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.

 

He's my friend, but here is the question John Lear wont answer?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
That was caused by controlled and expert demolition. No airplane ever hit or went through the WTC towers. I know you were just being silly about it being a hologram.


Is that right? So, please explain how in the world the hole of the plane managed to appear in the building *BEFORE* the explosions even took place, which were deeper in the building heading out the other side.

A hologram could not have made the holes, and gee, most all of the beams were bent inwards, just what one would expect to see if oh, let's say a large object (like a commercial jet) smashed through it.

So it wasn't explosives (we see nor have NO evidence of that), it wasn't a hologram, it wasn't a DEW as people are still alive in the building, no little nuke would have done it without us seeing evidence.

Nope, all that's left is a plane making a plane shaped hole and exploding in the interior which is exactly what happened.




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


A hologram could not have made the holes, and gee, most all of the beams were bent inwards, just what one would expect to see if oh, let's say a large object (like a commercial jet) smashed through it.


Then I can only recommend fully inspecting that hole. The vast majority of steel is straight cut. Something which would never happen on a true impact between solid physical objects.

Others of it is pushed outwards or horizontally. If any alleged plane had to cut through all that steel, the hole itself states parts of any alleged plane did not get through. Because parts, of the perimeter steel framing, are still intact on the left side facing the picture. Not even implications of a necessary engine impact on that side exist.

There are definitely scientifically physical explanations for why the impossible did not occur. Please do not assume "shredding and being pulled inward" as a solid scientific hypothesis. It is not.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
There are definitely scientifically physical explanations for why the impossible did not occur. Please do not assume "shredding and being pulled inward" as a solid scientific hypothesis. It is not.


Really? And what scientifically physical explanation do you possibly have for the hole appearing *BEFORE* the explosions that happened later and further in the building?

The beams being pulled inward is perfectly logical considering the direction the plane was heading into the building, whether or not you believe it is or isn't. Period.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Really? And what scientifically physical explanation do you possibly have for the hole appearing *BEFORE* the explosions that happened later and further in the building?


Holes prior to any explosion? That is scientifically impossible except under something like DEW or steel cutting laser abnormal conditions, isn't it? And even more scientifically impossible, when no one can honestly state he or she saw anything impacting, of solid on solid, to make any hole appear before any explosions. How would you attempt to explain no impact and a hole before before any explosion? Under normal circumstances, I would not even attempt to explain the obvious normal impossible.


The beams being pulled inward is perfectly logical considering the direction the plane was heading into the building, whether or not you believe it is or isn't. Period.


They were not pulled inward as should happen on an impact of solid against solid. They are either outward, facade cut but perimeter wall not cut, horizontally pushed over toward one another, or vertically straight and very straight cut.

As if a steel cutting laser beam cut through and disintegrated to make a hole. It is that clean cut on at least 95% of the steel facade and primary perimeter wall frames. Yes, there are steel cutting lasers developed, to cut steel, currently being used. They are used in civilian industry.

However, I seriously doubt the DOD and Pentagon would have the puny energy power of civilian industry lasers, which very cleanly cuts through steel without much effort. Disintegration is quite another matter and involves the use of gamma rays, such as those contained in DEW.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Or.
It is a not a very viable theory.
Sorry to burst in here and speak out against the theory but that is how I feel.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Holes prior to any explosion? That is scientifically impossible except under something like DEW or steel cutting laser abnormal conditions, isn't it?


Not at all, an airplane travelling fast enough could obviously pierce the outer facade, glass and beams and explode as it is torn to pieces on the inside of the building.




And even more scientifically impossible, when no one can honestly state he or she saw anything impacting, of solid on solid, to make any hole appear before any explosions. How would you attempt to explain no impact and a hole before before any explosion?


I know several people who saw the impact of the second plane, noone said there was no impact and then a hole, that's just illogical and wrong.



As if a steel cutting laser beam cut through and disintegrated to make a hole. It is that clean cut on at least 95% of the steel facade and primary perimeter wall frames. Yes, there are steel cutting lasers developed, to cut steel, currently being used. They are used in civilian industry.

However, I seriously doubt the DOD and Pentagon would have the puny energy power of civilian industry lasers, which very cleanly cuts through steel without much effort. Disintegration is quite another matter and involves the use of gamma rays, such as those contained in DEW.



Yet noone reported nor is there ANY evidence at all of any laser cutters at the site when this happened. Now DEW's as people were still alive in the building and some even survived the collapse.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Not at all, an airplane travelling fast enough could obviously pierce the outer facade, glass and beams and explode as it is torn to pieces on the inside of the building.


It is only obvious to those believing they saw any planes impacting any buildings. In these discussions alone, we can obviously see that presents arguments from those those stating they did not see any planes impacting any buildings. There goes a full consensus from the masses on that point out the window, while metaphorically blowing to the winds.

Since there is no full consensus of what everyone did or did not see, what follows is people are going to have to arrive at a consensus proved by scientific consensus, of exactly what did make any holes before any explosions.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist


I know several people who saw the impact of the second plane, noone said there was no impact and then a hole, that's just illogical and wrong.


Exactly where in Manhattan were they located? Or were they watching TV video feed like around 99.9% of the rest of us in the international community?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Exactly where in Manhattan were they located? Or were they watching TV video feed like around 99.9% of the rest of us in the international community?


They were at the scene. A couple of them didn't make it out. So please take your inferences elsewhere. It was a horrible day for them, and they know without a doubt what they saw and HEARD. Remember faking the image is only 1 part of the "truther" belief. Reproducing the sound in that area would be a monumental task, ask and professional sound engineer before you think you know about that.

As far as people not seeing them, well maybe they had their backs turned or weren't in line or sight of the impact. That doesn't change the fact that thousands saw it with their own eyes, and millions on TV.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

They were at the scene. A couple of them didn't make it out. So please take your inferences elsewhere. It was a horrible day for them, and they know without a doubt what they saw and HEARD. Remember faking the image is only 1 part of the "truther" belief. Reproducing the sound in that area would be a monumental task, ask and professional sound engineer before you think you know about that.


I am deeply very sorry for your losses. However, I did nothing wrong to be addressed in such an angry manner. The fact is people are not agreeing on any planes impacting any buildings. Only you can come to terms with your anger from your losses.

At the same time, please do not take out your anger out on those of us in disagreement, that we saw no planes impact any buildings or ground. I did not see any planes impact any buildings or ground. There are many stating they did not see any either. I will not change what I know I did not see simply to make someone else feel more psychologically secure, and I do not expect anyone to that for me. To change one's accounting out of sympathy, is to me the same as lying to self and the one needing the sympathy.

I watched TV video feed all day on 9/11/2001 into the next days. I have viewed at least 500 takes from all over the Internet feeding video to us. I have concentrated study on the WTC site for over 6 years. No planes can be proved to have impacted any buildings or ground. There is something definitely wrong with the video feeds.

I am as horrified as anyone else that people could be as sociopathic as to cause the death of others for the price of oil, dope and self-service. I intend to help those investigating this come to logical, scientific results. As far as I can determine, that is also the purpose of these discussions. An exhange of ideas on exactly what did happen on 9/11/2001.

With all due respect and sympathy for anyone's 9/11 losses, perhaps people becoming angry and upset, with the purpose of these discussions, should consider not participating in these forum discussions. The fact is there are many people internationally swearing they saw no planes impacting any buildings or ground on 9/11/2001.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join