News

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 42895 04-09-2012 09:21 PM

This is a good thread and commentary.

Maybe when the pinned threads have had plenty of reads this could be put up there for awhile.

The value to those that are skeptical and haven't really looked at some of this might be helpful in them getting more information.

Bump

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 40036 04-09-2012 09:26 PM

Ghenghy Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
From watching this video, I am sure that the plane did not have it's left wing upon impact past the engine.,,

I'd like to propose an explanation that Dr Judy Wood would enjoy.

Space Hutchison Effect.

Beaming straight down, they weakened the steel structures. The ALUMINUM wing on the second plane was vaporized because it accidentally came under the path of the beam weapon. That is why there simply IS NO LEFT WING past the engine for the last 100 feet of travel or so before impact.

LOL then why wasnt the tower in the process of failing when the plane impacted?

The reason is very simple and has been proven in the photos above, the plane was "added" to the footage digitally.

those photos don't prove digital manipulation of the video. They just don't. They show something that doesn't jive with expectations surely but they don't prove that the footage was manipulated.

BTW, Hutchison effect from space thing, if it were "hot" enough to soften steel slowly through concrete then it would be "hot" enough to cause an aluminum airplane wing to weaken and snap off or powderize. It's just a ramble though, I tend to lean more towards the demo theory.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 42895 04-09-2012 09:41 PM

Ghenghy Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
From watching this video, I am sure that the plane did not have it's left wing upon impact past the engine.,,

I'd like to propose an explanation that Dr Judy Wood would enjoy.

Space Hutchison Effect.

Beaming straight down, they weakened the steel structures. The ALUMINUM wing on the second plane was vaporized because it accidentally came under the path of the beam weapon. That is why there simply IS NO LEFT WING past the engine for the last 100 feet of travel or so before impact.

LOL then why wasnt the tower in the process of failing when the plane impacted?

The reason is very simple and has been proven in the photos above, the plane was "added" to the footage digitally.

If a beam weapon was used to bring down the towers, why would it be on at the same time the plane was hitting the building, and then again later in the collapse? Why the thermite traces and floors exploding outward below the collapsing debris? It is a difficult theory to advance and make believeable.

Lots of eyewitness testimony of a plane, a lot of video evidence. If it was a projected hologram with accompanying sounds of jet engines that is some technical marvel of advanced science.

I am open to the possibility just because I think it is wise to at least consider all possible explanations, that is what being open-minded means. But to be convinced it would help to have some leaked footage of this sort of technology in action - with holographic action and actual sound emanating from the hologram, or at least from a source nearby.

I would offer an explanation that might explain both possibile theories.
If a cruise missile was used (as is the most convincing theory with the pentagon explosion and initial size of entry hole, and the surveilance footage) in all aircraft instances on 911, if there was a holographic projecting technology that can envelop an object and make it appear differently, then that might explain these events. The sound of a cruise missile is similar to an aircraft, and audio from the events seem to be missing the characteristic tandem high pitched hum that several engines make on a passenger aircraft. It would explain the high speed and amazing aerial manuevers, it would explain the dissappearing wing, the limited amount of aircraft debris and passenger belongings/remains found at all the sites, the destructiveness of the impact while leaving a small sized entry hole. It might alleviate some of the discrepancies noted in the shadows on the aircraft not matching the sun's position, and not moving or changing as the plane maneuvered. It might explain the absence of markings and windows on the aircraft as some have observed.

Something to consider and expand on imo.

**Ghenghy**

LoP Guest Wrote:

Ghenghy Wrote:
LoP Guest Wrote:
From watching this video, I am sure that the plane did not have it's left wing upon impact past the engine.,,

I'd like to propose an explanation that Dr Judy Wood would enjoy.

Space Hutchison Effect.

Beaming straight down, they weakened the steel structures. The ALUMINUM wing on the second plane was vaporized because it accidentally came under the path of the beam weapon. That is why there simply IS NO LEFT WING past the engine for the last 100 feet of travel or so before impact.

LOL then why wasnt the tower in the process of failing when the plane impacted?

The reason is very simple and has been proven in the photos above, the plane was "added" to the footage digitally.
Wait. Now I'm confused. I thought it was a holographic projection.

If this video was altered, that would mean they're ALL altered. That doesn't seem plausible. There would have to be independent footage out there somewhere that shows the building just exploding by itself without a plane impacting it. None exists that I'm aware of. If every known video shows a plane, that would have to mean a projection, wouldn't it?

