The Hologram Theory is dead

All of the relatives’ wrongful death criminal lawsuits against the airlines and their security companies have been consolidated by the presiding judge into a negligence lawsuit, which is a civil case and much less likely to be argued or investigated in an open trial with a jury. The 9-11 wrongful death and personal injury cases against American Air Lines (AA) or UAL or any of the foreign security companies, namely Argenbright Security (British), Globe Aviation Services Corp. (Swedish) and Huntleigh USA Corp. (Israeli) are being handled by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York.

Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband Neil on United Air Lines (UAL) Flight 175, filed the first 9-11 wrongful death lawsuit against UAL on Dec. 20, 2001. Mariani was interviewed on national television in May 2002 by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, who repeatedly questioned her about why she had chosen to pursue litigation instead of accepting the government fund

link:www.americanfreepress.net... Wrongful death lawsuits against the airlines by people lost ON the flights. There you go... takes 30 sec and google to find this stuff. So now we know why no NTSB reports, and yes there were lawsuits filed by families for people on the aircraft that crashed.
Sorry Wizzard... =)


[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
John Lear is correct. Only the families of occupants in the targeted buildings are suing (the airline industry). None of the cases being litigated are pertaining to passengers of 9-11 flights.

No source, no research, more of the same. This is an outright lie. Numerous family members of passengers and employees have sued. Source Five seconds on Google yielded many more of these, but this should suffice.

Are you purposely trying to mislead people, or did you honestly not know?

Edit to say: You beat me! This is a bunch of bull....
Edit to reflect the rule: i before e...

[edit on 16-10-2007 by InnocentBystander]

[edit on 16-10-2007 by InnocentBystander]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by johnlear
As you probably know there has never been any insurance claims against either United Airlines or American Airlines in the alleged 911 crashes which is very suspicious.

John Lear is correct. Only the families of occupants in the targeted buildings are suing (the airline industry). None of the cases being litigated are pertaining to passengers of 9-11 flights.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/16/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Wizard, why are you defending Mr. Lear; he does a very good job of sticking up for himself.

I especially question why you are defending him when you are adding to what he said by inserting the line about passengers in the 9/11 lawsuits.

Mr. Lear made a very specific quote: "there has never been any insurance claims against either United Airlines or American Airlines in the alleged 911 crashes"

In 30 seconds I found evidence that he is incorrect.

If you want to dispute my source I will find other sources. But to add words to try and change what Mr. Lear stated makes me question why you are sticking up for Mr. Lear by changing his statement.

reply to post by InnocentBystander

But it only took you five seconds.. took me thirty... doesn't matter, just getting the point across that John is incorrect on some of his reasoning and facts =)


[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by jfj123
If you have evidence to suggest it is a hologram, please prove it. Remember, it is not enough to debunk a plane, you must first debunk the plane then prove a hologram is possible technologically.

Of course I can’t prove the presence of a hologram (on 9-11), but I can present testimony.

I’ve admitted what might be evidence, the observations of live witnesses such as fellow ATS member WASTYT. I am being forced into entertaining the conclusion — that the planes were holographically projected — because I know of no other alternative scenarios (theoretically conceivable ones) to interpret what people claim they saw.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by johnlear
As you probably know there has never been any insurance claims against either United Airlines or American Airlines in the alleged 911 crashes which is very suspicious.

John Lear is correct. Only the families of occupants in the targeted buildings are suing (the airline industry). None of the cases being litigated are pertaining to passengers of 9-11 flights.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/16/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Didn't those families receive huge payouts from the 9/11 fund? Could that have been why they decided not to ask for anything additional?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123
If you have evidence to suggest it is a hologram, please prove it. Remember, it is not enough to debunk a plane, you must first debunk the plane then prove a hologram is possible technologically.

Of course I can’t prove the presence of a hologram (on 9-11), but I can present testimony.

