Space Bandit wrote:
SilvaRizla wrote:
The scope for fuck-up (and hence disclosure) is monumental. What if the cloaking device failed? Why go to all this trouble when there's a cheaper, safer, perfectly doable alternative?
Crash a real plane into a building. Simple.
Precisely.
I don't see the advantage of using cgi/holograms at all.
Ok here it is.
It's a lot easier to control a smaller aircraft at those speeds at those altitudes.
That
is an advantage of using CGI and the aforementioned rubber cloak material (or something else) to distort the 'drones' that are later to be CGI'd into Boeings on the news reels.
Of course I can't make you believe that, but it is the 'advantage' so the advantage does exist even if not proved.
What I've been proposing about this theory is not that I believe it as 100% absolute fact, I only propose that if 'truth seekers' (for the want of a better term) chose to react positively to Dr Woods proposal that DEW was used, we could use your sentence .... ''John Lear.... ace pilot.
What are his qualifications in crash dynamics? '' and apply to Dr Wood. What qualifications does Dr Wood have about DEW's? or weather manipulation? both of which she uses in her proposals.
So then when we look a little deeper we see that Dr Wood with regards to DEW she is relying on the unqualified John Hutchinson and guesses about weather manipulation.
So John Lear is a qualified and experienced airline pilot veteran John Hutchinson is a 'energy coil/generator controller'?
I know what you mean about the possibility of the planes being controlled, but by novices with the autopilot GPS turned off, it's some feat.
The point here is that if were going to have a thread based on Dr
HutchinsonWood then I can't see why, once we've(posters) have gone down that path, why it's now such a huge leap to suggest that in the case of Dr Woods proposals, she herself appears to believe in the 'no planes' theory, there is video evidence of her questioning how the 'tips' of the wings went through steel, and she is a qualified engineer, so if you take John Lear's evidence and combine it with Dr Woods theory a case could be made that its 'unlikely' to be true but then a case could be made that it's more practical for a 'false flag' to have easier to control aircraft rather than Boeings.
What we have to do is to put ourselves in the place of the perpetrators, so we decide that we're going to have a false flag event where the WTC and Pentagon are attacked by Kamikaze pilots.
Firstly imo we need to think about this spacebandit, why do that? to create panic or false flags for war mongering, why WTC, why not just the Pentagon? Why not just a bomb in a tube station or subway, shopping mall, the only answer that I can think of is for visual effect.
So if 'visual effect' is the reason that the twin towers were selected as targets for false flagging, then we have already gone into the realms of 'spectacular vision'.
Once we establish that 'spectacular vision' is the reason for the target selection then we realise that if Dr Wood's proposals with regards to the going away of the towers are true, we then see that that is only one part of the event.
Prior to the going away of the towers, we had the 'strikes'.
So if these strikes were not done by the official version 'Islamic kamikaze pilots' then who?
What is important now spacebandit is that it's quite easy, not hard at all, to make drones do that job, all that would need to occur prior to Dr Wood's proposals of DEW, is that 'drones' are covered in the rubber material/or something else, an image can then be projected onto the drones, enough to fool 'observers' they hope, however there is plenty of footage of witnesses on YouTube and the general internet where witnesses say it's not a commercial jet, it's smaller and black/grey.
So the disguise appears not to have worked as well as hoped.
If you chose not to believe John Lear in relation to structural engineering/crash dynamics, because he's not qualified then that's good for you, however I think his information is relevant about the controllability of those planes at those speeds at those altitudes and that the 'recovered' engine was not the engines that Boeing were using on those aircraft at that time.
Why would John Lear say such a thing, if then his entire information could be debunked on the fact that he'd made that up.
TBH I'm still very dubious about the whole kinetic energy thing when the planes fly through steel, did you see the footage that I posted a few posts back, when I think it was a B52 had struck the Empire State Building, that plane was mangled, some of it penetrated the building, but it mainly got crumpled and quite a lot of it fell onto the street below.
So how come kinetic energy helps Boeings to fly with apparent easy through WTC towers but kinetic energy does not permit a B52 to glide through the Empire State Building with the same apparent ease?
) 