I never said it was a hologram. The guy on September Clues does a very good job at presenting the case that all of the footage was provided by a single source, and calibrated in many cases with all the major media outlets. I think its also his video that has the BBC news report of WTC 7 having fallen down 20 minutes before it actually happened.

Dont think there is any "independent" footage. There's also a good case for an EMP attack that morning that knocked out all cell coverage, and would have impacted video cameras as well. And remember, smart phones with video didnt exist, they would have been taken out with the EMP burst anyway.

**Ghenghy** · (This post was last modified: 04-09-2012 10:05 PM by Ghenghy.)

LoP Guest Wrote:

Ghenghy Wrote:
LoP Guest Wrote:
From watching this video, I am sure that the plane did not have it's left wing upon impact past the engine.,,

I'd like to propose an explanation that Dr Judy Wood would enjoy.

Space Hutchison Effect.

Beaming straight down, they weakened the steel structures. The ALUMINUM wing on the second plane was vaporized because it accidentally came under the path of the beam weapon. That is why there simply IS NO LEFT WING past the engine for the last 100 feet of travel or so before impact.

LOL then why wasnt the tower in the process of failing when the plane impacted?

The reason is very simple and has been proven in the photos above, the plane was "added" to the footage digitally.

those photos don't prove digital manipulation of the video. They just don't. They show something that doesn't jive with expectations surely but they don't prove that the footage was manipulated.

BTW, Hutchison effect from space thing, if it were "hot" enough to soften steel slowly through concrete then it would be "hot" enough to cause an aluminum airplane wing to weaken and snap off or powderize. It's just a ramble though, I tend to lean more towards the demo theory.

Its a better explanation than anything you're likely to come up with. What do you see? Download the thing yourself and explain to me why the left wing disappears and why the right one goes transparent. Thanks.

Anybody that watches this video, or who has studied 9/11, can clearly see the controlled demolition aspect of the series of synchronized explosions. Judy Wood has an interesting but flawed theory. And somebody needs to explain to me if a scalar weapon WAS used at the same time a "plane" impacted the building, then why the hell didnt the building fall down immediately? And if as you say the left wing "snapped off", then why dont we see that occur. Some of you guys are married to your theories and cant see this for what it is.... obvious manipulation done in a studio.

**Pope Barbie Imaculata** · (This post was last modified: 04-09-2012 10:20 PM by Pope Barbie Imaculata.)

Frodgers Wrote:

Every time I see 9/11 footage is makes me wonder if most Americans still believe the "official" report.
I also wonder what yawl think of your gubmint...we know, you know and they know we all know but they choose to ignore us ...just like Hilary Clitoris when David Icke accused her of screwing children

To me those are very important questions. That type of speculation never seems to gain any traction on these boards. It is just as, if not more important than the mechanics of 9/11.

What good is figuring out the truth if we don't figure out how to get the people to accept it?

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 40036 04-09-2012 10:53 PM

Ghenghy Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
Ghenghy Wrote:
LOL then why wasnt the tower in the process of failing when the plane impacted?

The reason is very simple and has been proven in the photos above, the plane was "added" to the footage digitally.

those photos don't prove digital manipulation of the video. They just don't. They show something that doesn't jive with expectations surely but they don't prove that the footage was manipulated.

BTW, Hutchison effect from space thing, if it were "hot" enough to soften steel slowly through concrete then it would be "hot" enough to cause an aluminum airplane wing to weaken and snap off or powderize. It's just a ramble though, I tend to lean more towards the demo theory.

Its a better explanation than anything you're likely to come up with. What do you see? Download the thing yourself and explain to me why the left wing disappears and why the right one goes transparent. Thanks.

Anybody that watches this video, or who has studied 9/11, can clearly see the controlled demolition aspect of the series of synchronized explosions. Judy Wood has an interesting but flawed theory. And somebody needs to explain to me if a scalar weapon WAS used at the same time a "plane" impacted the building, then why the hell didnt the building fall down immediately? And if as you say the left wing "snapped off", then why dont we see that occur. Some of you guys are married to your theories and cant see this for what it is.... obvious manipulation done in a studio.

come on, admit it, you know the theory that the video was altered or a hologram was used is at least as loose as beam weapon. It requires the belief that our government has hologram technology decades in advance of currently known examples of holograms. That they have advanced technology they don't share I have no doubt, but I don't buy that it would be that far ahead and we can't even make a decent 3D movie in the commercial sector.

