Why planes were not used.

Well if it was anything other than a regular flight I think it was some type of a 'plane bomb' rather than a holograph, but if it were a plane bomb then it would either have to be swapped for the real flight, or the real flight was some how hoaxed.

What I mean by a plane bomb is a modified version of the same plane with reinforced sections, a warhead and/or a secondary payload of an explosives, giving it similar properties to a rocket.


If this is true then the organization is likely ruthless enough to destroy the original flight along with passengers perhaps by crashing it into the sea (on remote?).

The reasons for me thinking it was something other than a regular flight would be:

How the second flight passed straight through the building and out the other side,

the flash on impact,

the daredevil like maneuvers (suggesting remote or computational like accuracy),
the extraordinary small amount of physical wreckage left at all the crash sites,

Reports of secondary explosions,

reports of corrodite smell at pentagon,

crater at Shanksville

and the huge amounts of subject matter and controversy raised by such a small issue!

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Inannamute
There is no reflecting surface on 9/11 that would work for all viewing angles.

None.

Air doesn't reflect light unless there's a pretty large particle density - whether it's water or dust or whatever.. What it does is refract light. As in, bend it - thus why the sky is blue.

Let me start off by saying that I think the whole hologram theory is a crock. I think planes hit the buildings and terrorist flew them. Do I think the towers were brought down by planes? No.

anyway back to my point ... it is possible to refract laser light with other lasers. meaning that one could project one side of a plane with one laser, the other side with another laser, the bottom with another laser, and so on. It's possible for a hologram to be fully 3D and be projected in mid-air. This would require the most sophisticated laser light sequencing know to man to depict the events of 9/11, but it could be done.

With that said, personally I find the hologram theory utterly rediculous.

I know its ridicolous but check this Video out.
Without the plane make so much more sense.
It really looks like explosive were used instead of a plane.
That would explain why the fireball its evenly distributed also from where the tail is supposed to be.

selfless

My point is this. Most of us doubt the OFFICIAL THEORY because it is ridiculous. IF we abandoned the ability to call something *ridiculous* when it sounds *ridiculous* then we would have to also stop calling the official theory ridiculous!

That can never be. We must be able to draw upon our experience and logic and go forward trying to build our case 'factual brick by brick'.

So, just as much as the official theory is ludicrous, so is the hologram theory, so it the CGI theory.

I understand your point about not making it personal, however I think the nature of what happened and the tragedy, it does drum up peoples emotions.

When you dislike a theory i think it's more productive to not post in it rather then to insult and ridicule.

That's just me.

Originally posted by tyranny22

anyway back to my point ... it is possible to refract laser light with other lasers. meaning that one could project one side of a plane with one laser, the other side with another laser, the bottom with another laser, and so on. It's possible for a hologram to be fully 3D and be projected in mid-air. This would require the most sophisticated laser light sequencing know to man to depict the events of 9/11, but it could be done.

With that said, personally I find the hologram theory utterly rediculous.

Yeah, the only way I could think of doing it would be to have a 3d laser array.. however, they'd have, as I believe i said before, some dodgy viewing angles, not to mention you'd need them along the entire route of the plane, since otherwise your calculations would be incredibly complex..

Plus, I believe 3d laser shows are generally more along the lines of a fireworks display sort of thing - though I'd be happy to be proven wrong, what I have seen in the brief research I did showed me bright spots in darkened rooms..

If this were possible I'd be very impressed, though..

If someone could show me a projection of a realistic bouncing ball, a video of such, that was created by lasers in an outdoor setting and was not added in post-production, I'd believe this was vaguely possible.

Theoretically, producing an image of a bouncing ball should be much simpler than a plane - though, heh, you've also got to get the "apparent" reflections from natural light correct, too..


I've played about with 3d software before. Very complicated stuff.. it's getting more sophisticated all the time, but I still don't believe that it's good ENOUGH.. I can usually spot movie fakes a mile away - texture is wrong..

Originally posted by Inannamute ... I can usually spot movie fakes a mile away...

Dear Inannamute:

And you honestly think ANY of the 9-11 plane films look real?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

mathematics, eh?

Dear Inannamute:

And you honestly think ANY of the 9-11 plane films look real?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

This is the exact point, how many of those videos look real?
To me none of them they all have inconsistencies and you have at least to admit it.
They are all so weird none of them feels real, if it was only one of them, 2 of them , but all of them?
You basically for the same event have the weirdest stuff ever, a plane that looks different on almost every single shot, missing wings, color changing, different angles of approach, plane size, a few videos with no plane in sight, weird object coming out of the building (can we agree the nose cone cannot be the one of an airplane otherwise it would not have exploded?), the way it entered inside the building, the way it exploded, shots that look photoshopped, the zooming an almost every single one of them.
Might have been a missle camuflaged, might have been an hologram but I am having a hard time thinking that a plane could react the way it did on 911.
Real a hard time.
And why after so many years the media basically do not show us anymore the plane hitting the towers?
Why do they show us the collapse after it started it?
Why?

piacenza

There is nothing wrong with the video's and there is nothing wrong with the footage. There are hundreds if not thousands of people who have worked for company's like Industrial Light and Magic and they would notice something if there was something wrong right away.

You don't do effects, you don't do film and you don't know what would be involved if such a thing were to be done. There are just too many angles, to assume a blue screen on a shot of smoking billowing uncontrollable. That is ludicrous, that would be extremely difficult to do.

