Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Right now on the Discover Channel...THE 9/11 TAPES

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
On the Discovery Channel right now they're airing a 9/11 special that goes over the tape recordings of the conversations of the air controllers, the air bases, and even the hijackers. One interesting point is that stewardess on AA11 Betty Ong specifiically called out on her stewardess station's airphone and reported the plane was hijacked. She eve pointed out the seats the hijackers were sitting to ground controllers.

I don't know if this was played before, but to those people who are insisting the planes were holograms, the passengers were all CIA agents, or whatever, it's bound to conyain information they neve rknew before. Yeah, it's easy to brush off all the recordings as being electonically synthesized while reading Alex Jones' web site, but it's another thing entirely to willfully brush off actual names and actual voices as you're listening to them.

This has been a public service announcement.




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Your avatar has always struck me as so very appropriate to the few threads you choose to participate in. It really fits well for here. I just recently started hearing that Hologram nonsense. Where do people come up with some of this garage?? I'm sure the military would love to own technology so far advanced as to pull something like that off with the confidence of certain success in advance.


Give it 10 years....and people who weren't even alive when the towers fell will start suggesting we were all actually suffering mass induced delusions and most of it never even happened.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Obviously you must still be very green behind your ears Wrabbit, and it's equally obvious that you never read DARPA's year 2000 - 2007 budget papers.

Here's a small excerpt from the paper that might not enlighten you personally, but probably will do to many others more open-minded and more honest:

From page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."


The first hologram shown in public, happened in the 'Japanese Pavilion' at the World Expo 1988 in Brisbane, Australia. Extremely impressive to watch even in those early days!

(Unfortunately the papers are no longer available. They were taken off Darpa's Net page around 4 years ago).

Cheers

edit on 12-2-2012 by djeminy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Indeed.. I'm well aware of the fact that hologram technology is very impressive. Disney, of all places, has been at the bleeding edge of technology for that and other things which make for the best public displays to show how impressive it really is.

Now... Impressive, yes. SO advanced and reliable that such systems could be used in a 'hoax' like the total fraud some believe 9/11 was? Thats so far beyond absurd, I'm not sure where the line was crossed back there. Why do I say that? It's not to levy a personal attack as your message started out with.


No.. I say that because it wouldn't have been good enough to be 'good enough' to do it. It wouldn't have even been good enough to be 95% sure of a successful operation based on such holographic technology. No, they would have needed 100% certainty, or as close to it as human beings can ever get. Why??

*IF* 9/11 was actually a Government sponsored event as opposed to something a few evil bastards just let take it's course and happen....then screwing up would have led to the very quick and horrible deaths of EVERY LAST CONSPIRATOR who had anything to do with it.

Nations aren't tolerant with Coups when they fail.....and suggesting Holograms being used on 9/11 is saying all those very rich and powerful men bet their very existence on that rather NEW technology working 110% perfectly on a scale that had never been done before.

Likely? Ahem....not even remotely possible, in my personal opinion. Not even close to it.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well, you're certainly entitled to your 'opinion' that the US military doesn't own advanced Holographic technology to such extent, even though the available evidence points to the absolute opposite scenario.

Here's some more helpful information you could familiarize yourself with, if you're so inclined:

www.stormingmedia.us...

Cheers



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



I don't know if this was played before, but to those people who are insisting the planes were holograms, the passengers were all CIA agents, or whatever, it's bound to 'conyain' information they 'neve' 'rknew' before. Yeah, it's easy to brush off all the recordings as being ‘electonically’ synthesized while reading Alex Jones' web site, but it's another thing entirely to willfully brush off actual names and actual voices as you're listening to them.


Okayyy True Believer... because that is really what everyone thinks. People have laid out all of the perfectly valid facts and unbelievably odd coincidences that happened on 9/11 and you ignore them. Then, you go on the attack about how everyone believes in holographic planes and ridiculous disinfo-nonsense. Tent your windows because you are getting too transparent.
edit on 12-2-2012 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
What about the wreckage found?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 





What about the wreckage found?

Please don't confuse them with the facts.