Dood, in all seriousness I never even once posted my stuff as a real theory or even my theory. Nor am I "married" to it, I've already said I don't think it's likely. Nor did I say the wing snapped off, the whole thing is Ifs and MAYBEs. Who exactly is married to their theory here? you seem quite attached to the studio manipulation despite the unlikeliness.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 40036 04-09-2012 11:02 PM

Can't someone bring up possibilities without haters? sheesh.

Digital manipulation doesn't explain eye witnesses who describe seeing airplanes and shadows. Doubtful that a hologram casts a shadow. Also doubtful that photoshop works in real time on eyewitnesses.

at least we agree on the demo

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 40036 04-09-2012 11:10 PM

whoDunIt Wrote:

come on, admit it, you know the theory that the video was altered or a hologram was used is at least as loose as beam weapon. It requires the belief that our government has hologram technology decades in advance of currently known examples of holograms. That they have advanced technology they don't share I have no doubt, but I don't buy that it would be that far ahead and we can't even make a decent 3D movie in the commercial sector.

Dood, in all seriousness I never even once posted my stuff as a real theory or even my theory. Nor am I "married" to it, I've already said I don't think it's likely. Nor did I say the wing snapped off, the whole thing is Ifs and MAYBEs. Who exactly is married to their theory here? you seem quite attached to the studio manipulation despite the unlikeliness.

Not trying to be argumentative but the reality is we see the technologies when they are cheap enough to mass produce, until then it is only for those who can afford such things. Do i believe there was no plane? Shit i have no idea, the closer we think we come to any kind of answer the more questions arise.
[/quote]

yeah me too.

I just don't think it could be so far advanced of commercial technology. not so advanced a hologram that it would work outdoors on large scale without evidence of the source, flawless without glitch, casts shadows on the ground, and impact is flawlessly timed with explosion.

About altering the video, what doesn't work for me there is that only the wing disappears, not the building behind it. If the wing disappearing were a video glitch, it wouldn't effect individual video "layers" would it? Also, why only the wing, and why does the engine appear without the wing briefly?

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 78374 04-09-2012 11:26 PM

What if the hologram wasn’t projected from an outside source?

Assume for the sake of argument it was cruise missiles that hit the towers.
What if the missiles were carrying on-board holographic technology that “cloaked” their true form and made them appear outwardly as airliners. Honestly guys, if y'all are open to the possibility of scalar weapons from space, then cloaking tech would be child's play by comparison.

That would explain the absence of video footage showing a building exploding without a plane.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 78374 04-10-2012 12:01 AM

whoDunIt Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
What if the hologram wasn’t projected from an outside source?

Assume for the sake of argument it was cruise missiles that hit the towers.
What if the missiles were carrying on-board holographic technology that “cloaked” their true form and made them appear outwardly as airliners. Honestly guys, if y'all are open to the possibility of scalar weapons from space, then cloaking tech would be child's play by comparison.

That would explain the absence of video footage showing a building exploding without a plane.

Perhaps the holographic emitter is why the 3 building was 'pulled'. Just a thought..

I am completely open to the possibility scalar weapons. Back in the day there was a man named Dr. Peter Beter, yeah its his real name poor chap, who made audio and text newsletters and he spoke of the use of space technology used by the Russians that was FAR in advance of what we had and what we know we have now. It was based on Tesla technology.

Are you referring to bldg 7?
That would only be plausible if 7 had clear line of sight during entirety of flight path. That would be the main stumbling block with any stationary emitter/projector.

On-board holo tech eliminates the line-of-sight problem.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 78374 04-10-2012 12:35 AM

whoDunIt Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
whoDunIt Wrote:
Perhaps the holographic emitter is why the 3 building was 'pulled'. Just a thought..

I am completely open to the possibility scalar weapons. Back in the day there was a man named Dr. Peter Beter, yeah its his real name poor chap, who made audio and text newsletters and he spoke of the use of space technology used by the Russians that was FAR in advance of what we had and what we know we have now. It was based on Tesla technology.

Are you referring to bldg 7?
That would only be plausible if 7 had clear line of sight during entirety of flight path. That would be the main stumbling block with any stationary emitter/projector.

On-board holo tech eliminates the line-of-sight problem.

Yes i was referring to #7, these were the two tallest buildings in NY and where the planes hit would be clearly visible, only an assumption, anywhere in the near vicinity unless of course the line of sight is blocked by another building but i really dont know the layout of the area.

Can you imagine the implications of your suggestion? A missile or plane with that type of technology could be what ever is needed. That is truly scarey.

