Why planes were not used.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear piacenza:

I couldn’t review your videos, I got Cro-Magnon 28k horrible dialup. But for the record, I’m a diehard no-airplaner!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

No offence intended then wizard , but this brings me to the conclusion that you haven't watched any of the hi quality video's of the planes hitting the towers.

You should review all evidence before reaching such a decision.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

What serious research have you done? I've only seen you attack and slander.

Raytheon involved in 9/11 ???
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I should add that your fellow disinfo agent Tom Flocco later copied that research and used an earlier release date. But to my research he added the ridiculous assumption that the remote control experts would board the plane to make sure the remote technology would work properly....how ridiculous!

Don't quit your job of spreading lies and distortions into the truth movement, you are doing a fine job of it.

Furthermore, my article and research only reinforce that these planes were retrofit with remote control technology. That's right, they used actual airplanes, no holograms, no death beams from Mars and no lizards in the White House either .... ponder that my little disinfo friend!


[edit on 8-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by Long Lance
there were reports that the the hit on WTC#2 was performed by an unmarked, windowless plane, obviously of different construction, if true. military aircraft are often fitted with cable cutters, the concept could be extended to the tower's skin, if you invested enough dead weight.

If you look at any footage of the 2nd plane, you can easily make out it has the United Airlines Livary and Tail Logo.

Glad you posted Firepilot.

Yes Ground Effect will keep a plane from landing at all if the plane is going too fast. Simple test is to make a folded nosed broad wing paper airplane, not the pointy nosed-delta shaped ones, they work but they land too soon due to the design not providing enough lift and causing more drag. Hope that is descriptive enough.

Now throw it hard downwards at about a 35 degree angle at large flat area like a basketball floor (indoors helps eliminate outside air currents). Now if your plane does not crash (threw too hard, or wrong angle) notice how it flies skimming the floor for quite a long distance. In fact the plane will only land when drag slows it down enough that gravity can pull it down. If the speed could be maintained the plane would never land and would hit the wall at the other end of the court.

That is an example of ground effect. Yes this just a paper airplane but the same forces for flight effect it the same way it effects real planes. You can do the same ground effect with a delta winged kite on a windless day, have fun running providing the thrust needed to overcome the drag.

As I said before you guys are blaming to much on this no plane theory.
Its a conspiracy and its a conspiracy forum.
You have to admit that every single video of the second plane hitting the tower looks at least suspicious.
Wings disappearing in almost every single one of them, planes going behind buildings when they should be in the front.
Colors differences, shots with plane in no sight.
The towers not moving, weird object morphing out of the buildings, weird super fast jets etc...etc...
And one more thing it might be nothing but...

WHY THE EXPLOSION FROM THE BACK OF THE PLANE?
As I said before I would not discuss this theory exept on this forum but you need to give it some credit don´t you think?

I go one step forward and I say also that the only explanation for the meteroites has to be an atomic reaction.

So yes I beleive in hologram planes, Nukes, morphing planes and much more.
Am I insane ?
Maybe but this case scenario would be by far the best one.
I beleive it was a show of force of new technologies that is why no nation has spoken out about it, they know and they are afraid.

Also a beam weapon was used check the gash in WTC7

One more question so what do you guys thing the flash came from?

Well thats fairly accurate I suppose, although I think there are probably easier ways to explain it for the aviation challenged out there. When close to the ground, a plane gets a little extra lift at when close to the ground due to compressional effects of the air, sort of like downwash.

In addition to the guy saying planes cant crash at 5 ft, I remember another conspiracy guy saying planes cant crash when in ground effect, making one wonder how planes ever crash, or land for that matter.

Originally posted by piacenza

you need to give it some credit don´t you think?

Why would I give credit to a theory that I know is wrong, from seeing it with my own eyes. Plane’s hit the building, Weather it was an inside job or not, weather it was military or passenger, planes hit those buildings in New York.

My mind is open to any theories anyone has regarding 9/11….. So far I’m sticking with the official story, as that’s the only one that has shown me, what I believe to be credible proof.

So as I said, I’m open to any conspiracy theories, EXCEPT the “no plane hit the towers one” for the simple fact that I seen it with my own eyes, No one can deny me what I seen or prove to me that I am wrong, as that is what I seen with my own eyes.

Along with a lot of other people.

Mikey

Originally posted by firepilot In addition to the guy saying planes cant crash at 5 ft, I remember another conspiracy guy saying planes cant crash when in ground effect, making one wonder how planes ever crash, or land for that matter.

What I’m saying is planes cannot fly horizontally (or near horizontally to be precise) five feet above the ground. When they land or take off they do this at a very pronounced angle. The “hole” in the Pentagon was not made by anything coming in with a tilt.

We’ve had many ‘witnesses’ posting here saying they saw planes with their own two eyes at the WTC’s.
Same things happens at circus shows when the magician pulls dozens of bunnies out of a tophat. We all see it happen with our very own eyes. We cannot explain it. It looks so real. But we still know it’s a trick. At 9-11 we all seem to throw our skepticism out the window (I was guilty of this too for years). What’s up with that?

