Pure illusion and the wtc

Originally posted by The Big O
Just looks like a crappy video to me that either suffered a framented image due to generation loss, or a poor NTSC to PAL conversion, or vice versa.

I can recreate the same "disappearing" images with two vcrs and a few VHS tapes, and some footage of a little league game.

You get me film footage, not video, film, and show me a blip and I might believe you. The fact is, this is video that is digitized, zoomed in on, and transfered from source to source. There are just too many normal reasons why this might happen for it to be a holographic imaging problem, or whatever you think it is.

-O

Big O - there is only what exists
I posted this closer up image loop of a disappearing wing and a generally flapping kind of plane on its intro with a more well-defined missile appearance momentarily on its outro
www.gallerize.com...

You either dig it or you don't

My major concern about 9 11 was the complete lack of a response when the air traffic controllers lost contact with four large airplanes in US airspace...

It happens all the time, especially with a system designed to monitor foreign threats like it was pre 911. You also can't intercept a plane in only 12 minutes.

mysterious ghost poster and thread terminator lukethedrifter comes in at date-relevant View number 2012
Now will hitting the reply button not only screw up the numerology but put this thread back to the top where it obviously doesn't want to be any more?
Don't answer that!

www.rense.com...

Why was a plane engine found on a corner near the WTC then? Or IS IT POSSIBLE then that this engine that was found was an engine for a cruise missile then? Or was the hologram cloaked projectile packed with plane parts to make the story more believable? Because what I see when that plane hits is an engine come out the other side of the building.. right where a 737 engine would have been attached to the plane (sort of anyways).

I agree that topics like this... while being 'interesting' distract from the real problems like.. why the hell it was allowed to be hijacked and crashed in to the tower in the first place without someone stopping it (shooting it down).

Also.. the fact that it wasn't a 757 or 767 but a 737 that hit the tower... or a cruise missile with a 737 hologram over it.. actually.. if there WAS a hologram over the real projectile then why didn't they use the right plane image?

I do agree though.. there are many anomallies in the videos that do raise questions... but I think... the questions themselves raise so many questions like.. "Well why the hell wouldn't they just use REAL planes instead of going through the trouble of using holograms?" .. that its best to stick to the most obvious stuff if you are trying to proove an inside job.

Just my two cents on this and other far out 9-11 theories.

-VMX

The idea of holographic milles or missiles disguised as planes is about the dumbest theory Ive heard. Anyone with any common sense who actually understands how things work would not fall for such a retarded theory.

All credible eyewitness testimony and film footage, to people who have a basic understanding of physics and mechanics, shows exactly what it shows: planes striking their targets. Only someone delusional with no concept of the real physical universe and an extremely guillable mind would think otherwise.

It detracts from the real conspiracy, it detracts from the hard evidence thats actually worth studying.


www.911timeline.net...

For intelligent people who suspect a real conspiracy minus disinformation fairy tales of disguised missiles should study the above link. It paints a clear, reasonable picture of suspicous government movements, activities, and the like by using news archives and verifiable facts, not make believe false science fictions. Those who really wonder just who knew and who gained, who might be responsible, and who wanted the truth supressed should read in on it.

But I really find is nauseating that people are guillable enough to even consider something as absurd as holographic missiles or the like hitting the buildings. I don't believe the governments full version of the events, but I sure as hell believe the eywitness testimony of the thousands of witnesses on the ground, many of the aviation experts, Air Force personnel, civilian employees of public and private defense establishments when they say they heard, saw, and ultimately, smelled, Boeing civilian aircraft strike those buildings.

To dismiss or discount the testimony of these thousands of unrelated citizens is a crime against the truth on par with the crime the government committed against us.

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It smacks of deliberate disinformation - spurious, looney theories designed to discredit any and all serious investigations into the events of that day.

I have to agree here. There are so many crazy theories out there. Many of them are designed to derail any serious investigation; and to make fools of those pushing them.

Much respect to you East Coast Kid. This is no attempt at hype or disinfo

I wasn't trying to slam you, so ya know. Just wanted to point that out so we can all be aware of not falling for stuff we shouldn't. Getting to the bottom of what really happened is the most important thing and sometimes it can be easy to get sidetracked. The powers that be work overtime to ensure that happens.

wow, you really believe this theory don't you? What about the plane that went down in Pa? They "wasted" one of their missiles on the ground? Or, maybe that one was really a plane, I remember watching KDKA news that night in my home in Pittsburgh and there sure was alot of airplane debris on the ground. I guess maybe all the debris found in NYC and Pa were just anothger hologram?
Secondly, for you to believe that the object protruding from the wtc is a war head is insane. I work around nuclear ICBMs everyday and those warheads arent even that big.

