Why planes were not used.

*IF* it was CGI you would see special effects pro's coming forward.

People who work with film would start seeing things.

This is a total distraction and it serves as disinformation.

Killtown

I don't know what theory you hold to, that is why I said *IF* you hold to the hologram theory.

The wings impressions are clearly seen in the WTC.

Now if you turn around and say perhaps the Plane was disguised as a 757, to me that is different, and really I wouldn't know either way.

What I am saying is that day, a real solid object hit the towers.

What part came out the other side? I have wondered that from the first time I saw that. At first it seemed like the front, but the sturdy engine part may have come through. Its conjecture, but we do see something coming through.

Originally posted by talisman
*IF* it was CGI you would see special effects pro's coming forward.

People who work with film would start seeing things.

Oh, so if they're not then it must not be true, right?

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by talisman
*IF* it was CGI you would see special effects pro's coming forward.

People who work with film would start seeing things.

Oh, so if they're not then it must not be true, right?

This is the kind of double negative reasoning you will find with Killtown.
Somehow, the lack of proof is proof onto itself in Killtown's mind.

People like him are not interested in the truth, rather they prefer to drill holes into the already established truth but inserting ridiculous no planer and hologram theories. A conspiracy kook is all that Killtown is, not a serious poster you should even bother with.

The wings impressions are clearly seen in the WTC.

You made a good point here Talisman.If indeed there were no planes that hit,how did they replicate the outline?

Dear Everybody:

Whether or not there were airplanes colliding with buildings on 9-11 is all a matter of physical science. In the case of puncturing the 14x14” quarter inch thick steel perimeter columns at the WTC’s it’s only a question of pressure (pounds per square inch). Kinetic energy (mass x velocity) is the wrong figure to be looking at.

A one pound soccer ball coming in at 20 miles per hour has the exact same kinetic energy as a one pound rock from a slingshot flying 20 mph also. But only one of the two objects is likely to kill you if it hits you in the head. And this still holds true even if the soccer ball gets kicked to a fast 40 mph with two times more kinetic energy than the stone.

What’s this story of a person falling flying through steel all about? It most certainly wasn’t structural material. Must have been a light gauge sheeting of sorts. But it is possible for soft objects to travel past hard substances. Water will cut steel if the pressure is high enough as in say 60,000 psi. Water at that pressure is moving at about 2,000 mph. Velocity (mph) of water = 8.3 x pressure (lbs/in2)^0.5 — for those of you which are science buffs.

But I purposely compared a nine millimeter bullet at 500 mph to the jet airplanes flying also at 500 mph. Both have the same speed, and I am almost certain that the bullet develops a greater psi upon impact than the aircraft being that it’s a denser object inherently designed to puncture. Again, please do not confuse pressure with kinetic energy. Of course the Boeing has more of that. But if a small object (bullet) won’t make a hole in steel at 500 mph than a big one won’t either.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wizard_In_The_Woods

Firstly there are clear impressions of wings in the Towers.

Secondly there was a survivor on the Floor of where the plane actually came in the South Tower. He saw the plane come right at him.

Stanley Praimnath of Elmont, Long Island.

" As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane
tore into the side of the building and exploded.

Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to
his shoulders.

He saw part of the flaming wing in the doorway of his department.


Nextly former Hockey player Garnet Edward (Ace) Bailey, who incidently played with Wayne Gretzky years ago, was on Flight 175.

So if he wasn't on the plane, where exactly did he go?



[edit on 8-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_WoodsAgain, please do not confuse pressure with kinetic energy. Of course the Boeing has more of that. But if a small object (bullet) won’t make a hole in steel at 500 mph than a big one won’t either.

Just be done with it so we can see how your theory is ridiculous. Just come out and say it: "The airplane should have bounced off like a rubber ball"

Originally posted by talisman
Wizard_In_The_Woods

Firstly there are clear impressions of wings in the Towers.

His belief appears to be that there was no plane and there was no imprint either. the whole thing, including the two holes in the buildings were all holograms.
You can hardly talk about basic logic with people who push such theories.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Nextly former Hockey player Garnet Edward (Ace) Bailey, who incidently played with Wayne Gretzky years ago, was on Flight 175.

So if he wasn't on the plane, where exactly did he go?

Garnet Edward Bailey never existed, the man was a hologram since day one.

Last I heard, he was in Bora Bora eating coconuts. He’s living happily off the hush money they wire-transferred to his social security account.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.

Into The Eye Of The Storm

Good Morning Everyone:
I have to first apologize for being snippy with PepeLapew. I had thought I had already addressed the Garnet Edward Bailey question. But I only did on another thread. So I'll repeat it here.

This link will throw you right into the eye of the no-planes discussion.
Why There Were No Planes At The WTC: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Social Security Death Index would seem to be a good indicator of how legitimate the passenger lists are. Trouble is, the composition of the list was ‘fluid’ from day one. The airlines themselves never, never directly released any ‘official’ lists. And they know why they didn’t. Their lawyers told them not to. So even now the SSDI data is changing for 9-11 passengers. Some are suddenly showing up, who weren’t there yet, say a year ago. But it’s really, really hard for me to fathom that someone might be ‘tampering’ with such sensitive info as life or death. So I'd rather accept it as one of those things which simply cannot be explained (why more 9-11 passengers are being listed as deceased as time goes by).

