Please stop with the crazy claims!

Originally posted by antsi
Didn't some of them flunk?

Are you asking or telling or just wishful thinking?

Oh wait, they made up for it by practicing a cardboard cockpits.

You do realize that sly comments is the first sign of a losing argument right?

If it's so easy, I challenge you to rent a flight simulator and try it with one try and to help simulate the fear of dying, hire someone to stand behind you while you attempt to hit the building dead-on who will shot you in the head if you miss on the first try.

Wow, I think you are breaking some important news.
Are you saying that the arabs did not fly the planes into the building but they were actually holding a gun to the pilots head and threatening to shoot them?

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
No, actually you don't have to be a great pilot especially given the enormous size of the buildings. Also, the 500mph speed seems a bit fast. I don't believe the planes were going that fast at the time of impact.

You really have not flown in a plane much have you. If you did you would know that the buildings would apper small flying at that kind of speed, specailly the Pentagon.

You need to do some research so you know what speeds the planes were flying at and their flight paths before posting.

Here are some plane shots...









Doesn't look like an F16 to me...

But that's just me..

Semper

Originally posted by citizen truth
You saw a plane?Can you screen grab that for me and show the Boeing please.I've done so and mine doesn't show a Boeing.It shows an alleged aircraft but it looks more like a Global Hawk or an F-16.

Wow, more breaking news.
So you think Global Hawk or an F-16 hit the pentagon. Ok, got it.

I'd suggest you do some more research.

Really! Given your above statemet I would suggest that you are the one needing to do some more research. BTW, YouTube is not considered a valid source for news.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You really have not flown in a plane much have you. If you did you would know that the buildings would apper small flying at that kind of speed, specailly the Pentagon.

You need to do some research so you know what speeds the planes were flying at and their flight paths before posting.

Umm....buildings don't appear small because of your speed. Buildings appears small because of distance and altitude. So please don't try and lecture me about planes when you don't even know the basics.
BTW, prove to me the planes were going over 500mph.

You do realize that sly comments is the first sign of a losing argument right?

If it's so easy, I challenge you to rent a flight simulator and try it with one try and to help simulate the fear of dying, hire someone to stand behind you while you attempt to hit the building dead-on who will shot you in the head if you miss on the first try.

Wow, I think you are breaking some important news.Are you saying that the arabs did not fly the planes into the building but they were actually holding a gun to the pilots head and threatening to shoot them?

You set yourself up so nicely that I can't top it.
Please come to the table with substantial evidence to your claims in the future
and try not to assume what people are saying.It will make the discussion much more enjoyable.

Originally posted by johnlear
Holographs, while seeming not possible to the average guy, are in fact, possible, real, and used to make people believe that 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the WTC.

You merely saying that "holographs are possible" does not constitute any sort of a proof that it is in fact possible .... unless you are some kind of an expert at it.

I am not qualified in that field

Ha! That settle the matter.

That people don't believe holographs exist and in fact believe that 2 airliners crashed into the World Trade Center is a measure of their absolute and unqualified success.

This is a ridiculous statement. with this kind of logic I could claim that the fact that people don't believe in Santa Claus is a measure if Santa's existence. What an elaborate smoke screen you build for your ridiculous theories!

Your question of how holographs could be projected in broad daylight is a good one. I don't know how it is accomplished but then I am not qualified in that field and all I know is that the results have been spectacular.

How does that work in your mind? If you admit that you are not qualified in that field then what proof or evidence do you have that the said "holographs in daylight" have had "spectacular results"?

Last Thursday night I had dinner with a scientist friend of mine who told me that holographs can not only project an image, but heat and sound as well.

And I suppose you would not be able to tell us his name or you would have to kill us all, right?.....Right!

So while you propose the idea that holographs and the no planes theory is 'stupid' there are those that not only know it was real but know exactly how it was technically possible.

We think your holograms and your no-planer theories are ridiculous because you provide us for no evidence or proof to support your outlandish claims. But that's exactly what you want, you want the people at large to believe that that's what we are all about in the truth movement - holograms and no-planer crap. Open Mind might be 13 years old but he can see through your ridiculous claims and he will not fall for it. Nice try!!

