Why there were no planes at the WTC

ok....my 2 cents now:

i personaly don't belive it was holographic planes that hit that towers, but...i am with Mr. JL in beliving that can be done at this days!
untill now as far as can see Mr JL is not stating nothing for sure about this! he is just saying to have a open mind and do a serious reasearch about it. i think many people here fuses belives with Facts, and that 2 things can't be put in the same sac! each time some one came here with a "abnormal" theory, our at the least a theory diferent from what is official, he is almoust eated a live!, well this is more insane for me that what ever theory some one can think of.
if...and just IF we realy want to help the community and try to do a decent work of envestigation, we can't deny NOTHING! we just can deny something after the theory is fully investigated with evidences and proofs.

ok, let's just say a stupid exemple:

i can say that the twin towers had been hited by a cosmic gigantic dog!...it is pathetic!?, yes it is, but can any of you with out the proper and real facts say i am wrong?!, no for sure!! why?...simple: because all of the normal people just have the "official" information they alow to be known!!
and more...if i stated the "cosmic dog" theory as a true fact, i know moust of the people will say something like: "hoo,, that's ridiculus,,,you are wrong"!!, but,,,how can you know for sure i am wrong?
many people here that just denies what ever they read, are just folowing a belieave system, not a scientific one!!
Mr. JL can evenctualy express to us some "weird" ideas, but nobody can say he is a fruitcake just because the majority of the people have not the correct knoledge to understend what he is talking about!
Mr. JL have a exelent Scientific mind and way of talking about things. In fact he have a better scientific talking then many other ones that call himselfs as scientists!!
for a serious scientist our investigator EVERITHING> must be checked and confirmed or not!

untill now we do not have a real good proof if the pleanes are holographic or not...why?...simple: because none of us can realy know what can be done with secret holographic technology! what put us in a kind of dead end,,,but... we can speculate, dialogue, share ideas about it, AND THAT IS WHAT IS REALY IMPORTANT TO DENY IGNORANCE!

(Sorry for my horrific english)

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
or is that another one answered by if they have hologram technology that sophisticated that they can fake it?

Better yet…
Considering the government apparently has technology so advanced that it appears to us as magic, perhaps the towers never existed in the first place and the government just implanted us all with fake memories of them. Then they secretly dug a big whole in the ground in NYC, implanted false memories of 911 and then made a bunch of fake news footage to give to the press. Alien abductions are just a symptom of the CIA/NSA/FBI/CVS/KFC personally kidnapping each of us in the dead of night to alter our memories.

And for his next magic trick, Mr. Rumsfeld is going to pull a rabbit out of his….

I am guessing we will not get an answer on the radar question as both times it came up it was immediately ignored and buried. You would think that at least common sense would explain that the reason that the plane looks translucent is because it was moving and has a motion blur.

defcon i agree with you...as for this thread i just want to say that i really wish we could learn everything that really did happen on 9/11 and who was really responsible...but its threads like this that hurt the "truth movement" this is something that should be on X files...the truth movement does need to be heard but this non sense is not worthy of 7 pages

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
its threads like this that hurt the "truth movement" this is something that should be on X files...the truth movement does need to be heard but this non sense is not worthy of 7 pages

Amen to that…
I do believe that there are parties in the country that bare some responsibility for those events, but these "way out there" theories do nothing to help get to the bottom of anything.

Originally posted by johnlear
I disagree. I have written extensively about the skill required to fly a Boeing 767 and hit the WTC at 400 to 500 kts.

I disagree with this, in my years of working at the airport, I know that these two types of aircraft are among the more simple commercial aircraft to fly. A 727 or a DC-9 would be far less forgiving, and they don’t have all the fancy bells and whistles that the newer 57’s and 67’s have.

Originally posted by johnlear
The reason I say this is because the skill required to manhandle an aircraft of that size at that speed would have been impossible for those alleged pilots. The control forces at sea level at that speed are very, very heavy.

These guys don’t seem to have an issue with running over 500mph at far less then 800 feet over sea level.

www.airrace.org...

Neither did the F-16 pilots from McDill, or he Astronauts in their T-38’s when they used to do high-speed touch and goes at TPA. They would come in, and head back out full afterburner, at about 30 feet above sea level.

Believe me the avionics in a 67 do most of the muscle work, the guys flying it would hardly have to muscle around the aircraft.

Originally posted by johnlear
To keep the airplane lined up at about 800 feet from the ground at 8 miles per minute is inconceivable for that skill level particularly in view of the fact that they had never done it before.