I’ve admitted what might be evidence, the observations of live witnesses such as fellow ATS member WASTYT. I am being forced into entertaining the conclusion — that the planes were holographically projected — because I know of no other alternative scenarios (theoretically conceivable ones) to interpret what people claim they saw.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Now I'm curious as to know why you would entertain a technological impossibility? If a hologram is simply not possible/feasible, then you drop the hologram theory regardless of whether or not you have another theory. Maybe there's a completely different reason that is actually realistic that people have not considered.

I will agree with wizard to a point. It depends on how you interpret the evidence. Everyone reasons differently. I see evidence of a 767, he sees evidence of a hologram. Wizard can't show the hologram emmiter any easier then I could show him the complete wreckage of the 767 that hit the WTC. I just happen to believe the evidence points towards a 767. He believes it points towards a hologram. Since niether of us can show the other 100% proof, kind of pointless to keep asking for it.

Originally posted by b309302
I will agree with wizard to a point. It depends on how you interpret the evidence. Everyone reasons differently. I see evidence of a 767, he sees evidence of a hologram. Wizard can't show the hologram emmiter any easier then I could show him the complete wreckage of the 767 that hit the WTC. I just happen to believe the evidence points towards a 767. He believes it points towards a hologram. Since niether of us can show the other 100% proof, kind of pointless to keep asking for it.

But you can show evidence of some plane wreckage but he cannot show any evidence proving a hologram. He can't even show that a hologram is possible. I think that is the difference in the 2 idea.

I do not believe holograms of that nature are impossible. Just improbable given our technology. I would consider it equally impossible that a plane that is known to be hijacked and heading for the pentagon was not shot down in the 30+ min they were tracking it when fighter jets were on stand by 5 min away. Yet it happened.

The point is... from his side... there was not enough wreckage to account for a large plane like a 767, and he is right.There wasn't, it may have melted or been ripped into pieces so small they can't be identified. His evidence is our lack of evidence. We have enough plane wreckage to say a plane hit it, but not enough to account for an entire 767. So the theory is this, if it looks like a 767, and sounds like a 767, but afterwards there is no 767... it was a hologram. Works both ways. If you try to see his side, then you understand. We want proof it was a hologram, no way to prove that. He wants proof it was a 767 since there was not nearly enough wreckage to account for one, no way to prove that.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Mr Wizard,

I appreciate your argument. There was wreckage found strewn about the area that came from aircraft. There's photographic evidence of this.

Here's a picture I borrowed from the internet. It will give somewhat of an idea of where I was. It even shows the towers so this makes for good reference. Although when the plane hit I was a bit more southwest of this location.



Either way though, it seems that we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by b309302
The point is... from his side... there was not enough wreckage to account for a large plane like a 767, and he is right.There wasn't, it may have melted or been ripped into pieces so small they can't be identified. His evidence is our lack of evidence. We have enough plane wreckage to say a plane hit it, but not enough to account for an entire 767. So the theory is this, if it looks like a 767, and sounds like a 767, but afterwards there is no 767... it was a hologram. Works both ways. If you try to see his side, then you understand. We want proof it was a hologram, no way to prove that. He wants proof it was a 767 since there was not nearly enough wreckage to account for one, no way to prove that.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

My point is that there was SOME wreckage which is evidence against the hologram theory. If you watch the YOUTUBE clip I linked to a few posts back, it will help people to understand what happened to the wreckage.

You can't prove a conspiracy like this wrong, I gave up trying. You can point out it's shortcomings, but you can never 100% prove it wrong. Just learn to agree to disagree. Once you get into top secret military projects, there is an infinite number of black projects that serve as excuses for any shortcoming the theory has... there is no way to ever prove it wrong. Unless you prove the topsecret technology does not exist. Since it's top secret you can't prove it doesn't exist. =) Trust me, you will never win. I agree with you, it wasn't a hologram... just trying to show you how they reason it was.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
You can't prove a conspiracy like this wrong, I gave up trying. You can point out it's shortcomings, but you can never 100% prove it wrong. Just learn to agree to disagree. Once you get into top secret military projects, there is an infinite number of black projects that serve as excuses for any shortcoming the theory has... there is no way to ever prove it wrong. Unless you prove the topsecret technology does not exist. Since it's top secret you can't prove it doesn't exist. =) Trust me, you will never win. I agree with you, it wasn't a hologram... just trying to show you how they reason it was.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

You are absolutely correct. They hide in double negatives so it's just an impossible situation. I do however at least try to get them to show proof, if they convey their thoughts as facts and not simply opinions.