In recap, this guy said he is not an expert on the matter of holograms, but he "knows" they exist, even in broad daylight and with sound and heat as well to boot.
Then he tells us his source for all this knowledge - a dinner with an "unnamed expert"
And to go even further, this guy claims that the very idea that nobody believes in the stoopit "holograms theory" is a direct proof that they indeed exist.

So JohnLear, are you a real disinfo agent or are you just a hologram of a disinfo agent?

And Open Mind, if you want to sink your teeth into some real 9/11 research instead of this "holograms-no-planer" crap, I suggest you read this thread. While the information is a bit old and outdated and the links have been killed the matter is still very true at the core. If you want to know more about it all or even if you want to do a school project on it then contact me and I will be grad to help you out.

Cheers dude!
PepeLapiu

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

You do realize that sly comments is the first sign of a losing argument right?

reply to post by antsi


He doesn't care, he's just a garden-variety troll.

Originally posted by citizen truth
You set yourself up so nicely that I can't top it.
Please come to the table with substantial evidence to your claims in the future
and try not to assume what people are saying.It will make the discussion much more enjoyable.

Ok, now I have no idea what you are talking about.
You keep saying 'show evidence, show evidence', so apparently you not reading posts or just not comprehending. Please focus. I will say it one more time.
How much more proof do you need considering we have video of the planes hitting the buildings. We have testimony of people inside and outside of the buildings who saw the planes live with their own eyes. Plus all the people who saw it live on TV. Also, don't forget about the people who were on the flights. I'm sure their families might have something to say about them actually being on the planes. Plus some of the passengers called from the plane during the incident.

I mean really, how much more evidence do you conspiracy people need? Planes hit the buildings and it was not a hologram. Period. End of discussion. Nuff said!!

reply to post by mentalempire

I got that impression. Thanks!

Originally posted by antsi
You do realize that sly comments is the first sign of a losing argument right?

Why are you repeating what I said?
Can you not think of your own one liners.

reply to post by antsi


If you need any further proof of the amazingly obvious, just look at this guy's posting history. I've never seen so many asinine comments.

Speaking out in favor of the official story is one thing, deliberately being a jerk while doing so is quite another.

Originally posted by mentalempire
He doesn't care, he's just a garden-variety troll.

Yeah, thats right.
I'm sure you say that a lot about people you disagree with. For you its much easier to dismiss someone as a troll instead of putting forth some reasonable ideas for discussion because you realize you have lost the debate. So I guess I should thank you.
In your eyes anyone who does not think the same as you and calls your opinions into question is a troll. Geesh!

Originally posted by mentalempire
If you need any further proof of the amazingly obvious, just look at this guy's posting history. I've never seen so many asinine comments.

Speaking out in favor of the official story is one thing, deliberately being a jerk while doing so is quite another.

Thanks for proving my theory about you correct. See my previous post addressed to you.
I guess you don't even know what 'troll' means in relation to forums.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
So please don't try and lecture me about planes when you don't even know the basics.

BTW, prove to me the planes were going over 500mph.

Oh i know the basics, i have a background in aviation. I was a crew chief in the Air Force.

Well lets look at Flight 77.

en.wikipedia.org...

As the aircraft hurtled towards the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour,[3] it clipped several street lampposts .

And some follow up information.

(1) Now what kind of a hijacker would bother to reset his altimeter EXACTLY at FL180? What for? He's going to crash!

(2) Where did that hijacker get the field barometric pressure for Reagan International that he set on his altimeter? He didn't get it from ATC. And how did he get the CURRENT field barometric pressure (30.24) which would have been only several minutes old?

(3) Why did the hijacker reset the copilots altimeter within one second of setting his and WHY? And HOW? That’s a pretty long reach!

(4) How did the hijacker get so proficient in the use of the autopilot? From a book?

(5) And about that final line up with the Pentagon. After the 270 degree turn descending turn. Within 1 degree? That’s absolutely amazing!

Originally posted by Sky watcher

John, I hate to disappoint you and your new found hologram theory but I have a good friend who lives in NY and worked for the port authority that day and was one block from the buildings when they collapsed. They were real planes and some of the engines parts were found on the ground in bad shape.

Thanks for the post Sky Watcher. Yes engine parts were found or rather one engine was found.

Unfortunately that engine has been identified as a CFM-56 manufactured by General Electric. As you can see from the following posts United Airlines used Pratt & Whitney engines exclusively. No United Air Lines Boeing 767 has ever used a General Electric CFM-56.