Maybe they had crews of secret agent men carrying landing gear assemblies out and dropping them on the street while we looked up. Or maybe the parts were holograms too. It's like diarrhea, the crap never ends.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
 

Okayyy True Believer... because that is really what everyone thinks. People have laid out all of the perfectly valid facts and unbelievably odd coincidences that happened on 9/11 and you ignore them. Then, you go on the attack about how everyone believes in holographic planes and ridiculous disinfo-nonsense. Tent your windows because you are getting too transparent.


What amuses me the most about you truthers is that you just can't comprehend the simple fact that your worst mortal enemy ISN'T armies of sinister secret agents following you around and posting disinformation to trick you. Your worst mortal enemy is your own truther movement.

There IS no "9/11" conspiracy theory, but in fact, there are dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories ranging from "secret controlled demolitions" to the implausible "Lasers from outer space" to the bizarre "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" to the thoroughly absurd "shape shifting alien lizards", and you're all getting into fistfights with each other over who has the better conspiracy theory. The rest of us see your fellow truthers arging that the planes were holograms, the tapes were electronically synthesized and the relatives of the victims are all secret agents, so of course we're going to think you're all a pack of Alex Jones "the gov't is plotting to murder us all" crackpots by association. Despite your imagined indignation that "noone believes the planes were holograms" I notice that just before your post, someone else came in and posted in defense of these "the gov't has hologram technology we don't know about" claims, so in the end, your turning a blind eye to what your fellow truthers are doing only means that the joke is really on you.

Tell me something, in all honesty, why couldn't the hijackings/airplanes be real AS WELL AS the attack really was a false flag operation? The two don't cancel each other out so insisting that thoroughly documented details of the attack (I.E. the plane impacts) were faked on a sound stage is not only pointless, but counterproductive.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Obviously you must still be very green behind your ears Wrabbit, and it's equally obvious that you never read DARPA's year 2000 - 2007 budget papers.

Here's a small excerpt from the paper that might not enlighten you personally, but probably will do to many others more open-minded and more honest:


Yes, but your theory within a theory has the exact same flaw that the "moon landings were a hoax" conspiracy claims- after spending ghastly amounts of money on this fake technology, manufacturing fake evidence, creating fake programs that generate false information, sending armies of secret agents out to infiltrate all walks of society, etc etc etc, it would be cheaper to simply do it the way they claimed they did it to begin with.

Are you really telling me these secret conspirators are going to waste how many years and how many billions developing these advanced hologram generators when they could simply steal a real plane from the airlines for free?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
It's scheduled to be on at least twice more this month (link).

I don't have cable, but I'm interested in seeing this. If anyone sees it online, please post a link.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Thanks for the laugh on your very simplistic but dead on accurate take on the overall conspiracy world around 9/11. I laughed as I realized I couldn't find a thing to argue in your point.

This has been so thoroughly over-thought and over-plotted by those looking for sense in horror, that it really would have been far cheaper to just do the whole thing just as it appears to have happened.

Sorry....what we're discussing here has little or no humor to it, but the realization of how right you are IS hilarious for how strong a truth it really is...just sitting there like the Elephant in the room.


edit on 13-2-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: spacing change



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dear Truth Believer,

I understand your concern about the plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you have to understand that you are grouping everyone and every wack theory together, which is a common-stereotypical mistake. People that have done actual research shun these ideas as much as you do because they destroy the credibility of the truth movement and bury the facts on what actually happened. There is so much credence and undeniably odd coincidences in the events leading up to and after 9/11 that make the story we are officially told sound like a well-perpetrated fairy tale.

Just about every day from 9-5 you hawk 9/11 threads and go on the attack, ignoring the main information posted and nitpick trivial information with the hopes of starting a war of words to derail the main point of the thread. Why?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by djeminy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Obviously you must still be very green behind your ears Wrabbit, and it's equally obvious that you never read DARPA's year 2000 - 2007 budget papers.

Here's a small excerpt from the paper that might not enlighten you personally, but probably will do to many others more open-minded and more honest:


Yes, but your theory within a theory has the exact same flaw that the "moon landings were a hoax" conspiracy claims- after spending ghastly amounts of money on this fake technology, manufacturing fake evidence, creating fake programs that generate false information, sending armies of secret agents out to infiltrate all walks of society, etc etc etc, it would be cheaper to simply do it the way they claimed they did it to begin with.

