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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As usual you give nothing weed..
Just a rant with no facts..

No explosives??
How would you know that when they never tested for explosives???




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Have covered this, in great detail. The lies don't work, anymore.


Perhaps the many lies that a few of you OS supporters make claims to. the fact is Truthers don’t need to lie because they do not support OS lies.
As far as your “nonsense” about no remote airplanes could have been used, I would suggest you do some real research on the topic instead of insulting everyone with your opinions.


The earliest unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916.[4] Nikola Tesla described a fleet of unmanned aerial combat vehicles in 1915.[5] A number of remote-controlled airplane advances followed, including the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, during and after World War I, including the first scale RPV (Remote Piloted Vehicle), developed by the film star and model airplane enthusiast Reginald Denny in 1935.[4] More were made in the technology rush during the Second World War; these were used both to train antiaircraft gunners and to fly attack missions. Jet engines were applied after WW2, in such types as the Teledyne Ryan Firebee I of 1951, while companies like Beechcraft also got in the game with their Model 1001 for the United States Navy in 1955.[4] Nevertheless, they were little more than remote-controlled airplanes until the Vietnam Era.
The birth of US UAVs (called RPVs at the time) began in 1959 when USAF officers, concerned about losing US pilots over hostile territory, began planning for the use of unmanned flights.[6] This plan became intensified when Francis Gary Powers and his "secret" U-2 were shot down over the USSR in 1960. Within days, the highly classified UAV program was launched under the code name of "Red Wagon." [7] The August 2 and August 4, 1964, clash in the Tonkin Gulf between naval units of the U.S. and North Vietnamese Navy initiated America's highly classified UAVs into their first combat missions of the Vietnam War.[8] When the "Red Chinese"[9] showed photographs of downed US UAVs via Wide World Photos,[10] the official U.S. response was, "no comment."

en.wikipedia.org...


In any case.....the outstanding evidence is irrefutable, from the radar tracking to the debris in New York City....there is no doubt (except in the most fringe of silly conspiracist websites) that these were the same airplanes that departed from Boston as regularly scheduled passenger flights, and were hijacked.


Any website that does not support the OS fairytales of 911 is (a fringe of silly conspiracist websites) right?
No proof of any of these planes departing anywhere; no eyewitness saw any of these planes taxi to runway, much less take off. No real evidence that these planes were really highjack, all hearsay from our government. Where do you get your information from, the gov websites?
edit on 20-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



I heard all tall modern buildings(skyscrapers) are rigged with explosions so that in case of emergency they can bring the building down in one piece; straight down, rather than have it topple over into other buildings. I don't have proof of this but I will look into it more!


Explosives in buildings ?

Well you HEARD WRONG ! Which is what you get from parroting idiotic conspiracy sites

Would you work in a building full of explosives? Would any insurance company insure such a building?

Explosives also have a shelf life and over the years deterioate to point where either fail to function or become
dangerously unstable


if this is the case as you have so eloquently put forth, then please elaborate on how easy it was for Larry Silverstein to pull WTC7. he would've had to either already had them installed or what...



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
What would suggest the planes in New York were holograms or modified? Wasnt wreckage of the planes found around ground zero?
edit on 21-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:11 AM
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)


The only thing I ever heard about was some co-worker who found her friends bracelet @ the DC crash. Besides that nada has come forth. The phone calls were said to be hoaxes and could be recreated using software. Cell phones were said to not have the ability to make calls from planes at time, and were in the testing stages. Several of the so-called witnesses they interviewed just after the impact were also said to be hired actors whom can be seen on youtube auditioning for movie parts. The pillars were cut at an angle to control the fall. Several on lookers heard explosions, not an explosion as the buildings fell. You can clearly see this was no commercial plane (no windows) and see something being fired from the plane just milliseconds before the impact when slowed down. This is also when the government started using more and more drones to do their dirty work. This was just a big one IMO.

My favorite though is the look on Bush's face when he was told his orders had been carried out, while he was sitting in a kindergarten class. To me it was like "Well, there is no turning back now" look. Followed by the "What have I done", and last but not least "I hope they believe this BS, because I'm lost w/o Dick".

Hologram? No way. If it was a hologram they would of used something besides a Navy plane w/o windows and would of been able to cover their mess easier. This was a murder of innocent people by the United States of America. The only difference between us and So damn insane was he killed his people publicly, while we hide and lie about it attempting to make ourselves look like the good guy.

Maybe the Antichrist isn't a person but a nation??? Will come to the rescue and pretend to be the savior, his kingdom will be both a political and an ecclesiastical empire, he will lead us into peace for several years... to let it all come down like the fall of Rome.