Line it up and dive for it, its not exactly rocket science. Its not like they were going to have to re-trim the aircraft at the last second to make a nice smooth landing, or pull out of the dive. The plane was certainly not going to stall on them at that speed in a diving attitude, so I fail to see what was so above a novice level pilots skill set here?


[edit on 10/3/2006 by defcon5]

Agree with you Defon on the skill needed to fly a 767 into the WTC - not much at all. Who cares about turning autopilots off, trim settings or using the displays when all you want to do is crash. The autopilot disengages automatically when the control column is moved anyway.

Electro-Hydraulic fligh controls do make flying that much easier than as you say the older jets. A 777 would even be easier as its fly by wire technology. Point the thing and it'll fly as long as it has speed. It wouldn't be too hard to assume control, aim the thing at the WTC and as shown in one video, give it a last minute turn to ensure a central strike.

I dont mean to offend but im fairly certain youv all missed the big picture here, why does it matter if the planes were real or not... the twin towers were destroyed either way... everyone on these sites believes almost religiously that it was the govt... which i agree with... but it dosnt matter one way or another if the plane was there or wasnt there... point being the american government is behind the loss of innocent lives within their own country... focus on the important aspects

The difference is, a smaller scenario such as a few members of the government or some interest group helping pull this incident off, are going to be very hard to prove as the evidence might only exist in a paper trail. These far-reaching extravagant plans are the “Truth Movements” way of using peoples ignorance (esp. of aviation) to win their case to prove government involvement, even if not true. The problem with this is that such scenarios would incriminate a much larger cross section of people, including our military. Chances of most of our military personnel standing quietly by the side and allowing this country to be attacked are not only far fetched, but also in poor taste considering that as a result many of them ended up having to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to die over it.

So it is an important aspect to the story as to whether these wacky theories are true or not. To be honest, some of these nutty theories I think are nothing more then a way of distracting the general population from trying to find the more realistic but more subtle answers behind 911, such as a well hidden paper trail.

[edit on 10/3/2006 by defcon5]

Stop it already... Stop with the no planes. Until you can produce a hologram projector or a patent for one just stop it.

How is a structure designed to be only as strong enouph for flying sopposed to get deflected at 750km/h when hitting a object whose surface is weak?

Some people don't under stand simple physics.

Also, if it were holograms, did 5 planes with people on them disapear? Some people...

[edit on 3-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

now i dont beleive the govt was directly involved in the planning of the attack i however beleive it was more pearl harbor like in that it COULD of been prevented but a few people turned a blind eye so they could set in motion a set of events they wanted to take place, iraq afghanastan, iran, etc... I believe that they let the planes hit the WTCs and the pentagon and knew flight 93 was headed towards the white house so they brought it down. I live in the area of shanksville and all of the locals swear up and down that the plane was shot down and i firmly beleive that happened. It really saddens me to hear people say that flight 93 never existed and its all a hoax becuase real americans lost their lives on that flight as they did all the flights.

So...what happened to all the passengers? They didn't exist? Neither do their grieving relatives?

Not throwing my hat in with either side here but has anyone looked into the sway of the building on impact?

When the planes hit (or didn't) there should have been some recoil from the impact which could tell us conclusively whether or not these were holograms. I don't know if there's any data on this or if it can be determined from the videos though.

Originally posted by MacDonagh
So...what happened to all the passengers? They didn't exist? Neither do their grieving relatives?

They never existed in the first place. They were just holograms that had been projected by the government over the course of their "lifetime". Their "relatives" never knew they were just projections - though they had always had always found them to be suspiciously insubstantial.

So the premise of this thread is that if you fly a passenger jet into a building it should just bounce off? Yeah, that always happens. Some people live in a world of cartoon logic and physics. Brainsucker et al - do you think that when someone drops a piano on you from a height you are just squashed flat then bounce back up?

John Lear - so someone being able to fly a plane into a building is "impossible"? Whereas holographic planes hitting buildings, nukes in the WTC, 30000 mile long spaceships, bases on jupiter etc etc are not just possible but fact? OK, fair enough you obviously live in a parrallel universe to me....

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

John Lear - so someone being able to fly a plane into a building is "impossible"? Whereas holographic planes hitting buildings, nukes in the WTC, 30000 mile long spaceships, bases on jupiter etc etc are not just possible but fact? OK, fair enough you obviously live in a parrallel universe to me....

Yea, I agree. I'm not being intentionally offensive, but what planet is JohnLear et. al. on? I watched the live pictures of 9/11 and there is no way it was a hologram.

