Well, "nothing" didn't hit the Pentagon...it was a missile. His claim that the Pentagon blew up the same way the towers did (i.e. with pre-planted explosives) is not supported by evidence. His story about the airfield in Massachusetts is similar to one about the Cleveland airfield with a NASA hangar...except there were witnesses to the planes in Cleveland.
I have watched the documentary he referred to with the doctored images ("A Kite Plane Must Hit Steel") showing planes hitting the twin towers, and it's possible that additional footage was created this way, but last time I provided a link to this documentary, there were a couple of members of this message board who (allegedly) were in NY and saw planes hitting the towers. Who knows...
The human memory encoding system is high in neuroplasticity. People can be conditioned to recall false memories that never actually occurred. This has been demonstrated in memory recall exercises in Psychology.
That being said, I've heard that Project Blue Beam was more than capable of simulating the planes that "hit", the towers.
Yea and usually those false memories are like something small, and insignificant. Recalling a false memory of seeing a plane fly into a building is quite a stretch.
Not at all friend. Psychology has demonstrated it is relatively easy to convince someone of something as big as boarding a hot air balloon for an entire day when they were a kid.
And the participant was completely convinced of the experience and even cited vivid details. All for an event that never actually occurred.
If you see something, like a missile, or even just the explosion, and you are immediately told that was caused by a plane, you will belive you saw a plane.
My brother in law was there working on top of a building and when I had this discussion with him he said he saw the second plane with his own eyes. I kinda believe the theory that it was military planes that hit, not civilian airplanes, but also explosives that brought them down.
Why is it so hard to believe it was civilian planes? Serious inquiry, not being condescending.
It seems simple enough to me for the government to be aware of, and to allow, coordinated hijacking of planes. I mean, people got phonecalls from loved ones. And when one planes passengers thwarted the hijackers, they were forced to blow up building 7 without its plane.
What would they do with the missing planes afterwords? Why complicate this?
I do believe there were detonation devices to ensure maximum destruction, I just dont buy the no planes/military planes idea.
Well, "nothing" didn't hit the Pentagon...it was a missile. His claim that the Pentagon blew up the same way the towers did (i.e. with pre-planted explosives) is not supported by evidence. His story about the airfield in Massachusetts is similar to one about the Cleveland airfield with a NASA hangar...except there were witnesses to the planes in Cleveland.
I have watched the documentary he referred to with the doctored images ("A Kite Plane Must Hit Steel") showing planes hitting the twin towers, and it's possible that additional footage was created this way, but last time I provided a link to this documentary, there were a couple of members of this message board who (allegedly) were in NY and saw planes hitting the towers. Who knows...
The human memory encoding system is high in neuroplasticity. People can be conditioned to recall false memories that never actually occurred. This has been demonstrated in memory recall exercises in Psychology.
That being said, I've heard that Project Blue Beam was more than capable of simulating the planes that "hit", the towers.
Yea and usually those false memories are like something small, and insignificant. Recalling a false memory of seeing a plane fly into a building is quite a stretch.
Not at all friend. Psychology has demonstrated it is relatively easy to convince someone of something as big as boarding a hot air balloon for an entire day when they were a kid.
And the participant was completely convinced of the experience and even cited vivid details. All for an event that never actually occurred.
If you see something, like a missile, or even just the explosion, and you are immediately told that was caused by a plane, you will belive you saw a plane.
With what you're implying, they wouldn't need the media... Like holy fuckin crap maybe 40,000 feet is a little too high for some of you...
Millions of witnesses, hundreds of amateur footage... Seriously guys, lazor beams and hologram planes easily disproves itself.
With that logic, Big foot and ghosts are 100% fact then huh?
Millions of witnesses, hundreds of amateur footage...
Agree.
My brother in law was there working on top of a building and when I had this discussion with him he said he saw the second plane with his own eyes. I kinda believe the theory that it was military planes that hit, not civilian airplanes, but also explosives that brought them down.
Why is it so hard to believe it was civilian planes? Serious inquiry, not being condescending.
It seems simple enough to me for the government to be aware of, and to allow, coordinated hijacking of planes. I mean, people got phonecalls from loved ones. And when one planes passengers thwarted the hijackers, they were forced to blow up building 7 without its plane.
What would they do with the missing planes afterwords? Why complicate this?
I do believe there were detonation devices to ensure maximum destruction, I just dont buy the no planes/military planes idea.
AFAIK no bodies were found. No body parts; no DNA. Just a passport.
Civilian planes couldn’t fly at the speed reported at that low altitude.
Stingray tech was used to spoof cellphone calls.
The CIA has dozens of modified civilian planes operating at any given time.
Philip Marshall
http://idp.ticadine.com/cached/cia-likely-built-remote-controlled-commercial-jets-in-aircraft-boneyard.html
There is a documentary I saw and it is clearly not a civilian aircraft. something on the bottom of it that no civilian aircraft have.
An airplane definitely hit the building though