Some are still trying to push fake planes due to POOR understanding & observational skills.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've actually read quite a bit of the "debunking" info on this and have yet to see an air tight argument.

Most of the things I've come across are either written in a mocking tone or they just verbally attack Judy Wood who has never even made a hologram claim. I haven't come across the address of the building though. If you can find it please share.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've actually read quite a bit of the "debunking" info on this and have yet to see an air tight argument.

Most of the things I've come across are either written in a mocking tone or they just verbally attack Judy Wood who has never even made a hologram claim. I haven't come across the address of the building though. If you can find it please share.

21 West St, New York, NY 10006, USA

Here it is on google maps...of course the tower is gone now, but you can see the footprints:

Link

Another view:
Link

Here is a Slate article on this hoax: Link

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: pteridine

In this case the most simple plan would've left too many variables up in the air. Yes, you and I don't know very much about sophisticated hologram technology. But to the experts that do, this may have actually been an easier method.

To use holograms instead of real planes would offer the following benefits:

- There would be little to no chance of the planes missing their target. This is very significant since we were told that amateur pilots hit their targets perfectly at over 500 mph while being in a commercial aircraft cockpit for the first time.

- There would be no chance whatsoever of a plane only partially penetrating the building and having massive pieces of wreckage fall to the street below. If that had happened, you can bet many cameras would've captured the debris.

- No chance of hijackers being overrun by passengers.

This theory only sounds so ridiculous to the average person because we simply don't know how developed this technology is.

Parts were found sites.google.com... which introduces another complication and yet more people in on the scheme.
The pilots hit a good sized building which shouldn't be considered impossible.

I think it's safe to say that many people were involved regardless of what actually happened.

And after speaking to some pilots myself, it IS actually impossible for those planes to travel at those speeds that low to the ground.

John Lear also agrees with that statement and has been slandered on this site many times in the past. That doesn't change the fact that he's an ex-CIA pilot who has earned every airmen certificate issued by the FAA and has flown over 100 different types of aircraft.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

No it's not. It's easy to see, if you watch it carefully, that it goes behind the crane. I just paused it with the nose even with the crane, and it's quite clearly blocked by the crane.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

It's impossible if they traveled at that speed, in level flight, using nothing but engine thrust. They didn't. If you watch they dove down, accelerated to that speed, then leveled off, at which point they would have started decelerating if they had more time before hitting the building.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

No it's not. It's easy to see, if you watch it carefully, that it goes behind the crane. I just paused it with the nose even with the crane, and it's quite clearly blocked by the crane.

Huh? The point was that the plane is shown IN FRONT of the two cords attached to the crane, then BEHIND the body of the crane. Which is another impossibility.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

There's no way to tell with the cables. They're far too thin to give you a good reference. But being that it went behind the crane, it had to be behind the cables too. As thin as they are, and as fast as it goes by, it may appear that it was in front of the cables, but it wasn't.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed


I think it's safe to say that many people were involved regardless of what actually happened.

And after speaking to some pilots myself, it IS actually impossible for those planes to travel at those speeds that low to the ground.

John Lear also agrees with that statement and has been slandered on this site many times in the past. That doesn't change the fact that he's an ex-CIA pilot who has earned every airmen certificate issued by the FAA and has flown over 100 different types of aircraft.

We are not talking about speed, we are talking about hitting a building.
As to speed, the planes were diving, so the concept that they couldn't go as fast as stated is incorrect. A WW2 P47 with a top speed of 425 mph in level flight could hit 600 mph in a dive.

a reply to: wmd_2008

The mechanics involved and the physics do not allow for what they claimed happen to happen. First of all, commercial airplanes can not fly at that speed at that altitude without breaking apart before hitting a building.

Those towers were designed to withstand the impact and yet, these planes just dissolved right into them?

IF a real commercial airplane did hit those towers, at the point of impact they would have bounced off in pieces and crumbled to the ground. They could not have penetrated the way they claim they did.

Did something crash into the towers? All video evidence SEEMS to suggest so, CGI and special effects have been utilized for many such videos, what they wanted us to believe was scripted and carried out flawlessly, right down to that little pristine passport.

We will never ever be able to agree what actually happened that day and sadly, it really doesn't matter, this goes into the pile of "NEVER EXPLAINED BS"!

originally posted by: searcherfortruth
a reply to: wmd_2008

The mechanics involved and the physics do not allow for what they claimed happen to happen. First of all, commercial airplanes can not fly at that speed at that altitude without breaking apart before hitting a building.

Those towers were designed to withstand the impact and yet, these planes just dissolved right into them?

IF a real commercial airplane did hit those towers, at the point of impact they would have bounced off in pieces and crumbled to the ground. They could not have penetrated the way they claim they did.

Did something crash into the towers? All video evidence SEEMS to suggest so, CGI and special effects have been utilized for many such videos, what they wanted us to believe was scripted and carried out flawlessly, right down to that little pristine passport.

We will never ever be able to agree what actually happened that day and sadly, it really doesn't matter, this goes into the pile of "NEVER EXPLAINED BS"!

Do you have any experience or ability, at all, in the areas of physics or engineering?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Yeah, that's the perspective part. It's not behind the other tower, it only looks like it is in the video.

Ummmm. But how does it only LOOK that way? There's no basis of an optical illusion at play. You can clearly see that wing disappearing behind the building which is indicative of only two scenarios:

A.) An actual hologram

B.) A CGI application

Do you have a third scenario?

Yes you are being fooled by perspective. See following thread.

Metabunk - Debunk link.

I bet that you were also fooled by the "disappearing wing"?

originally posted by: searcherfortruth
IF a real commercial airplane did hit those towers, at the point of impact they would have bounced off in pieces and crumbled to the ground. They could not have penetrated the way they claim they did.

So at speed the air would tear the planes apart, but hitting a steel matrix they would bounce off instead of being shredded?

a reply to: searcherfortruth

I suggest YOU EDUCATE yourself a little more have a look at the Empire State building plane crash read what happened and then stfu until you learn from that event.

originally posted by: searcherfortruth
First of all, commercial airplanes can not fly at that speed at that altitude without breaking apart before hitting a building.

According to who exactly?

IF a real commercial airplane did hit those towers, at the point of impact they would have bounced off in pieces and crumbled to the ground. They could not have penetrated the way they claim they did.

According to who exactly?

It looks like someone gets their physics from cartoons!

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Better show me a link to a hologram the size of an aircraft shown in bright daylight moving at speed .

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

WOW even on the video that is explained

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Better show me a link to a hologram the size of an aircraft shown in bright daylight moving at speed .

Of course I can't do that. But you also cannot show me another example of 767's flying at 700 ft. altitude in Manhattan.

If this was military top secret technology used specifically for this event do you really think we would see it displayed commonly these days? No. Too many people would catch on.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

2 examples the North & South Tower, usual get out clause used by people like you secret military tech change the record please.

No regular flight would fly like that but a few years back a military plane crashed into the Empire State building so check that out.

a reply to: searcherfortruth

Empire State Building 1945 when B 25 bomber lost in fog smashed into building

www.youtube.com...

So tell us how plane would just bounce off building

Empire State Building exterior shell is made of cut limestone 11 inches thick

B 25 was traveling at fairly low speed - 767 hit buildings at about 500 mph

Energy is derived from SQUARE of velocity, Double it and energy goes up 4 X