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.

 

Modified boeings or holograms?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
9-11 was definitely an inside job but there seems to be controversy over what struck the twin towers. Some people say military planes and others insist on a cruise missle hidden within a sub-atomic particle beam hologram.




Eyewitnesses were heard saying "that was no commercial plane because the plane had no windows. It was a dark grey color with a blue logo in the front." And what the heck is that bulge on the aircrafts belly? Either a remote control pod or a cruise missle?

I have little doubt holograms exist but I find it a tad unconventional for it to be projected/impossed on the manhattan skyline and for it to perfectly fit on to the ACTUAL cruise missle so perfectly. Whatever impacted the towers setoff the cruise missle and then buildings were burning for about 45 minutes till the rest of the explosives BUILT-IN to the building(as a standard precautionary measure to prevent the building from tipping over into other buildings) went off and brought the building down into FREE-FALL MODE! Some people say thermite was used, others say small tactical nukes while others say conventional explosives. Either way "job done" and they delayed the destruction of the building till most people were evacuated.

I realise my "speculation" is a bit far-fetched according to the official BS version, but these two hypothesis are the only ones that make sense when you examine all the evidence. At the pentagon they are saying it was either a cruise missle that struck the wing, that housed all the ufo documents one day after mr rumsfeld made it clear $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for by DOD accountants, or it was a predator drone filled with explosives. Some guy said he saw "a small business jet with 20 people capacity slame into the pentagon and to date there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PLANE HITTING THAT BUILDING despite the fact it allegedly the best security system and/or CCTV in the world. Something hit the building but all we see from the released footage is a big fireball!

Anyway watch those two videos and tell me what you think. I am leaning towards military-owned, modified boeings with missles and pods attached to the undercarriage. Please no insulting remarks and no hypersensitivity. If you can't handle the truth then leave the investigation to others and yes I feel sorry for the 3,000 people that died. That should be obvious by now!!!!




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   


More proof that the faa announced flights did not partake to the sky that fateful day because 2 of the tailnumbers assigned to those flight numbers STILL EXISTED years after those planes were supposedly destroyed. In other words how can THE SAME REGISTRED AIRCRAFT still be flying if they crashed into buildings???????

The government said all those people got killed and burned up in the ensuing fireballs during impact, but if those flights did not exist, then there would be no mourning families to contend this inconsistency. And indeed how come no one has stepped up to say "my wife/husband/child was aboard flight x,y,z on that fateful day"? I guess they could pay people to fake a few deaths (with fake death certificates) and plant a story in some newspaper to give credibility to the official version. They could even create false obituary entries.......



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Modified Boeings... Def not holograms.

It would be way easier to just modify the plane.
edit on 5/20/11 by jman449 because:



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
More proof that the faa announced flights did not partake to the sky that fateful day because 2 of the tailnumbers assigned to those flight numbers STILL EXISTED years after those planes were supposedly destroyed. In other words how can THE SAME REGISTRED AIRCRAFT still be flying if they crashed into buildings???????

It doesn't say anything about the aircraft still flying, it merely say it is registred to a particular owner.

Other examples of crashed aircraft that are still registred include N497FE (FedEx flight 1478) and N626TX (Continental Airlines flight 1713).



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jman449
Modified Boeings... Def not holograms.

It would be way easier to just modify the plane.
edit on 5/20/11 by jman449 because:


Yes I agree with your assumption. In fact a close-up photo taken on 9-11 in manhattan shows a bulge on at least one aircraft and when Boeing Inc. was asked what that bulge was, they refused to answer under national security directives.



On the other hand, area 51 is known to have worked on particle beam technology(including weaponry) and reverse engineering ufos and highely advanced aircraft designs so it is not entirely unfeasible they would have sophisticated holograms by now.