As I’ve said all along, if their statements are true, then something was used to simulate the presence of aircraft. Because if a nine millimeter bullet traveling at 500 mph doesn’t develop enough PSI of pressure to penetrate quarter inch thick steel then neither will a Boeing, or a death-star spaceship or anything else for that matter traveling at 500 mph made of soft metal.

The size of the object is totally irrelevant here. If a ten mile long flying saucer had plowed into the WTC’s they would have simply toppled over. Which by the way, is the only thing the architect and engineers of the WTCs ever worried about. Their definition of why the towers were able to withstand impacts from 707’s — was they wouldn’t tip over.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

I have one major problem with the hologram theory. On the footage of the 2nd plane hitting, you can hear the sound of the approaching jet. Can holograms produce the sound of a commercial airliner jet sound? Did they set up speakers throughout Manhattan so everyone could hear the whoosh sound?

I don't believe the official story, but IMHO, I think United planes were flown into the WTC's 1 & 2.

Originally posted by PepeLapew

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

What serious research have you done? I've only seen you attack and slander.

Raytheon involved in 9/11 ???
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I should add that your fellow disinfo agent Tom Flocco later copied that research and used an earlier release date. But to my research he added the ridiculous assumption that the remote control experts would board the plane to make sure the remote technology would work properly....how ridiculous!

Don't quit your job of spreading lies and distortions into the truth movement, you are doing a fine job of it.

Furthermore, my article and research only reinforce that these planes were retrofit with remote control technology. That's right, they used actual airplanes, no holograms, no death beams from Mars and no lizards in the White House either .... ponder that my little disinfo friend!


[edit on 8-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

And the unsubstantiated claims and attacks continue. What is with you planers and your immature behavior?

So the hologram made the wing marks in the WTC as well? That is some hologram....





[edit on 8-5-2007 by talisman]

What, not one person has posted telling me how the 'holograms' would be created?

Come on, if it's that plausible to you, explain how you'd do it.. You can have lasers, projectors, dust clouds, anything you like (yes, in all likelyhood if you were doing this in daylight you would need something to bounce the light off.. like a screen, cloud of dust, whatever..)

If your theory can't stand up to my five minute debunking, then it can't stand up at all.

Here is another example of what is wrong with the hologram theory. Did the hologram also survive to show it coming right through the other side of the WTC? Who made sure to do that?? The theory is ridiculous and should be regarded in the same nature as hoaxes. Because that what it is. A hoax. If the Planes were holograms, then why NOT BIN LADEN? Maybe he was a hologram? Or maybe the Pentagon was a hologram?

Or while we are at it, maybe the Newscasters are CGI cartoons as well! Maybe Aaron Brown is not real. Maybe the WTC is a hologram. Maybe New York is a hologram.

Come to think of it Larry King looked different the other day, maybe its his CGI fill in.

Its a theory that has no support, and after believing it, someone could end up believing anything is a hologram.




[edit on 8-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
So the hologram made the wing marks in the WTC as well? That is some hologram....

How did the weaker wings slice through all those steel girders and concrete floor slabs? How did the left horizontal stabilizer seen going through the WTC in the videos, yet you clearly see the steel girders where the L.H.S. would have hit are still intact?

Originally posted by talisman

Here is another example of what is wrong with the hologram theory. Did the hologram also survive to show it coming right through the other side of the WTC?

What is that coming out the other side?

Killtown

Listen more then 10 years ago I saw the after math of a man who commited suicide jumping more then 40 storys into Toronto's Eaton Center.

His body went Right Through Steel. Do not tell me a plane travelling at 600 miles an hour couldn't do the same.

Originally posted by talisman
Killtown

Listen more then 10 years ago I saw the after math of a man who commited suicide jumping more then 40 storys into Toronto's Eaton Center.

His body went Right Through Steel. Do not tell me a plane travelling at 600 miles an hour couldn't do the same.

Where did I say no part of the plane wouldn't penetrate?

Oh, and care to answer my question of what that object is seen exiting the South Tower?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

You said

How did the weaker wings slice through all those steel girders and concrete floor slabs?

I said I saw the aftermath of someone who's body went through steel.

IF you hold to the hologram theory, then perhaps the WTC was the hologram? I mean anyone can say anything.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by talisman]

Haven't read past page one yet but I wanted throw something in the mix.

www.skymall.com...

That is an interactive hologram. It is a projected keyboard that can be used as a regular keyboard.

Doesn't prove anything but makes you wonder what technology "they" have that we haven't even thought about yet.

Griff

The major problem with 'holograms' and 'CGI' is that really anyone can say anything. If left unchecked, pretty soon in the future you will have people saying that the WTC were actually holograms and secret laser beams did away with the real buildings at night, the ones we saw were holograms.

I mean where would the dividing line be? At what point do people say..'enough'.

I agree that technology is ever increasing, but I also believe that man has limitations and that reproducing a hologram like a 757 with sound effects and parts coming through buildings is a bit much.

Again when confronted with holograms, people should ask people who believe this why they believe the WTC buildings were real?

This is why I feel the truth movement should at least get together and put out disclaimers as to what is 'junk' much like Jim Hoffman does with his site.

The more it is left unchecked the more damage is done to the credibiity of the truth movement.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by talisman]