I'm not sure who your comments were directed towards.

My personal belief is that those aircrafts on 9-11 were taken over by remote control and flown into those buildings. The technology is there. And it explains a lot.

I believe the airplane that went down over PA was actually shot down. I think part of the story is true. I think the passengers did actually rush the cockpit. If the plane was being flown remotely, that would explain why they had to eliminate it. They couldn't have passengers (being picked up by radio) shreiking in horror at the realization that neither the pilots nor "terrorists" were flying it.

The debris field points to a shootdown and plenty of eyewitnesses on the ground claim to have seen a military-like airplane in the vicinity at the time the plane went down.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Those comments about the missiles were being directed to the author of this thread. I'm not saying that everything about 9/11 is just the way we are told it happened. All I'm saying is that those were no missiles that attacked us. They were planes.
I have a question for you eastcoastkid, If the planes were remote controlled, how do you explain the phone call from Todd Beamer to his supervisor, Lisa D. Jefferson?

Beamer's call connected at 9:45 a.m. He told Jefferson there were three hijackers, armed with knives. He did not know their nationalities or their intentions.
One of the men had what appeared to be a bomb tied to his midsection with a red belt.
Beamer said he could account for 37 of the plane's 38 passengers. The hijackers had forced 27 of them into the first-class compartment near the front.
Two of the hijackers were in the cockpit with the door locked behind them.

I got that transcript from this link

[edit on 21-5-2005 by USAFSF]

A lot of people will scoff, but calls can be faked.

Why? To add to the fiction and drama. You gotta admit. It's a helluva story, ain't it?

If those Arab "terrorists" were on board, how come their names were not on the manifests? And how come half of them are still alive and living in their respective countries?

I know phone calls can be faked. Maybe the reason that the terrorists names were not on the manifest is because they used fake names? Maybe they didn't want any chance of their plans being spoiled, just in case their names were red-flagged sorta speak. How do you know that some of the terrorists are still alive in their respective countries?
If you mistake my questioning for utter disbelief, then I must apologize. I'm not trying to poke fun or anything like that. Your theory interests me, that's why I'm asking questions.

listen to yourself, dh... a hologram the size of a Boeing 747, projected from an outside source? cloaking devices?

can you provide any evidence at all for the existence of either of these technologies?

7-9 of the supposed 9-11 hijackers actually wound up being alive and living in their respective countries, as I stated before. Their ID's had been stolen and used.

Isn't it interesting how Mohammad Atta's (who is every bit the evil bastard they say he is) passport was so conveniently found at the base of the World Trade Center? And intact, no less. Talk about some serious Bu#.

Back to those "hijackers".... The FBI has yet to ammend its list of those wanted for 9-11. Figures. The whole thing is a carefully crafted fiction. Not that planes flew into buildings and people died, mind you - just the government and corporate media's version of what happened.

If you interested in learning more about the supposed hijackers and Mohammad Atta a good place to look is Daniel Hopsicker's website (I'll post it below). He has investigated extensively them and the Florida flight school part of 9-11.

Btw, I dig your Avatar. (I loved the Steelers since I was a kid)

www.madcowprod.com...

Happy hunting.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
7-9 of the supposed 9-11 hijackers actually wound up being alive and living in their respective countries

Hmm, I don't think so. All these "hijacker still alive" stories appeared before the complete list of FBI names with photos, and there's no reason to believe they're anything other than confusion over names.

The BBC's Waleed Al Shehri story usually gets top billing, for instance (news.bbc.co.uk...). Just one problem: wrong guy. The FBI named Waleed M Al Shehri as a hijacker, and this was Waleed A Al Shehri (see www.biography.ms...).

Then there's his brother, Wail. Still alive? Not according to accounts like this:

"Al-Shihri, (Waleed M. al-Shehri's father) says his son has been missing since for 10 months prior to September of 2001 [8] (web.archive.org...) ...During an television story entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25 2002 NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to Saudi Arabia’s Asir province. He interviewed Waleed's brother Salah who agrees that his 2 brothers are dead and that they were "brainwashed".

The same BBC story is used to claim as fact that Abdulaziz Al Omari is alive. And yet, the story says there are two people claiming to be Omari, so we know for a fact there's confusion over names.

The story about Said al-Ghamdi being alive is also false. This was based on an incorrect photo published by CNN, not the official FBI photo (www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,265160,00.html).

And the guy I SAW very much alive and claiming his ID was stolen in Colorado is a lie or mistake..

