911 no planes?

[GoingToFast]

Originally Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN

Not this again! :LOL:

It's called freedom of speech my friend.

[Sideshow Shaman]

This debate has gone on for a long time around the interwebs. I have not had a strong conviction either way but there are some logical fallacies that keep occurring.

1. If there is doubt about the accuracy of television video coverage, then it should not be used as evidence of ANYTHING.

Some people argue that if the TV coverage was faked then holograms were used. Maybe not here, I'll admit I did not read all the comments, but that is a common position. If the TV coverage was faked, it is thrown out as evidence.

2. The use of hologram tech & aircraft are not mutually exclusive.
That is obvious enough right?

Another point, maybe #3, is that the existence of certain weapons does not prove that they were used. Remember the forensic evidence was extremely tampered with. Without much of that it almost takes an operators statement saying 'such-and-such weapon was discharged at such time'.

Very interesting to hear Deacon's verification of the so called "White Elephant" observed flying over the city. So the flight control was mobile, not in wtc7 as often speculated? Anyway that sort of info doesn't technically 'prove' anything until it is fully explored/corroborated.

The problem with this whole debate is that there is so little evidence to go on. it is mostly speculation. There were actually very few eye witnesses that saw the aircraft, except at a long distance like Brooklyn or Jersey. One witness I spoke with said the first craft was brown with a stripe & no windows, like a cargo airplane. He saw it from about 500 yards. But that's just one person, not a solid case.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Originally Posted by GoingToFast

It's called freedom of speech my friend.

I just meant that I had forgotton about this thread (it caused problems when avavlon first started) and was surprised to see it again.

I am in no way stopping free speech.

PEACE.

[GoingToFast]

About the Holographs:
The first maiden flight of the KC-767 was on Mai-21 2005 I am fully aware of this. But: The final model of a military aircraft is always presided with mock-ups and flying testbeds, and big aircraft manufactures wery often makes flying testbeds in forward anticipation of a possible government contract, they have programs running privately of various makes and models in there "Product Pipeline".
The first model of the KC-767 could have flown as early as the late 90´s. Besides that, even if it wasn't the first model of THE KC-767 it is not difficult to rebuild
a civil 767 aircraft into a KC tanker-style of aircraft, retrofitting a 767 with big inner-tanks and the missile-pod takes no more than a few weeks in my opinion.
My point is that the airplanes where two gigantic flying buckets of fuel and attached to them was a set of matches to set the fuel on fire. (at least that were the perpetrators intent)

The perpetrators two major fumbles: Missiles and Fuel.
Missiles:
One specific target requires one specific missile, if you want to attach an armored vehicle you can not use a missile designed to destroy a building, and viceversa, if you want to destroy a building you can not use a missile that´s designed to attach an armored vehicle. The perpetrators did not understand the physics of their target and chose the wrong weapon for their target, that is why the missiles shot thru the buildings before they could ignite the fuel.
Fuel:
All modern jet-fuel to day have one thing in common, they are nonflammable, THEY DO NOT BURN.
The only place where jet-fuel can burn is inside of a combustion-chamber of a jet-engine. In order for a modern jet-kerosene to burn it will need high pressure right air/fuel mixture and right temperature, it also needs to be dispersed in to a fine aerosol-mist to ignite,
if you take the fuel outside of a jet-engine it will simply NOT BURN.

These where the two major fumbles at the WTC-attach's and that is why there was not two gigantic fires as it was supposed to be, the "gigantic fires" were the perpetrators excuse for the failure of the building's structural integrity.

About remote controlled airplanes:
Please take a look at this short clip.This was in 1984, 17 years before 9-11. This airplane made 14 flights and 69 approaches under remote control before it was crashed at December-1 1984. Don't you think that they could have developed this technique since then. (please read the info on the clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj3QZdVM-9Y

John Lear, You have yourself stated to me that the D-21 drone was remotely flown in over China during spy missions at speeds well-over Mach 3, that was in the late 60's and early 70's, don't you think that they could remotely fly the 767 in 2001 at Mach 0,6



In thees pictures you can clearly see that the 767 has no big fairing's and no big underbelly fuel-tank. Big fairing's and underbelly fuel-tank have been the main debunk of the "missile pod-theory"



Please take a look at thees documentaries they may be "old school" and "not fresh enough" for some but they clearly show how it was done.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...plane+site+911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+vonkleist+911


[IMG][/IMG]


In thees pictures you can clearly see the missile or incindiery that has shot through the building