For one thing a CFM-56 is far too small. It is used on some Boeing 737's and was used in older transports such as the Douglas DC-8.

American Airlines used the CF-6 and there is some discussion that the engine found on the ground may have had similar parts put I find that unlikely.

You can read the debate in the attached threads.

But whatever the argument about CFM-56 parts used on CF-6’s it is still a fact that the engine seen on the ground and allegedly coming from the United Airlines Boeing 767 which allegedly crashed into the south tower was a CFM-56 made by General Electric and could not possibly have come from a United Airlines Boeing 767.

United Airlines used Pratt & Whitney engines specifically the JT9D-7R4D.

So whoever the guy was whose job it was to plant evidence on the street used the wrong type engine. He should have planted a Pratt & Whitney.

The bottom line is without evidence of even an engine from the alleged World Trade Center crashes the ‘on the ground’ remaining parts wouldn’t fill the back of a Bronco.

Flight 175: Engine Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney , Engine Model: JT9D-7R4D south tower.

This is that allegedly came off of the alleged Boeing 767 that hit the south tower and the right engine was thrown into the street.

This engine has been identified by some as a CFM56 engine that is used on a Boeing 737 and is much too small for a Boeing 767.

However some Boeing 767 used the CF6 engine such as Flight 11 which crashed into the north tower. The CF-6 is a larger version of the CFM and may have used the same spool and other parts. I don’t know for sure.
Flight 11: Engine Manufacturer: General Electric , Engine Model: CF6-80A2 north tower.

The CF6 is a derivative of the smaller CFM56. Some of the parts are common which is why I never got into the argument too much. That spool and turbine that was in the street has been identified as a CFM56 but I don’t know enough about it to say it couldn’t have come from a CF-6.

But whether nor not it is a CF6 or CFM56 IT DID NOT COME OFF OF Flight 175, the south tower airplane.

The south tower airplane had a JT9-D.

www.rense.com...

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

But thanks for the post. :

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
I mean really, how much more evidence do you conspiracy people need? Planes hit the buildings and it was not a hologram. Period. End of discussion. Nuff said!!

This is EXACTLY what the no-planers what - they want the general population to believe that no-planer crap is what the truth movement is all about.
We are not about no-planer stoopit theories, the vast majority of us know that planes hit the buildings. The no-planers have done a good job of discrediting the movement.

I am out of here, this no-planer crap has gotten the best of me.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Really! Given your above statemet I would suggest that you are the one needing to do some more research. BTW, YouTube is not considered a valid source for news.

YouTube is not a news service provider.If someone posts a clip from CNN or an interview it's no less valid than the original source.Are you saying somebody doctored the clips?Are you making reference to my molten steel post or is this just a random comment?

I never said a Global Hawk or F-16 hit the Pentagon.I'm starting to think you have a comprehension problem.I said an ALLEGED craft LOOKED like a Global Hawk or an F-16.Thanks for misdirecting and avoiding my question to you and never twist my words again.

Really! Given your above statemet I would suggest that you are the one needing to do some more research.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


You really are not paying attention.First of all this isn't a hologram thread.Secondly, I NEVER said I was a "no planer".Do I need to use capital letters?This must be my third post clarifying my position.
Thanks for avoiding the camera issue at the Pentagon and I'd suggest that you focus and actually read what is posted.
As you can see I've grabbed pictures from the dismal Pentagon footage.All I have done is cropped the photos and applied different filters to enhance objects.One photo does have an overlay of an F-16 to show scale.
I will make this plainly clear to avoid confusion.I'm not saying a Global Hawk or F-16 flew into the Pentagon.I can say that these images show nothing resembling a Boeing airliner or anything close to the size of such an aircraft.
If you have a better photo, then please share with the group.

Just so we're clear, DO NOT twist my words or assume what I am saying.If you're unclear of my meaning simply ask for clarification.


[edit on 11-11-2007 by citizen truth]

i watched all three loose change documentries and thats evidence. i dont believe in the hologram theory but i do believe 911 was an inside job. buildings dont collapse because of fire. bombs were planted its just that simple. building 7 went down because of bombs the same day. so there you go. who planted those bombs? the government. whats the conspiracy?