At least 7 of them, as I said, are still alive. I know that doesn't fit w/the government's fiction, but, its true.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
And the guy I SAW very much alive and claiming his ID was stolen in Colorado is a lie or mistake..

Where is the evidence that it was anything else? Here's what the BBC story says about that.

He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says.

So we have two people claiming they are the man named by the FBI (and both stories originating before the FBI released the photo list). This proves that there was confusion over names, but absolutely nothing else. Believe they're still alive if you want, I prefer to see some evidence first.

Yes - why is a 737 engine quoted - what's the reason for that?
I asked not to be replied to but you did, all of you
All I'm relying on is visuals - the visuals tell the story - the slo-mos that is
The disappearing and appearing features, the butter-slicing nature of the entry - just to put yourself in this world's illusion of solidity and the WTC attacks becomes as nonsensical as the Pentagon attack
That Naudet film of the flight going into WTC1 surely doesnt show a jetliner, does it? It doesn't in any way ressemble a 757, 767 or even a 737
It's vague like the perceptions of whatever hit the Pentagon are vague, when the official story should have involved cars being blown off the freeway by the power of the few feet over jet's exhaust
I mean, get the full power of the physical nonsenses of all of this
We know how the world should be in full 3D reality - we don't need some highly-qualified scientist published in peer-reviewed papers to tell us what our reality is
These are merely the most fully-realised quacks and dissemblers
Yes, the hologram interpretation is the most burgeoningly real
Not that I'd present that to Joe Public in the first instance
It's privy knowledge to us who can interpret the Illuminati game
So let it in - when the general herd have wakened up enough. they might be willing to debate that issue
First you got to advise them to the idea that they've been had - in whatever way you can

Originally posted by Vis Mega
www.rense.com...

Why was a plane engine found on a corner near the WTC then? Or IS IT POSSIBLE then that this engine that was found was an engine for a cruise missile then? Or was the hologram cloaked projectile packed with plane parts to make the story more believable? Because what I see when that plane hits is an engine come out the other side of the building.. right where a 737 engine would have been attached to the plane (sort of anyways).

I agree that topics like this... while being 'interesting' distract from the real problems like.. why the hell it was allowed to be hijacked and crashed in to the tower in the first place without someone stopping it (shooting it down).

Also.. the fact that it wasn't a 757 or 767 but a 737 that hit the tower... or a cruise missile with a 737 hologram over it.. actually.. if there WAS a hologram over the real projectile then why didn't they use the right plane image?

I do agree though.. there are many anomallies in the videos that do raise questions... but I think... the questions themselves raise so many questions like.. "Well why the hell wouldn't they just use REAL planes instead of going through the trouble of using holograms?" .. that its best to stick to the most obvious stuff if you are trying to proove an inside job.

Just my two cents on this and other far out 9-11 theories.

-VMX

I don't even want to do this anymore, but you certainly provoke
Wasn't the main evidence presented just a big smoking hole on the ground?
Please present me with more. All I can recall is a smoking crater with a few PPE clad folk wandering aroud it

Originally posted by USAFSF
wow, you really believe this theory don't you? What about the plane that went down in Pa? They "wasted" one of their missiles on the ground? Or, maybe that one was really a plane, I remember watching KDKA news that night in my home in Pittsburgh and there sure was alot of airplane debris on the ground. I guess maybe all the debris found in NYC and Pa were just anothger hologram?
Secondly, for you to believe that the object protruding from the wtc is a war head is insane. I work around nuclear ICBMs everyday and those warheads arent even that big.

I'm absolutely happy to agree to your proposals The evidence is in there to back you up. I don't think the passengers rushed the cockpit - the Todd Beamer story is one of the most ridiculous scams, isn't it?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I'm not sure who your comments were directed towards.

My personal belief is that those aircrafts on 9-11 were taken over by remote control and flown into those buildings. The technology is there. And it explains a lot.

I believe the airplane that went down over PA was actually shot down. I think part of the story is true. I think the passengers did actually rush the cockpit. If the plane was being flown remotely, that would explain why they had to eliminate it. They couldn't have passengers (being picked up by radio) shreiking in horror at the realization that neither the pilots nor "terrorists" were flying it.

The debris field points to a shootdown and plenty of eyewitnesses on the ground claim to have seen a military-like airplane in the vicinity at the time the plane went down.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by dh
I'm absolutely happy to agree to your proposals The evidence is in there to back you up. I don't think the passengers rushed the cockpit - the Todd Beamer story is one of the most ridiculous scams, isn't it?

Well, it certainly is dramatic and heroic. You know how Americans love a good fiction. Especially if it involves anything supermanish.