John Lear, while a member on ATS, was adamant that the planes that hit the twin towers were actually holographic images and when someone with his incredible accomplisments and experience says something like that, then I tend to take it seriously.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I dont subscribe to the hologram theory, i think modified boeing is definately a possiblilty. We will never know the truth not in our life times imo.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
More proof that the faa announced flights did not partake to the sky that fateful day because 2 of the tailnumbers assigned to those flight numbers STILL EXISTED years after those planes were supposedly destroyed. In other words how can THE SAME REGISTRED AIRCRAFT still be flying if they crashed into buildings???????

It doesn't say anything about the aircraft still flying, it merely say it is registred to a particular owner.

Other examples of crashed aircraft that are still registred include N497FE (FedEx flight 1478) and N626TX (Continental Airlines flight 1713).


So your saying when a plane crashes and becomes a write-off, the registration number gets transferred to a new owner rather than get retired? How do you know this to be fact? Thanks for the reply.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Are you seriously saying that there are no people on record who say that their " wife/husband/child " was on a 9/11 flight ?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by jman449
Modified Boeings... Def not holograms.

It would be way easier to just modify the plane.
edit on 5/20/11 by jman449 because:


Yes I agree with your assumption. In fact a close-up photo taken on 9-11 in manhattan shows a bulge on at least one aircraft and when Boeing Inc. was asked what that bulge was, they refused to answer under national security directives.



On the other hand, area 51 is known to have worked on particle beam technology(including weaponry) and reverse engineering ufos and highely advanced aircraft designs so it is not entirely unfeasible they would have sophisticated holograms by now.

John Lear, while a member on ATS, was adamant that the planes that hit the twin towers were actually holographic images and when someone with his incredible accomplisments and experience says something like that, then I tend to take it seriously.


OMG.. the pods? this was thoughly debunked back when I was still somewhat of a truther..
the is no reason to believe this nonsense.. check out an old CT site here..www.oilempire.us...



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Modified boeings or holograms?


NEITHER!

Get over it.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
i believe there were planes, but that the explosives inside were timed to detonate with the impact of the plane so it could fly into the building cleanly. its the logical assumption one makes after learning about WTC7 and how they had to "pull it". one could then assume they had to pull them all.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
More proof that the faa announced flights did not partake to the sky that fateful day because 2 of the tailnumbers assigned to those flight numbers STILL EXISTED years after those planes were supposedly destroyed. In other words how can THE SAME REGISTRED AIRCRAFT still be flying if they crashed into buildings???????

It doesn't say anything about the aircraft still flying, it merely say it is registred to a particular owner.

Other examples of crashed aircraft that are still registred include N497FE (FedEx flight 1478) and N626TX (Continental Airlines flight 1713).


So your saying when a plane crashes and becomes a write-off, the registration number gets transferred to a new owner rather than get retired? How do you know this to be fact? Thanks for the reply.

Nope, I'm saying that the registration is not necessarily changed or removed when an airplane crashes.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I remember hearing on the news that a reporter called from her mobile phone aboard the airplane to some relative on the ground, I think her husband, and said that people aboard the plane were fighting the terrorists to regain control of the airplane, shortly before it allegedly crashed near shanksville pennsylvania.

Does one or two phone calls, that could easily be hoaxes by the media, prove that alqueda hijacked the planes and crashed them into the twin towers and pentagon, when there is so much conflicting information that PROVES 9-11 was an inside job? I think not my friend!

As far as relatives mourning loved ones that DIED ABOARD THE PLANES, I do not recall such information.
edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


There were no "explosives" *planted* inside the buildings.

This is foolish nonsense, has been beaten to death, years ago.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by yourmaker
 


There were no "explosives" *planted* inside the buildings.

This is foolish nonsense, has been beaten to death, years ago.


lets hear what you got then...hate when you fruit loops jump in with nothing to say



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


There is ZERO:


....when there is so much conflicting information that PROVES 9-11 was an inside job?


...ZERO *inside job* so-called 'proof'.