IMHO the antichrist is the United States of America...

but then again I don't believe in the bible so they are just going to be the destruction of the world... Metaphors people!!! So I guess antichrist fits best for bible thumpers.



edit on 21-5-2011 by SmArTbEaTz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I would think crashing an actual Boeing - non modified into the buildings and either A. Leaving it to it's own fate or B. Rigging the actual inside of the buildings. Using hologram tech. on such a public scale, which would be documented for years to come as the worst act of terrorism to date. could you imagine if perhaps I dunno imagine a bird flew into it? and it cleanly flew through the plane, intact, then continued flying out the other side?? A million dollar plan, years in the making, F'd up by a bird?? This idea of hologram tech being used is laughable.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


What complete nonsense. As said, is obvious you are only now getting "into" this, and the information is coming from the same crackpot sources that are still out there, polluting the Internet.

Fisrt:


...donald rumsfelds admission of the $2.3 trillion missing....


..is incredibly ignorant, and certainly no "smoking gun". Doesn't even make logical sense! But, no....the "missing" money was a description of accounting mistakes, and was only unaccounted for. READ the true info about this subject, not the nutters on conspiracy websites online.


Are you on narcotics? The video was broadcast by mainstream media and is very clear in what it says. 25% of the TOTAL BUDGET is/was unaccounted for. What accounting mistakes? $2.3 TRILLION, let me spell it out for you.............$2,300 BILLION.............$2,300,000 MILLION equals $2.3 trillion. CAPICHE?????????

You may not give a rats ass about your hard earned money, BUT I SURE AS HELL DO and so do many, many others.




No video footage of the airplane hitting the pentagon...


...is a lie....there is the one parking gate entrance camera, that is all.


Yeah I saw that really pathetic, 5 frames per second "video" footage released. Even the 7-11 convience store cctv has much better footage then the most secured building in the world, with hundreds/thousands of cctv cameras.

Its a damm insult. And yes I head cctv camera footage from nearby gasoline vendors and other stores facing the pentagon was confiscated by the fbi and never returned. Typical national insecurity bull#! Anytime the government wants to cover its ass they yell "national security" and get away with murder!





... the hole was too small to indicate a 757 and that aluminum cannot penetrate hardened concrete.


Another lie, the size of the entry damage was over 90 feet wide, and the building is NOT a solid wall of "hardened concrete"!!


Where do you get your "90 feet wide" information from? Even people with minimal experience in airplanes and flying can clearly see THAT THE HOLE IS TOO SMALL FOR A 757/767 and like I said already aluminum airframes cannot pentrate hardened concrete(or even normal concrete) AT ANY SPEED...even at the speed of light!



I don't really care about flight 93 because....


You don't care?!? No....obviously, you don't care about facts and reality....


Yeah ok sherlock. I was always interested about the 9-11 events when I joined this site and even before that. There are so many inconsistencies in the official story that are being ignored or mispresented its not funny at all. Thousands of people died and the government keeps covering up everything as though its no big deal. Two wars followed on the basis that supposedly bin laden was behind everything, soldiers died, patriot act, DHS, guantanamo concentration camp, the american and european economies are ready to collapse due to overspending by defense agencies...................yet you want me to believe the official story?

Sorry I do NOT support tyranny even if they paid me a million dollars. Why do you support tyranny?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by impressme
 


More nonsense.....


Oh, I get it – remote control systems were already being used on airliners by 911.


Have covered this, in great detail. The lies don't work, anymore. The ONE case of an "airliner" that was (barely) rigged for R/C was a failure, after all. Not to mention the sheer numbers of people that had to be involved, in that one-off event, and the years it took to prepare. And, the fact that every airframe that is built is tracked, has apaper trail, and doesn't just "appear" out of thin air.....

In any case.....the outstanding evidence is irrefutable, from the radar tracking to the debris in New York City....there is no doubt (except in the most fringe of silly conspiracist websites) that these were the same airplanes that departed from Boston as regularly scheduled passenger flights, and were hijacked.


UAVs have existed for a long time and it has been non-covert science. They were used in iraq and afghanistan, and they are being used at the mexican-usa border for reconaissance. Some uavs, such as the predator, can be armed with missles and machine guns to be pro-active killing machines. They are flown by remote control from secured military zones, usually underground bunkers.

If uavs can fly by remote control then what makes you think boeing airplanes cant be retrofitted with rc pods and/or missiles? Even on mythbusters they show you cars and trucks being rigged for experiments that are too dangerous to do with a human driver inside.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



UAVs have existed for a long time and it has been non-covert science.


How long? Care to do the research? You will see that, in 2001 (and years before) was still rather new, developing technology....

In any case, it doesn't matter, since a UAV is designed from the ground up specifically for remote control.

Trying to retro-fit a production airplane that is NOT designed for it is an entirely different matter.