You'll never get the proof. The proof it was a hologram is top secret remember? =) I've seen design patents on hologram emmiters shown as proof. It wouldn't surprise me the military experiments with holograms, but in this case the evidence that it was a real plane just far outweighs the evidence it was a hologram.

Whats the deal with the videos and pictures of the metal turning to dust? And whats the story with the ATF being at the site cleaning up the street the day after? Why so many questions if it was just as simple as two planes hitting a building? For many, its rediculous to think that these idiotic, ignorant so called "terrorists" would be able to high jack a huge jet with box cutters with no fighting from the crew or people on board (except for the ever so patriotic story of flight 93 but who knows if thats even true) then take the controls and pull rediculous maneuvers out of their %$%@# in such a precise manner that would cause such destruction and perfect demolition of the two tallest buildings in NY that were built to withstand hurricanes, tornados and probably earthquakes of a small magnitude. That scenario is so much more unbelievable than the hologram conspiracy coverup because we all know the govt, secret soceities, and corporate america have had their dirty little hands in so many hunny pots.....and this fact does not leave me in such disbelief when someone comes up with the hologram theory. Open your minds everyone, we know outlandish claims when we see them....and this one might seem outlandish but not as crazy as the "official story" which has so many holes in it it could win swiss cheeze of the year!! JOhn lear was a pilot i think he knows how difficult it would be to drop a jet from thousands of feet in the and fly it fullspeed perfectly into a skyscraper without hitting anything else.

Would he know? Has he done it before? No one has ever intentonally flown a plane into the WTC before. How do we know how hard it would be? Maybe it is a lot easier then we think. It's a guess. No one knows for sure how hard it would be. A plane hit the empire state building before on accident... how hard would it be to do it on purpose then? There is nothing unreasonable about a plane being hijacked. People have hijacked planes long before this. Well documented history of planes being hijacked. Why would the ATF be at the WTC...they investigate explosions. I wouldn't compare a hurricane to a 767 crashing in terms of force. I can board up my windows to protect my house form a hurricane, really isn't going to help if a 767 crashes into it now is it? No one says it all makes sense, but holograms make the least sense of all the theories. It's simple, there is plane wreckage everywhere... how does a holographic plane create real wreckage? Step one in the hologram theory should be to explain why there is real plane wreckage... if you can't get by step one the rest of the argument is kind of null and void in my opinion.





[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
The point is... from his side... there was not enough wreckage to account for a large plane like a 767, and he is right.There wasn't, it may have melted or been ripped into pieces so small they can't be identified. His evidence is our lack of evidence. We have enough plane wreckage to say a plane hit it, but not enough to account for an entire 767. So the theory is this, if it looks like a 767, and sounds like a 767, but afterwards there is no 767... it was a hologram. Works both ways.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

No, it does not work both ways. Your breakdown of the reasoning exposes the fatal flaw of the so-called logic. You describe the hologram conclusion as the direct result of judging that there was not enough plane wreckage. This is a false assumption based on lack of knowledge and understanding, i.e., ignorance.

It would be like me saying that I do not believe that a car can actually travel of 200 mpg, so therefore the race cars at the Indy 500 must be alien technology.

There is a direct relation to how educated/smart somebody is and their ability to understand and explain things. This is why people go to college and take things like physics classes. This is what prevents them from making comparisons between a 10 gram bullet traveling at 500 mpg and at 200 ton commercial airliner traveling at 500 mpg.

lol, i know all of this, i already said I agree with the fact a plane hit the WTC. I was just pointing out the arguments they use... didn't say I agree with them. Just showing the problem with asking for proof, they want proof of item A and you want proof of item B. No one can 100% prove anything. I already said it is far more likely and logical a plane hit the WTC =)

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]