The rest of your post, that I didn't quote (and, the premise of your OP) shows that this is something you are only recently getting "in" to....you are woefully ill-informed, and apparently using very old, already discredited crap from years and years ago, from the most fringe and nutjob websites imaginable.




edit on Fri 20 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I remember hearing on the news that a reporter called from her mobile phone aboard the airplane to some relative on the ground, I think her husband, and said that people aboard the plane were fighting the terrorists to regain control of the airplane, shortly before it allegedly crashed near shanksville pennsylvania.

Does one or two phone calls, that could easily be hoaxes by the media, prove that alqueda hijacked the planes and crashed them into the twin towers and pentagon, when there is so much conflicting information that PROVES 9-11 was an inside job? I think not my friend!

As far as relatives mourning loved ones that DIED ABOARD THE PLANES, I do not recall such information.
edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Easily be hoaxes by the media?

You mean like Linda Gronlund who called her sister, and not only told her the location of the safe where her will was kept, but the combination too?

Please enlighten us as to how the media obtained this information?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
More proof that the faa announced flights did not partake to the sky that fateful day because 2 of the tailnumbers assigned to those flight numbers STILL EXISTED years after those planes were supposedly destroyed. In other words how can THE SAME REGISTRED AIRCRAFT still be flying if they crashed into buildings???????

It doesn't say anything about the aircraft still flying, it merely say it is registred to a particular owner.

Other examples of crashed aircraft that are still registred include N497FE (FedEx flight 1478) and N626TX (Continental Airlines flight 1713).


So your saying when a plane crashes and becomes a write-off, the registration number gets transferred to a new owner rather than get retired? How do you know this to be fact? Thanks for the reply.


Nope, I'm saying that the registration is not necessarily changed or removed when an airplane crashes.


So if the registrations are not changed and removed, that means the registration numbers should have been retired. The fact they were not retired means the scheduled flights did not take off that day because if they did the airplanes, and their registration numbers, would have ceased to exist after the 9-11 "crashes".

Case made!

edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I remember hearing on the news that a reporter called from her mobile phone aboard the airplane to some relative on the ground, I think her husband, and said that people aboard the plane were fighting the terrorists to regain control of the airplane, shortly before it allegedly crashed near shanksville pennsylvania.

Does one or two phone calls, that could easily be hoaxes by the media, prove that alqueda hijacked the planes and crashed them into the twin towers and pentagon, when there is so much conflicting information that PROVES 9-11 was an inside job? I think not my friend!

As far as relatives mourning loved ones that DIED ABOARD THE PLANES, I do not recall such information.
edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


I am surprised that you appear so emphatic about what happened on 9/11 when you are obviously so ill-informed about telephone communications from the flights to spouses, parents, siblings and about the mourning of those relatives.

There was a whole raft of calls from UA 93 and this is a tribute site to those who died on that flight. Over 9000 people have left a rememberance or other comment :-

www.unitedheroes.com...



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
More proof that the faa announced flights did not partake to the sky that fateful day because 2 of the tailnumbers assigned to those flight numbers STILL EXISTED years after those planes were supposedly destroyed. In other words how can THE SAME REGISTRED AIRCRAFT still be flying if they crashed into buildings???????

It doesn't say anything about the aircraft still flying, it merely say it is registred to a particular owner.

Other examples of crashed aircraft that are still registred include N497FE (FedEx flight 1478) and N626TX (Continental Airlines flight 1713).


So your saying when a plane crashes and becomes a write-off, the registration number gets transferred to a new owner rather than get retired? How do you know this to be fact? Thanks for the reply.


Nope, I'm saying that the registration is not necessarily changed or removed when an airplane crashes.


So if the registrations are not changed and removed, that means the registration numbers should have been retired. The fact they were not retired means the scheduled flights did not take off that day because if they did the airplanes, and their registration numbers, would have ceased to exist after the 9-11 "crashes".

Case made!

edit on 5/20/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Case made for an admission, that's for sure.

As I already pointed out, the registration for other crashed aircrafts are still active, so the registrations for the aircraft crashed on 9/11 being active is hardly an anomaly.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join