Next the different angles and lighting plus ontop of that regular people who took film that day.

Practically everything that is shown on the internet concerning this is either of---

VERY POOR QUALITY or DOCTORED to mislead people. It is really that simple.

Your listening to people who are 'disinformation specialists' and you are buying into their bag of tricks.

Sit down with a real film expert, with someone who really works with special effects, someone who really knows there stuff.

Then take what you have and ask them. Sit down with them. Don't argue this on the net.

Sit down with someone who really knows what they are talking about and you quickly see what this is all about.

If you can't find any film or special effects people, then read up on it. Head over to the library and study the topic.

Also study Illusions and Filming etc.

You will be surprised what odd angles can do.

I will give you a quick example, take hockey. Depending on the angle at times it looks as if the PUCK might have crossed the red line and entered the NET.

Because of this problem of *VIEWING ANGLES*

So do you wanna know why they stuck the camera in the hockey net??

Because on film and in person THE ANGLE WAS SO DECEPTIVE no-one could tell anything.

That is the reason a camera was stuck in the NET!

So again, sit down with experts and or go to the library and learn about optical illusions, lighting illusions with reflective ones and about film special effects.

That is the answer to that.

There were no holograms, CGI and or anything else of that type that was used on 9/11.


It was a real event, real planes were used and real people died.

EVEN *IF* there were NO PLANE, or CGI cartoon effects were used.


*IF* that were true. How is that going to change anyhing? Hardly anyone is going to believe that.

And really it doesn't do anything. What does something is finding evidence that rational people will accept and proving that there is indeed a cover-up.

Hologram theories is a product of people who are smart enough to make all of us look nuts.


[edit on 14-5-2007 by talisman]

[edit on 14-5-2007 by talisman]

So how do you guys explain me seeing the Planes with my own eyes? I was in NYC at the time and seen the Planes with my own eyes.

How did they trick that?


Mikey


[edit on 14-5-2007 by Mikey84]

Originally posted by Mikey84
So how do you guys explain me seeing the Planes with my own eyes? I was in NYC at the time and seen the Planes with my own eyes.

How did they trick that?


Mikey

you are merely text on a screen.

"i was there, too, and i didn't see the planes. there were no planes" easy to do with a computer keyboard.

in truth, my dad WAS there, too. he said he saw it.

that's why holograms are discussed. you know what a hologram is, right?

i don't know if anyone else thought of this, but there is also the possibility of 'direct input' of sensory data to the brains of all onlookers. there is a patent out there that shows how to do this with sound. ie. 'they' can make you hear voices in your head, and you think it's aither your own voice, or the voice of god or donald duck or whatever.

mind control patents are real.

i've been watching all kinds of aviation shots on youtube, and something very common in 911 footage is not found on these videos. and that is the phenomena of disappearing wings. it has been posited that these are digital artifacts, yet they appear in almost(or every) video of the impact.
another thing i noticed, is that on a blue sky day, white or silver planes look white or silver. they do not look like black blobs with wings that wink in and out of existence.

the question, 'why?' be so complicated, when it's easier just to use real planes.

this question does not need to be answered by people who are noticing anomalies in video footage.

in the youtube clip with the math analysis i linked to above, the plane is not where it should be. the plane was reportedly going 500 mph when it hit. the top speed of these planes is not much higher than that at 1000 ft. above sea level, i figger, so the idea that it was slowing down is a rather weak premise.

Originally posted by Mikey84
So how do you guys explain me seeing the Planes with my own eyes? I was in NYC at the time and seen the Planes with my own eyes.

How did they trick that?

People keep saying planes but never say what kind they were. Even with all the witnesses at the Pentagon they could not agree on what type of plane it was. Some even admitted they did not know what type of plane it was they were told later it was 757.

Originally posted by billybob
i've been watching all kinds of aviation shots on youtube, and something very common in 911 footage is not found on these videos. and that is the phenomena of disappearing wings. it has been posited that these are digital artifacts, yet they appear in almost(or every) video of the impact.

Could you post this video on here please?

follow the related stuff, and you're good for hours of flying.

Hmm well i thought maybe the videos would be like 1 minute or something... i don't have highspeed and well long videos take long to load and i usually do that over night.

Edit: ok they are not that long but i was hoping to see the videos of the wings disappearing that you spoke of from 911.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

People keep saying planes but never say what kind they were. Even with all the witnesses at the Pentagon they could not agree on what type of plane it was.

The second one was clearly a United Airlines, all the footage shows this too

The fact that I seen it with my own eyes, proves to me that Planes hit the towers.

The fact that the footage of the 2nd plane is clearly a United Airlines, proves to me that it was United.

I am still yet to see ANYTHING at all that puts doubt on this.


Mikey

I am sorry guys but I still think that none of those videos are fine.
They are just weird and I mean I how come there is not one I mean one video that shows a commercial plane?

Originally posted by piacenza
I know its ridicolous but check this Video out.
Without the plane make so much more sense.
It really looks like explosive were used instead of a plane.
That would explain why the fireball its evenly distributed also from where the tail is supposed to be.

Dude, that video was doctored. Here is a video in a section that shows that actually video that includes the plane in the same footage, you have to wait though as it plays other footages of the 2nd plane crashing into South Tower.



Its about 45 seconds into the video that you see the ACTUAL footage.

I know perfectly it was doctored I was simply saying how it looks so much more real without a plane.
thank you anyway.