Are you really telling me these secret conspirators are going to waste how many years and how many billions developing these advanced hologram generators when they could simply steal a real plane from the airlines for free?



And what "theory" would that be, 'GOD'??

Actually it would be rather interesting to see what you'll be able to conjure up; just so one can get a little insight into how your so-called mind work 'in reality'!

Cheers



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills

reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dear Truth Believer,

I understand your concern about the plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you have to understand that you are grouping everyone and every wack theory together, which is a common-stereotypical mistake. People that have done actual research shun these ideas as much as you do because they destroy the credibility of the truth movement and bury the facts on what actually happened. There is so much credence and undeniably odd coincidences in the events leading up to and after 9/11 that make the story we are officially told sound like a well-perpetrated fairy tale.


On the contrary, I do not group every whack theory together with all the truthers, as I am quite conscious of the fact that there are more conspiracy theories than there are grains of sand on a beach, and I doubt you could find two truthers who'd ever sit down agree on all the details on what "the truth" actually is. Person A thinks the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions while person B thinks it was lasers from outer space. Person C thinks it was remote controlled drones that hit the towers while Person D doesn't believe anything hit them at all. Even if two people agreed on, say, controlled demolitions, person E will insist it's the work of the gov't, person F will insist it's the work of the Jewish world order, and person G will insist it's the work of a secret cult of Satan worshippers.

I can lump the truthers together in one way, however- every single one of you is getting all your information from one or another of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. I know this because if the truthers aren't quoting Steven Jones verbatim, they're quoting Richard Gage verbatim, and if not him, they're quoting Dylan Avery, Morgan Reynolds, Rob Balsamo, Judy Wood etc etc etc verbatim. The specific conspiracy they're quoting simply depends on which damned fool conspiracy web site it was that first dragged them into the conspiracy world. When we all saw the events of 9/11 unfold on TV, noone, but noone, instinctively thought the towers were really fake buildings. It was irrefutably one of those conspiracy snake oil peddlers that put the idea into their head.


Just about every day from 9-5 you hawk 9/11 threads and go on the attack, ignoring the main information posted and nitpick trivial information with the hopes of starting a war of words to derail the main point of the thread. Why?


Probably because when we DO address your points...like how police helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact areas of the towers reported the support columns were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were about to collapse, or how firefighters reported out of control fires in WTC 7 and were causing three story tall bulges in the side of the structure, or how photographs taken of the wreckage at ground zero showed not even a microbe of any sign of sabotage...the truthers either run away in terror the same way vampires run away from sunlight, or accuse them of being "sinister secret agents" just like they've done all along to everyone/everything that refutes what they want to believe. Everything you're posting has already been debunked years ago but you still keep repeating it anyway, and even now when they aired the 9/11 tapes on the Discovery Channel and we can hear the actual voices of the participants there are people who STILL insist the voices were faked, so if you don't want to listen then what's the point?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

And what "theory" would that be, 'GOD'??

Actually it would be rather interesting to see what you'll be able to conjure up; just so one can get a little insight into how your so-called mind work 'in reality'!

Cheers


What do you mean, "what theory would that be"? There's only one logical reason why he'd be posting information on how the gov't is spending money on advanced hologram technology- he's using it to push these "the planes were holograms" conspiracy theories, and he's in turn using that to push these "the buildings were destroyed by sabotage" conspiracy theories, and in turn he's using THAT to push these "the 9/11 attack was staged" conspiracy theories. Of course, he certainly knows there isn't even a microbe of tangible evidence that backs up any of these miles-long chain of conspiracies within secret plots within coverups, nor can he even refute the material shown on this 9/11 tapes show that played the actual voices from the hijacked planes, so all he can ever do is to post this "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping to make the accusation without actually coming out and saying it.

Is there a single thing I said that's incorrect? Please, point it out to me.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by djeminy

And what "theory" would that be, 'GOD'??

Actually it would be rather interesting to see what you'll be able to conjure up; just so one can get a little insight into how your so-called mind work 'in reality'!

