This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Your reply has been sent to the Holographic version of John Lear (HVoJL). The real one is off investigating reports that Holographs also won the last two Super Bowls.

Originally posted by johnlear
No, there couldn't have been any wing damage because there were no planes. No planes crashing into the WTC. There were no Boeing 767's flying into or crashing into the World Trade Center towers. There were no people in those planes that didn't crash into the WTC. It was an illusion.

What people were seeing were holographs, the technology of which are about 30 to 50 years ahead of where people think it is.

Hi John, I haven't looked into any of this holographic "theory" as it does seem abit out there.

From what you say, am I to assume there exists technology that projects a holographic cloak of some sort, around what I assume is a missile come holographic projector?

...and I agree with Arthur C. Clarke tomorrows technology is todays Magic

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


reply to post by ModisOperandi


These types of attitudes are what keeps real knowledge and disclosure from moving forward. Rather than entertain alternative theories and dismantle a person's ideas through scientific reasoning or research, you resort to attacks upon personal character.

I don't believe some of the theories that John Lear has either, but I don't choose to slander him. I'd rather research information and either disprove them, or if I'm not able to, leave them as they are ... one man's theories. Sometimes John tends to state things as facts rather than theroies, but I've gotten used to that. Everyone wants proof of something. Give me proof the attacks were by terrorist or give me proof the attacks were by the Government or by holograms, or by aliens. No one has any proof that can't be debated.

If you ask me, which you didn't, it's the personal rhetoric attacks upon people's character that's bringing this site down. Not alternative thinking by John Lear. Where would quantum physics be now with out alternative thinking? Probably banished to the land of heterics along with the thoughts that the earth is round and the universe does not revolve around earth.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by tyranny22]

reply to post by Night Watchman


Have none of you guys in the US seen Red Dwarf

Of course holograms are real..how do you think our queen shapeshifts so quickly into a reptile

They even had the courtesy to add that United Airlines logo on to the tail and use the exact color gray in the hologram. Amazing attention to detail.

Originally posted by tyranny22
Probably banished to the land of heterics along with the thoughts that the earth is round and the universe does not revolve around earth.

Hold on a sec there, I haven't looked into this round Earth "theory", are you trying to tell us that the Earth is some kind of sphere and this Universe you talk of doesn't actually revolve 'round David Beckham.

Good luck convincing the skeptics on those.....

Originally posted by ModisOperandi
Here Here! and cheers Josephus Maximus! This thread has been started by fringe idiots! They should only serve as speed bumps on the road to exposing the truth. Let us dismiss them and move on.

Considering I started this thread, and I happen to not be an idiot, I take offense. If you have read all my replies you would understand your shortcomings.

If it is a debate you seek to clarify the term idiot, I would love to show you the ropes.

AAC

reply to post by kleverone

i would reply with a condensending attitude but i would be struck down by you...i humbly bow to your superior worthiness sir.

My apologies to the thread originator...I suppose I should preview before posting..my intention was to interject the theory that disinformation is obviously in use all over the internet as far as 9/11 is concerned. Mr Lear may or may not be an idiot or a purveyor of disinformation. Half a frame of video is enough for him to postulate, and initiate this thread...opinions are going to be made. I in no way, meant to insult him personally. I have never read any of his other posts. Does anyone else have an opinion as to his motivation?

OOPS! again I am guilty of not previewing and speed reading the drivel on this thread. Created by anabsolutecreation

As I mentioned before in the thread on Bin Ladens video, I watched it happen "live" on T.V. at work. I was in shipping and receiving at Sears Canada and I was walking by the electronics dept. on my rounds. I was amazed as I saw the first tower burning and then watched as the plane hit the second tower. I had initially thought the first tower had accidently been crashed into by a plane as had happened to the Empire State Building? when a B25 had crashed into it after the War. When the second tower was hit, I knew something bad was happening and later we lost our computer feed from Sears in the States because they were worried about the Sears Tower. My question if John is still on concerns the closeup of the plane which I apparently haven't seen before. Are they flying with their landing gear down? I can make out what appears to be the doors on the bottom of the fuselage. Would they do that to cause drag and how does that affect manueverability. This is not a trick question. I don't fly but I have wondered how any one can with the affects of the wind currents etc. over that part of New York especially with that big an aircraft. Thankyou.

To anabsolutecreation, I choose to move on, and read other more plausible posts such as the guy who had an out of body experience for twelve hours and went to another planet.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by ModisOperandi]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by ModisOperandi]

reply to post by ModisOperandi



My friend. In the video, where I told everyone to freeze, looks more like a missile than an airplane. Again, not knowing the entirety of someones beliefs, may make it easier to assume and generalize the position. However, you must be prepared to be wrong in your calculations.

I stated that the pic looked like a missile. Which it does to me. Of course I saw the rest of the pictures showing it was a airplane. That said, in light of assertions that some witness claimed to see a missile, and the hologram idea, I thought this would be good for debating.

The entirety of my post consists of frame 29.5 Secs. This is what I based my post on, I did not say, "Every pic taken looks like an obvious missile." I said 29.5 looks like an obvious missile. Now, of course other pics prove otherwise, but one cannot assume that it is a trump card just because what you see. Take the Pentagon crash film release, it proves nothing besides more questions need to be asked.

A true investogator would look at the footage, make an assumption either way, and proceed. You people seem to have stopped because of the obvious. The obvious can be what is misleading, do remember.

"Falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind."


AAC

watched it twice(saw the wings just before contact) nice try though. the half frame still looked more like a missile but then again it looked like a bad doctoring job too.

Originally posted by josephus maximus
reply to post by kleverone

 

i would reply with a condensending attitude but i would be struck down by you

No you wouldn't, if you see a contribution by me in any thread then the mod gloves come off. Consider me simply any other member I just happen to think that there are more mature ways of getting ones point across

...i humbly bow to your superior worthiness sir.

On a side note, if anyone refers to any other members again as idiots, I assure you, you will see a mod in action. Lets keep it civil, shall we?

[edit on 12-9-2007 by kleverone]

If anyone really believe a plane hit the pentagon I feel very sorry for them. Planes did hit the wtc's but they were not AA and had very strange appendages to them.

I appreciate your input and opinion but I've seen plenty of footage and stills of that particular aircraft and I believe it is a plane.
I don't buy into the "no plane" theory because I've never found or seen links that discuss holograms, especially ones of this magnitude.
My mind is always open.
Peace

Hey all,

I watched the video a few times and it’s an aircraft that hits not a missile, you can see the engines underneath the wings because they are painted the same dark color as the main body of the aircraft and the reason you can’t see the wings is because they are painted a similar color to the WTC.

Maybe we need to use ockham’s razor to some extent here, in that “they let it happen” instead of they “made it happen”. Simply because it is easier to say and prove that you messed up and say sorry and not to let it happen again than for it to be found out that you killed off 3000 people and have the mass public unrest that would stem from that revelation on your hands.

Using missiles and other weapons means more people have to know what’s going on than necessary and those that do know have to be extremely loyal to the cause and have the ability to live with themselves knowing that they helped to kill 3000 innocent people. lots of people who have been involved with secret missions where doing things that aren’t right have broken under the guilt of the things the have done.

So if we think about he old saying “it’s not a secret if more than two people know it” and we factor in that we have all the people who worked at the FBI and CIA coming out saying that they knew this was going to happen but they where told to forget about it by people higher up than them then the “let it happen” theory looks the more likely than the “made it happen”.

As for fighter aircraft being grounded that day maybe they didn’t want a fighter in the air where the pilot might have take things in to his own hands and shot one of the aircraft down.

Sorry if anything I have put here upsets anyone but I don’t think taking things to the extreme by saying missiles where used on the WTC is helping anyone trying to find out the truth.

Rogue 9.

PS, And remember that the truth is a three edged sword, “There’s one side, there’s the other side and there’s the truth”.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

There'd be no point in a missile. A missile would do about the same damage as an aircraft that size.

Not to be a jack off, but your statement is highly uninformed, imo.

All this missle or plane aside....

Your saying an armor piercing missle like this:

onfinite.com...

Would do the same amount of damage of an aluminum plane filled with Kerosene

As for the thread, this piece of footage has been looked at in many movies supporting inside jobs, and I believe due to speed and angle the wing and tail just aren't displayed. When the film is shown in super slow motion you can see the wings appear, and a more jet airliner shape appear just before impact on the building.

But sure pausing it at 29.5, and just looking at 'that' image is extremely disturbing. But I don't know if it's a missle.

Heck it could be an AGM-129 cruise missle with extra large wings fitted to it to make it look more like a boeing. The sheer damage of the projectile alone would lead me to believe it isn't a passenger jet.

Also if I'm not mistaken the is the one that made no screaming sounds a low flying 737 would make when flying so low.

As for the other pictures clearly showing a plane, those came out days after 9/11 from sources who sold thier souls to CNN, and also from vantage points impossible to duplicate by a normal person on that day.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Nola213]

Originally posted by michial

My question if John is still on concerns the closeup of the plane which I apparently haven't seen before. Are they flying with their landing gear down?

Impossible. First of all they couldn't attain or maintain the speed they were going at. Second of all you would see gear doors and other parts dangling in the slipstream after being ripped away at that speed.

I can make out what appears to be the doors on the bottom of the fuselage. Would they do that to cause drag and how does that affect manueverability.

I think you may be referring to what some are calling 'pods'. There is great debate on what those pods are if in fact they are there at all.

The fact is nothing is there. No pods. No Planes. All the videos you see are of a holograph or fabricated video. Any relatively informed individual, with a knowledge of aircraft construction, operation and accident investigation background, who is can understand sky scraper construction, how they are built and what they are stressed for, and who understands the rudiments of what it takes to soften steel girders, knows that:

1) no aircraft fuel fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, and
2 no real planes ever crashed into the world trade center towers. It never happened. It was a magic trick and it was done with holographs and fabricated videos.

Now I will tell you why I think that this is such an emotional if not explosive issue. Whoever perpetrated the 911 horror has more things lined up to happen. And its absolutely vital that nobody ever start thinking about whether or not the 911 airplanes were holographs or that video was fabricated because the new incidents, whatever and where ever they occur themselves will be based of holographs and fabricated video and news stories.

For instance, if sometime in the next few years the government says we are under attack by alien forces and they need us to cooperate and do certain things and they prove this alien attack by asking us to step outside and see the alien craft (that they are projecting) showing hundreds of giant flying saucers in the air, they do not want people to question whether or not those attacking saucers are holographs. They want complete, total and instant cooperation from a frightened public.