| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: The truth about cloaked aircraft for plane hugging dunce |
 |
|
| thought criminal wrote: |
So it appears there is growing evidence that 'beam weapons' and the technology to make planes invisible by using 'cloaks' is here!
Ho hum. |
Here?
9/11 was 5.5 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: The truth about cloaked aircraft for plane hugging dunce |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | thought criminal wrote: |
So it appears there is growing evidence that 'beam weapons' and the technology to make planes invisible by using 'cloaks' is here!
Ho hum. |
Here?
9/11 was 5.5 years ago. |
Congratulations for getting the date right.
0/0 for not understanding that if we are only learning about this technology now, then the military will have been privy to it for years, non?
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible. |
*turns around and farts in the general direction of marky 54*
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marky...
I see the conspiracy fools are raising their ugly heads again... 
"It Waz Dem Martians... I saw dem  ... It was dem Martians Dat did 9/11... Wiv Du Beams and invisibul fwying Saucers!!!"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible. |
*turns around and farts in the general direction of marky 54* |
marky 54 knows the fart is there but cannot prove it due to the fart being invisible(proberbly with advanced technology wrapped around it), as a result a dodge was unable to be exacuted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phew !!! 
Must have been a helluva curry you had last night, cos something definately stinks here!
... wheres that air freshner when you need it!  ... I can't seem to find it, maybe it is hidden in some cloaking device or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i suspect anyone touting no-planes stuff to be working for the ptb.
its complete bollox
utterly pointless talking about it
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
[b]i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible.[b] |
*turns around and farts in the general direction of marky 54* |
Some attitude you have there TC, I'm sure you can convince a couple of people with it.
..and the thread title speaks volumes, it really does.
Personally as Bongo knows I'm not against the idea of a nbbt or npt, but to shout it out with such venom does no one any good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is it with not understanding what the "9/11 Controvosies" section is for????
Beat it!
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TC,
Is anyone who doesn't agree with you a dunce? Have you used thi tactic in campaigning? Wondered why you're getting nowhere?
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | TC,
Is anyone who doesn't agree with you a dunce? Have you used thi tactic in campaigning? Wondered why you're getting nowhere? |
I would bet you a grand that my campaigning is a sight more productive than yours, so I would suggest you quit talking about what you know nowt about.
I also never mention my more comtroversial theories to people new to 9/11. I only save that for dunces like yous, boss.
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newspeak International wrote: | | thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
[b]i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible.[b] |
*turns around and farts in the general direction of marky 54* |
Some attitude you have there TC, I'm sure you can convince a couple of people with it.
..and the thread title speaks volumes, it really does.
Personally as Bongo knows I'm not against the idea of a nbbt or npt, but to shout it out with such venom does no one any good. |
Who's shouting? What venom?? You plane huggers are going f***ing senile.
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surely you mean paranoid TC
Be nice now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newspeak International wrote: | Surely you mean paranoid TC
Be nice now |
I will, I will. 
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | | It Waz Dem Martians... I saw dem :roll: ... It was dem Martians Dat did 9/11... Wiv Du Beams and invisibul fwying Saucers!!!" |
See an exotic cloaking U.S. military orb for yourself, lurking in the Naudet movie:
http://webfairy.org/slideshow/911whatzit/
discovered by me in 2004.
It cloaks at Frame 158.
Before cloaking, it projects a black laser-like shadow dot TOWARD the sun (LEFTward of itself in this SOUTH-facing MORNING footage), onto the sides of the big white trucks.
After cloaking, starting in Frame 168, it projects a WHITE laser-like shadow dot, in the same direction, onto the second building from the left.
The footage was shot by Jules Naudet in the seat behind the driver's seat inside Chief Pfeifer's utility vehicle on the way to the just-hit Tower 1.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thought criminal wrote: | | Newspeak International wrote: | | thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
[b]i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible.[b] |
*turns around and farts in the general direction of marky 54* |
Some attitude you have there TC, I'm sure you can convince a couple of people with it.
..and the thread title speaks volumes, it really does.
Personally as Bongo knows I'm not against the idea of a nbbt or npt, but to shout it out with such venom does no one any good. |
Who's shouting? What venom?? You plane huggers are going f***ing senile. :lol: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thought criminal wrote: | | Newspeak International wrote: | | thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | this gets confusing, one mintue its an image projected around a missle and now we have gone completly invisible.
ok i see the technology is being developed and assuming your point about the military having it for years prior is correct, what was this technology used on on 9/11? i assume not the planes that would be plain daft, so are we saying it was used on missles or all the beam weapons that were present that day?
of course the advantage with using this technology is that one can prove what they cannot see, or nobody can disprove what your claiming.
if you look out your window there is a huge invisible u.f.o, can you prove that wrong other than just having an opinon that im wrong?
[b]i aint critising what your putting forward im just pointing out the problems with being able to prove or disprove otherwise when it come to things that are invisible.[b] |
*turns around and farts in the general direction of marky 54* |
Some attitude you have there TC, I'm sure you can convince a couple of people with it.
..and the thread title speaks volumes, it really does.
Personally as Bongo knows I'm not against the idea of a nbbt or npt, but to shout it out with such venom does no one any good. |
Who's shouting? What venom?? You plane huggers are going f***ing senile. :lol: |
And you had the front to call me disgusting. What a sad man you are! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Bongo wrote: | | It Waz Dem Martians... I saw dem ... It was dem Martians Dat did 9/11... Wiv Du Beams and invisibul fwying Saucers!!!" |
See an exotic cloaking U.S. military orb for yourself, lurking in the Naudet movie:
http://webfairy.org/slideshow/911whatzit/
discovered by me in 2004.
It cloaks at Frame 158.
Before cloaking, it projects a black laser-like shadow dot TOWARD the sun (LEFTward of itself in this SOUTH-facing MORNING footage), onto the sides of the big white trucks.
After cloaking, starting in Frame 168, it projects a WHITE laser-like shadow dot, in the same direction, onto the second building from the left.
The footage was shot by Jules Naudet in the seat behind the driver's seat inside Chief Pfeifer's utility vehicle on the way to the just-hit Tower 1.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
But the spot remains visible until frame 185, when the camera moves so that the spot disappears out of its field of view. How is that evidence of 'cloaking'? All I see is a spot on the windscreen of the car Naudet was riding in when he took the footage. It appears and vanishes as the changing angle of the car/camera with respect to the sun makes the spot (perhaps a pit in the glass) look dark and then bright as light gets reflected off its surface towards the camera lens when the car alters its angle relative to the sun. The so-called 'mini vapor trail' that the so-called 'orb' is supposed to be leaving is nothing more than a ray of light reflecting off the side of the moving, white van at different angles and then passing through the windscreen. As proof: it only moves when the van moves.
So much for your orbs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