Cheers


What do you mean, "what theory would that be"? There's only one logical reason why he'd be posting information on how the gov't is spending money on advanced hologram technology- he's using it to push these "the planes were holograms" conspiracy theories, and he's in turn using that to push these "the buildings were destroyed by sabotage" conspiracy theories, and in turn he's using THAT to push these "the 9/11 attack was staged" conspiracy theories. Of course, he certainly knows there isn't even a microbe of tangible evidence that backs up any of these miles-long chain of conspiracies within secret plots within coverups, nor can he even refute the material shown on this 9/11 tapes show that played the actual voices from the hijacked planes, so all he can ever do is to post this "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping to make the accusation without actually coming out and saying it.

Is there a single thing I said that's incorrect? Please, point it out to me.



Of course your nervous-hysterically rant is all incorrect.

I was responding to Wrabbit's remark:

"I'm sure the military would love to own technology so far advanced as to pull something like that off with the
confidence of certain success in advance."

I simply showed that they do in fact own this technology.

Is it possible they could have used this technology? Yes, of course.
Is it possible that they didn't use this technology? Yes, of course.

'Possibilities' has nothing to do with 'theories'.

Is it a possibility that a theory could turn out to be true? Yes, of course.
Is it a possibility that a theory could turn out to be false? Yes, of course.

Your ranting was a waste of time both for me and obviously for yourself, so thanks for nothing!

Cheers


edit on 15-2-2012 by djeminy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
I simply showed that they do in fact own this technology.

Is it possible they could have used this technology? Yes, of course.
Is it possible that they didn't use this technology? Yes, of course.

'Possibilities' has nothing to do with 'theories'.

Is it a possibility that a theory could turn out to be true? Yes, of course.
Is it a possibility that a theory could turn out to be false? Yes, of course.

Your ranting was a waste of time both for me and obviously for yourself, so thanks for nothing!


Ah yes, it's the "plausible deniability" clause again. Whenever the truthers need to come up with soemthing to patch up the glaring holes in their stories which they know themsleves to be ludicrous they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use "isn't that interesting (wink wink)" innuendo to push it out, like that whole "Bush knew Hitler through six degrees of separation" nonsense to drop innuendo that Bush supports the Nazis. Because it is in fact innuendo and not an actual statement, whenever they're called on it they can use plausible deniability and turn around and say that's not what they means and it's all our fault for misunderstanding them.

Sorry, but you're NOT fooling anyone, guy. When you mention "the gov't has secret hologram technology" in a forum chock full of "hologram plane references" we know full well you're attempting to push the "no planes" claim whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit it or not. I wouldn't normally care, but you do need to recognize that it's the disingenuous stunts exactly like this that you and your fellow truthers routinely rely on that detracts from your credibility.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 





I simply showed that they do in fact own this technology.


No you posted a link to a discussion on a POSSIBLE technique.

Not that the method existed in '98 or even that they were trying to make a prototype.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by djeminy
I simply showed that they do in fact own this technology.

Is it possible they could have used this technology? Yes, of course.
Is it possible that they didn't use this technology? Yes, of course.

'Possibilities' has nothing to do with 'theories'.

Is it a possibility that a theory could turn out to be true? Yes, of course.
Is it a possibility that a theory could turn out to be false? Yes, of course.

Your ranting was a waste of time both for me and obviously for yourself, so thanks for nothing!


Ah yes, it's the "plausible deniability" clause again. Whenever the truthers need to come up with soemthing to patch up the glaring holes in their stories which they know themsleves to be ludicrous they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use "isn't that interesting (wink wink)" innuendo to push it out, like that whole "Bush knew Hitler through six degrees of separation" nonsense to drop innuendo that Bush supports the Nazis. Because it is in fact innuendo and not an actual statement, whenever they're called on it they can use plausible deniability and turn around and say that's not what they means and it's all our fault for misunderstanding them.

Sorry, but you're NOT fooling anyone, guy. When you mention "the gov't has secret hologram technology" in a forum chock full of "hologram plane references" we know full well you're attempting to push the "no planes" claim whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit it or not. I wouldn't normally care, but you do need to recognize that it's the disingenuous stunts exactly like this that you and your fellow truthers routinely rely on that detracts from your credibility.



I never mentioned anything about "secret" hologram technology. Stop lying.

And please stop your silly and tedious rantings. They do you no good ....either.

Cheers

edit on 16-2-2012 by djeminy because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join