Ok, maybe the goverment KNEW about the attack and didn't stop it (Pearl Harbour anyone?) but to say that there were no planes... All those videos from different angles show the same thing, a plane hit the building. Also I've worked on a project about fire-safety evatuation that have done interviews with survivors of 9/11 (fseg2.gre.ac.uk...), and their experiences all point to it being real. One woman was in one of the towers (tower one?) and actually saw the first plane hit the other tower and from her description it certainly wasn't a hologram. I'm sorry I can't give you a url for her interview because it hasn't been posted to the web, but believe me when I tell you that she accuratly described an impact, not a light-show.

yes father luke didnt you see the graphic of the ball bouncing off the wall???i mean that just explains it all right there... now how about if it was a baseball and a window??? i dont think there would be much deflection there would it?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
John Lear - so someone being able to fly a plane into a building is "impossible"? Whereas holographic planes hitting buildings, nukes in the WTC, 30000 mile long spaceships, bases on jupiter etc etc are not just possible but fact? OK, fair enough you obviously live in a parrallel universe to me....

I seriously doubt you, or damn near anyone else on ATS, has anywhere near the expertise or experience when it comes to flying that Mr. Lear has... his credibility in that area is really not at all in question.

As for spaceships and bases on Jupiter.... they're completely different topics and irrelevent to this thread.

I think it's quite possible that holographic planes were used... not HIGHLY likely but possible. And as Mr. Lear has wisely pointed out-- if the U.S. Government has technology at its finger-tips that is potentially hundreds of years more advanced than what is officially now recognized, we must seriously consider all possibilities, including holographic planes.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by MacDonagh
So...what happened to all the passengers? They didn't exist?

Watch Loose Change 2 Recut and you will be introduced to the frightening possibility that they were taken to a given location and 'taken care of'. It wouldn't surprise me, to be quite frank.

Ok ok ok. So physics plays no part in this at all? A ball hitting a window (as a previous poster said) and a f***ing great aircraft hitting a building aren't the same thing! Of course a ball bounces off, it's supposed to! Planes aren't designed to hit buildings! Take a football (soccer-ball to you yanks) and a brick and throw them at a plaster board wall. The ball will most likely leave a dent but bounce back. The brick will most likely go straight through because of the mass and speed. I say most likely because of sod's law (the opposite to what you expect can happen).

Great stuff you guys. You come out with all these engineering facts as to why a CD demolished the building, but ignore fundamental laws of physics when an impact is involved?

It's stuff like this that damages the truth-seekers attempts at getting the truth out.

Smacks a little of intentional dis-info if you ask me...

Regardless of an individuals amount of 'flight-time', when suppossed facts are presented without any proof; whether it be nukes in the WTC, hologram planes, 30,000 mile long spaceships, every planet in the solar system is inhabited by humans much more advanced than us (and they choose to ignore us), with out any proof what-so-ever (except being told to buy a book:flame, relates to the actual beleivability of that individual.

ATS used to require so shread of actual proof when presenting a conspirarcy. That has obviously changed and is not required by some individuals here. Why they are considered special....I don't know.

Maybe it is not the Government....maybe it's the Mole Men planning to take over....

www.sciforums.com...

At least I can provide a link to my 'nutty' theories.

Originally posted by ferretman2
Regardless of an individuals amount of 'flight-time', when suppossed facts are presented without any proof; whether it be nukes in the WTC, hologram planes, 30,000 mile long spaceships, every planet in the solar system is inhabited by humans much more advanced than us (and they choose to ignore us), with out any proof what-so-ever (except being told to buy a book:flame

, relates to the actual beleivability of that individual.

I was simply referring to the guy questioning that Mr. Lear said it was 'impossible' for all-but untrained average joes to pull off the kind high-speed manuevering necessary for the those planes to hit the towers. I believe him when he says that because he has documentation proving his expertise and experience in flying. If you've got someone nearby with a similar amount of credibility, specific to flying, and he/she claims that Mr. Lear is wrong-- I'm all ears. As for space-ships and aliens... like I said, they're irrelevent to this thread.

ATS used to require so shread of actual proof when presenting a conspirarcy. That has obviously changed and is not required by some individuals here. Why they are considered special....I don't know.

I never said I believed that holographic planes are what we all saw in 9/11... I fully aknowledge I don't necessarily believe that. But I'm open to the possibility.

If it bothers you so much, you're more than welcome to avert your eyes to a different thread... no one's forcing you to be here.