply for more.


Oh boy! I'm going to need a tinfoil hat for this one. Can I borrow yours?

PS You should make that picture of you in a tinfoil hat your avatar. When you posted it as a reply to another member, I really laughed out loud. That was a classic! Hilarious!



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
That is the question of what this thread is about though. The OP suggested that because its a fairly good pic of a plane flying into the building, it means the hologram theory is dead. It still isn't.

No one here can confirm conclusively what make the plane is, so who's to say its not a hologram?

Given the suppose technology behind the hologram theory, would anyone there on that day honestly be able to tell the difference if it was real or not?

Not a chance.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Logic has never been one of your strong suits. Too many things can go wrong with flying planes manually into buildings, but using unproven holographic technology to project planes crashing into...

I can see the false logic in this paragraph too.

How do you know that the holograph technology is unproven? Maybe they spent months and years out in their desert bases flying holograph planes around without anyone noticing.

The picture shows what *could* be a plane. It doesn't mean that it was a plane and it certainly doesn't mean that it was UA Flight 175.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The picture shows what *could* be a plane. It doesn't mean that it was a plane and it certainly doesn't mean that it was UA Flight 175.

I've tried with johnlear; perhaps you could answer instead.

What is it that:

  • makes you doubt the pictures show a real aircraft?
  • leads you to even consider the possibility that holograms were used?


As far as I can see, there is no positive evidence supporting holograms, in which case, it's a speculation based solely upon the belief that no planes were used.

How did this theory come about?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars

Sorry, you are wrong. Did you read the article that you posted about the Italian KC 767? They did not mention anything about unmanned flight control of the tanker. They were talking about UAVs and UCAV's that they may have in the future.


Yes, I did. Or I would not have used the except to confirm what I had previously stated. The term UAV was definitely in that article in relation to KC-767s. Plus, a link was placed to the article as well.

I already stated I have provided substantiation UAV technology was available in commercial passenger jets since 1984. It has been posted twice in discussions. I also stated how you could find it quite easily. Rather than sift through posts where I already twice confirmed that information.

I investigate what other people write. Then I set out to find my own substantiation in order to make my opposition counter points. I do not simply post and tell people they are wrong - if I cannot substantiate they are wrong. That means I have to put forth time and effort to locate my counter points. I expect the same of my opponents.


[edit on 24-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



From whom do you think the Italians would be getting their KC-767s and UAV tech? Perhaps from those in the US, who have spent years in research and development successfully testing before going public with it?


It does not matter. The KC 767 did not fly until May 2005. Please don't use the "Secret Shadow Government can keep any secret" excuse. The 767 tanker program was very public. There is nothing secretive about turning a commercial airframe into a military refueling platform.


I have already have substantiated, at least twice, that UAV tech in commercial passenger jetliners was successfully tested and available in 1984.


No you haven't. The only thing that you have substantiated is that NASA spent four years developing a remote-controlled Boeing 720.

Remote controlled flight goes as far back as World War II. They used to do it with B-17's. Does that mean all B-17's can be remote-controlled?



Please prove the author is wrong or please drop it. Simply saying he is wrong because you believe he iswrong is not proof. Thank you in advance for complying with one or the other request.


Let me get this straight. You post a source with no references and you expect me to prove him wrong?

How about this. Prove that he's right since you are using it to prove that there was a conspiracy perpetrated by Donald Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense.

I've provided links showing you that Rumsfeld was not part of the DOD when the alleged exercise happened. Do you have anything to counter that?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 


It does not matter. The KC 767 did not fly until May 2005. Please don't use the "Secret Shadow Government can keep any secret" excuse. The 767 tanker program was very public. There is nothing secretive about turning a commercial airframe into a military refueling platform.


What is your proof it did not fly until that date? Just because it was made public on that date does not mean the tested models never left the ground before that date. Since you adamantly contend it did not, what can you provide to prove that it did not besides your opinion?

What can you provide for proof the KC-767 was not used as a UAV prior to 2001? Are you privvy to top secret projects at the Pentagon or DOD? If so, what can you provide to prove that?



No you haven't. The only thing that you have substantiated is that NASA spent four years developing a remote-controlled Boeing 720.


Then prove that is what I wrote at you say I wrote it. Because I definitely know the difference between the number 4 and the number 1984. You made the false allegation. It is up to you to prove your allegation is not false.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join