I don’t know what the layout was either. I’ll have to dig into that when I get home tonight. We need to remember there were two planes that allegedly struck WTC that morning. Each came from a different direction. If we’re speculating one of them was a holo or holo cloaked, we must logically assume both were.

Yes, the implications of this kind of cloaking holo tech gives one pause. But the implications of scalar weapons are, to me, orders of magnitude scarier.

**Ghenghy** · (This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 01:37 AM by Ghenghy.)

LoP Guest Wrote:

Can't someone bring up possibilities without haters? sheesh.

Digital manipulation doesn't explain eye witnesses who describe seeing airplanes and shadows. Doubtful that a hologram casts a shadow. Also doubtful that photoshop works in real time on eyewitnesses.

at least we agree on the demo

Gheez, it wasn't broadcast in "real time." Many of these videos surfaced later, and this one I have never seen before after chasing 9/11 for 11 years. A good example is the video of the first strike, that was not shown "live", the video was broadcast later in the day. Again, I never said it was a hologram, or even implied it was a hologram so dont ask me about holograms OK>.

And for the record, I don't know how they worked the video, all I know is that it was a professional demolition of three massive buildings that took months of insider planning and engineering, and weeks of setting the charges to get it right, and maybe even precutting some of the inner support beams to help facilitate the implosion.

If you will take the time to watch the September Clues video, he clearly demonstrates that all 5 networks including CNN were broadcasting synchronized video that day with the theory that it was coming from a single source feed. Now, again I don't know how they pulled this off but it is entirely possible, and CNN was completely co-opted by the CIA prior to this event, and it was confirmed that they had a minimum of 20 employees on site in Atlanta during the run up to Gulf War II. Probably had their own production department, nothing would surprise me.

The only eyewitnesses I've seen were agents/actors like that stupid Harley guy who was obviously an FBI/FEMA guy. None of the eyewitnesses are credible. Now, one of the firemen in this video said he "saw a black plane"... thats the first credible witness interview I can recall where somebody other than the government actors said they saw a plane.

**Ghenghy** · (This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 01:32 AM by Ghenghy.)

LoP Guest Wrote:

come on, admit it, you know the theory that the video was altered or a hologram was used is at least as loose as beam weapon. It requires the belief that our government has hologram technology decades in advance of currently known examples of holograms. That they have advanced technology they don't share I have no doubt, but I don't buy that it would be that far ahead and we can't even make a decent 3D movie in the commercial sector.

Dood, in all seriousness I never even once posted my stuff as a real theory or even my theory. Nor am I "married" to it, I've already said I don't think it's likely. Nor did I say the wing snapped off, the whole thing is Ifs and MAYBEs. Who exactly is married to their theory here? you seem quite attached to the studio manipulation despite the unlikeliness.

I'm only married to the belief that this particular video has been altered to add an airplane. Some people look at that video and they see an airplane hitting the tower, I looked at it and saw both wings disappear after the plane came into view. Both Dunit and myself have demonstrated that is exactly what happens ON THIS VIDEO! Neither one of us posited that the f*cking government was using holograms that day, I seriously doubt it.

And with respect to "decent" 3D, a lot of the crap you see today is nothing but a 2D video script-changed to give the appearance of 3D. There is a ton of REAL 3D content out there that if you saw it would knock your socks off, the problem is and the reason you havent seen it is because they were produced in the 50's. The technology exists, the technology to put in in your living room at a feasible cost is something else. Not to mention the production costs of true 3D.

So, in summary this is not an argument about what technologies exist today at the hands of the government, they have a lot more than you are aware and I doubt you've had any exposure so you might want to drop this angle because again, nobody said this is a friggin hologram! And finaly, 3D has ZILCH to do with holograms.... zero!

**iceni6**

Are you sure they couldn't have projected a hologram onto a mess of ionized gas, and that the gas broke up or dispersed so the wings did, too? notice the wings are not pixels -- they are round orbs.

[Image: EFAA_4F837AA2.jpg]

here is a black helicopter that flew over my house -- taken with a Sony nightshot and passband filter

[Image: 4A5B_4F837BC5.jpg]

you have to use an infrared sensitive camera, a nightshot camera, or a full-spectrum camera that has a fast frame rate to capture infrared, plasma laser weapons

besides, with tech like this -- i suspect they could make many see whatever they wanted them to see

infrared, plasma weapon attacking a friend of mine's head

[Image: DC6B_4F837C86.jpg]

more info:
http://en.xiandos.info/WHAT_CHEMTRAILS_R...hort_Scoop