Additionally, it is evident that the technical hurdles are just not understood by people not involved with aviation, and aerospace science.



Some uavs, such as the predator, can be armed with missles and machine guns to be pro-active killing machines.


Yeah, so what?? They are designed and built that way. They also look nothing like an airliner...like NO airliner.




If uavs can fly by remote control then what makes you think boeing airplanes cant be retrofitted with rc pods and/or missiles?


Just as I said before.....no understanding, this is evident. In a fantasy, or a cartoon, you just "slap an R/C pod" onto the airplane, and it magically works....but, not in real life, bucko.

The ONE project that NASA, with the FAA and the Dryden Flight Research Center managed to achieve was with an old B-720. It was less than perfect, and involved years of work, and hundreds of people, thousands of man-hours....for ONE airplane example.

en.wikipedia.org...


.....and required more than 4 years of work before the test occurred.



Furthermore, perhaps you missed this point, for this ridiculous "remote control" nonsense to be maintained, by the 'conspiracy' loons, when you follow their "reasoning"....they say that some airplanes were "substituted" (somehow). But, they don't realize that every airframe built at Boeing, or Airbus, or any other manufacturer is tracked, and has a huge paper trail and history.

www.airfleets.net...

Above, a database, world wide. Knock yourself out, and learn something....





Even on mythbusters they show you cars and trucks being rigged ....


Not even close comparison. Seriously?? That is so different, it's laughable....






edit on Sat 21 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Furthermore, perhaps you missed this point, for this ridiculous "remote control" nonsense to be maintained, by the 'conspiracy' loons, when you follow their "reasoning"....they say that some airplanes were "substituted" (somehow). But, they don't realize that every airframe built at Boeing, or Airbus, or any other manufacturer is tracked, and has a huge paper trail and history.

www.airfleets.net...

Above, a database, world wide. Knock yourself out, and learn something....


I don't think any airplanes were substituted at all. In fact I believe the scheduled flights that allegedly took off from their respective origins was nothing but a government perpetrated hoax. They picked four flights that did not exist and used them as cover for the military planes that took off from an undisclosed location(s) and as a result the faa operators got confused and ordered all planes to land immediately.

Surely a few top faa executives knew the plan well and ordered a cover-up shortly thereafter.

Thats my opinion............

As for retrofitting 757/767 planes how difficult could it be with a black budget in the hundreds of billions annually? Either those planes were special order or they bought standardised versions and converted them later.

Its not rocket science and yes we went to the moon 40 years ago!



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Wait a sec.
Why would a hologram carry a missile?
How would this be even possible?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Making a false assumption that WTC 7 was "pulled"

Arent you ignoring fact that building was on fire all day....



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You didn't listen to Weedwacker .....

Where did the "military" get their alleged airplanes from ? Ones that just happened to look like B 767 ?

Considering it takes months and millions of manhours to make one in a huge factory

Unless in your delusional state believe in super sekrit aircraft factory where gubmit churns out aircraft for
op-erations like 9/11

Also all these flights were regularly scheduled flights - so much so that the airlines changed the flight numbers
after



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You didn't listen to Weedwacker .....

Where did the "military" get their alleged airplanes from ? Ones that just happened to look like B 767 ?

Considering it takes months and millions of manhours to make one in a huge factory

Unless in your delusional state believe in super sekrit aircraft factory where gubmit churns out aircraft for
op-erations like 9/11

Also all these flights were regularly scheduled flights - so much so that the airlines changed the flight numbers
after


The military does not give out contracts to boeing, lockhead martin, northrop grumman, etc?

You think "special" clearances such as confidential, secret and top secret are not necessary for SOME projects?

I am not dellusional "friend" and I resent being insulted. It is clearly people like you and wheedwhacker that are either highly ignorant or have an insidious agenda. I speak with my mind and fingers, you speak with your paycheck?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Making a false assumption that WTC 7 was "pulled"

Arent you ignoring fact that building was on fire all day....


so fire brought down all 3 buildings?? how is this remotely possible???????????



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I gave you some reference tools....you can look up the production histories of ALL the Boeing 767s ever built, and who they were delivered to...including to any military of any nation around the world.

Same with any other model of Boeing, or Airbus, etc. B-767 Operators, Orders and Deliveries.

B-767 Production List.

Info on USAF B-767s (First flight for this version, in 2005!: KC-767.

List of Active United States military aircraft (all inclusive).

Boeing types operated USAF:

USAF C-22 (Boeing 727 version).

USAF C-32 (Boeing 757 version).

USAF C-40 (Boeing 737 version).

USAF E-3 (Boeing 707 version).

USAF KC135 (Boeing 707 version).

USAF E-4 (Boeing 747 version).

USAF OC-135 (Boeing 707 version).

USAF RC-135 (Boeing 707 version).