Why doesn't Bailey show up in the SSDI search engine? I find that somehow odd. If I enter any of my relatives' names they show up without delay. Not that it's pleasant to do this but test it yourself. Here I entered Garnet Edward Bailey's name and got nothing as of WED 02-May-2007 at 5:00 PM CSDT. Perhaps someone will 'fix' this soon? stevemorse.org...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

wizard

you know better then that. That is run by StephenMorse, take that up with him to make sure all his scripts are correct. Its absolutely ridiculous to rely on something like that.

My question remains, where is this Hockey player. I have seen the guy play in Maple Leaf gardens years ago.(when he was with boston)


You honestly believe he just went into hiding and received a bunch of cash??

[edit on 9-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

why yes , yes it is .
really , come on people , holograms ..............................please .
it's a sad self exsistance when you don't even believe your own eyes . sad

Originally posted by gen.disaray

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

why yes , yes it is .

really , come on people , holograms ..............................please .
it's a sad self exsistance when you don't even believe your own eyes . sad

Who currently believes holograms were used on 9/11? Sounds like you think a lot of people do.

Originally posted by Mikey84

Originally posted by Killtown

Oh, and care to answer my question of what that object is seen exiting the South Tower?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

Here ya go (look at the Diagram)

Sorry, Try again.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Mikey84]

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Mikey84]

That map does NOT indicate what the cylindrical object was. It shows only the three objects that fell to the ground. The object exiting the tower and queried by Killtown does not fall to the ground. Instead, it disappears within the kerosene fireball, presumably because it disintegrates.
Once again, what WAS this cylindrical object?

Originally posted by PepeLapew
But hey, here' what a simple Canadian goose can do when it impacts a carbon fiber nose cone:

Now, imagine that Canadian goose was 300,000 pounds instead of 5 pounds and imagine if it was traveling at 500 MPH.

If the goose does this to the plane, how can the plane do what the goose did to the World Trade Center? he he.

:0

People, you need to stop ridiculing someone for keeping an open mind to all possibilities. This is after all a conspiracy theory forum, there's bow to be unconventional understanding theories discussed.

Now for those of you who ridicules people because of what they think is a sad thing to witness on my part and i see some hypocrisy going on here.

Think about all the times people from outside of this forum ridicules people for thinking that 911 was an inside job.

To these people, 911 being an inside job is ridiculous as much as the hologram theory and results in insults when being discussed.

So let's not do the same mistake in here, please.

Here's a saying this thread inspired me to think of,

In the conspiracy world, there is no such thing as a ridiculous degree of theory.



[edit on 11-5-2007 by selfless]

selfless

Wiith 9/11 being an inside job or allowed to happen, has many things that support such a theory, namely circumstantial evidence.

As well, we can call out the OFFICIAL story on its ridiculous claims as well, as in example of the surviving passport that was found the day after in the rubble. That is open season, its ridiculous.

So on the one hand we can argue that is ridiculous, as many people even hologram supporters have argued, then why not the idea itself of a hologram?

We have to be consistent. The whole suspicion of 9/11 being an inside job or something that is similar is because most of us have seen some ridiculous claims by the Gov.

So it cuts both ways, just as the official story can be ridiculous so can certain ideas in the truth movement.

Next we can call out theories that are akin to 'hoaxes.' ATS has a strict policy for people who start hoaxes and I agree with that policy.

I don't know from where the CGI-CARTOON or HOLOGRAM theory got its start, but it has been de-bunked as have many bad hoaxes have.

It is a hoax and does more bad to the truth movement then good.

Who knows we might have people who have had loved ones actually Die in the that tragedy, and they might be reading this forum.

I think a lof of them have questions, but for people to suggest CGI cartoons or Holograms that isn't going to win anyone over.

But there are certain facts we have to remember.

#1. There was a true thing called OPERATION NORTHWOODS.

#2. Operation Gladio was secret for more then 40 years.

#3. The United States did do experiments on black men for a very long period of time, Clinton apologized for such behaviour in the "OFFICIAL GOV".


So we can see that Gov isn't always the 'angel' that some here think it is, and I think for that fact alone people should ask questions about 9/11.

Not coming up with things that are clearly 'out there' and designed to hurt the search for truth.

Now you might wonder how do we arrive at what is 'out there' and what is not.

By building the case 'brick by brick', by *TEARING DOWN* what is false, but building what is true and doing it in no un-certain terms.

I think we are all open to all kinds of things especially being on these forums, I certainly am.

But I am open to it if it has something truly that supports such, and if it doesn't at least a good argument for it.

Not only does the Hologram's not have anything that truly supports it, but it is a foolish argument.

We are left with wondering where the passengers truly are?

We are left wondering why on earth would someone not just use a real plane?

We are left wondering where this was experimented on, usually military tests things out, so where exactly were holograms going into buildings tested on?

You might have the technology but if it hasn't been properly tested, it won't work like you think. This sounds like it would need extensive testing.

So I think there is a rational case to be made for something being wrong with the official theory.

But I think that any theory such as holograms and the like are totally irrational.

At the end of the day the single greatest weakness of the 'hologram theory' is the fact then anyone can come by and saying 'anything'.

Example:

In the future you might have people saying that not only were the Planes holograms but the WTC itself was one!

They might argue that the WTC was dissolved at night by secret beams from space and the WTC that we saw was a recreated WTC.

Then they would argue that this would explain all the anomolies on that day.

It could lead to a never ending thing, theory after theory all designed to make truth searchers look insane.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by talisman]

My point was, what someone considers to be insane is subjective and a matter of opinion.

Don't you see, by ridiculing someone for considering a certain theory is no different then someone ridiculing you for believing 911 is an inside job.

I mean, surely it's possible to disagree with someone with out insulting or ridiculing him....

Let's not do our selves in.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by selfless]