USAF VC-25 (Boeing 747 version -- used as "Air Force One").

USAF WC-135 (Boeing 707 version -- "Constant Phoenix").








edit on Sat 21 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The NIST report contains a graph of the south tower deflection and oscillation due to the impact of WHATEVER IT WAS.

Cruise missiles are not much faster than airliners and weigh less than two tons.

Using the slope of that graph and assuming the plane that hit the south tower was 150 tons traveling at 550 mph the conservation of momentum equation indicates the plane deflected about 200,000 tons. That number makes sense in relation to what we are told about the weight of the building.

With less than two tons a cruise missile could not produce that deflection and oscillation. Obviously a hologram could not do it. So some of the speculation about 9/11 is obvious nonsense.

psik



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for declassified reports. I am pretty sure what we are discussing would not be listed there!



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
There's alot of misinformation, disinformation, and opinions in this thread that have been strewn about as "fact". I will attempt to clear some of that up with real facts.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
9-11 was definitely an inside job but there seems to be controversy over what struck the twin towers.

There's no controversy anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement about what struck the towers. That's why I made the thread:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign

The only way that there is a controversy about what struck the towers is if someone fabricates or creates a controversy.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Eyewitnesses were heard saying "that was no commercial plane because the plane had no windows.

And if you ever looked at the type of plane that struck the south tower, you can barely see the windows at a close range:



See how tiny the windows are? If that plane were a half-mile or even a quarter-mile away, you wouldn't see the windows at all. And there are very few people who would've been in a position to even try to see the windows on Flight 175 before it struck the south tower.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It was a dark grey color with a blue logo in the front.

That's the color of United Airlines: dark grey and dark blue as seen in the image above, and as seen just before striking the south tower:





Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And what the heck is that bulge on the aircrafts belly?

There's one on each side. It's called a wing fairing.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
In fact a close-up photo taken on 9-11 in manhattan shows a bulge on at least one aircraft

Again, that's called a wing fairing being highlighted by light and shadows. It has also been debunked for many, many years here:

www.questionsquestions.net...

The following video has all known impacts of Flight 175 into the south tower. Not a single one shows any sort of "pod" on the fuselage of the plane:




Furthermore, nowhere in the 9/11 truth movement is the "pod" accepted as a real and possible "theory".



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I heard all tall modern buildings(skyscrapers) are rigged with explosions so that in case of emergency they can bring the building down in one piece; straight down

"You heard" is called "hearsay" and doesn't mean squat. Unless you have some sort of evidence or proof to back up what you "hear", then it's best not to even mention it because it makes you look ridiculously foolish without a source.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
"lights and shadows" is the same bs cover story they use to debunk ufo sightings.

Give me a break with such pathetic explanations. Its getting really, really sickening!

No, what's getting really, really sickening is people who try to fabricate disinformation to explain away real facts. There was no "pod", there were real planes. Those are the facts. Anything else is deliberate, fabricated disinformation. Period.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am not dellusional "friend" and I resent being insulted.

Some people would beg to differ after reading threads about "holograms" or other no-plane, CGI, tv fakery disinformation.


Now, after reading the above facts, you should take your own words as advice to yourself:

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If you can't handle the truth then leave the investigation to others



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There were no "explosives" *planted* inside the buildings.

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

Three WTC buildings were wired for explosives, and it's foolish denial to think otherwise. Audio, video, and witness testimony are factual and prove explosives were in those buildings. Opinions and denial are not factual.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
NO, that is yet another of the many Internet myths that have arisen. Any Flight Recorder or Voice Recorder that had been recovered would have been made public

Or so you think, weed. The only myth is denial. It is a shame you would call NYC's finest "liars" to fuel your own denial.

Two New York City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes in October of 2001, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them.

Nicholas DeMasi has self-published a book with other Ground Zero workers in which he describes the recovery of the devices. The book is called Behind the Scenes: GROUND ZERO, A Collection of Personal Accounts.

Furthermore, on December 19, 2005, CounterPunch Magazine had contacted the NTSB about the firefighters' claims and an NTSB source had this to say:


"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
Source: CounterPunch Magazine

As you can see, three separate sources indicate that the black boxes were recovered. And even taking out the NTSB source since we can't verify the authenticity of that story, there's still two sources who are very credible people and who were heroes to this country that tragic day.

I think it's safe to say the black boxes were recovered and hidden from the public for some ulterior reasons. But you'll never believe your government is hiding anything from you. And that's just too bad.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
I bring nothing but facts, each time.

That's not entirely accurate. Unless, of course, your accuracy is calling NYC's finest heroes "liars" to further your denial fantasy.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
there is the one parking gate entrance camera, that is all.

Actually, there were two. Dang. Not accurate again...





edit on 21-5-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join