The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by b309302

Alligations, and heresay aren't going to hold much water when your comparing it to first hand accounts from offical investigators who say a plane hit the WTC. That whole prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt thing... isn't going to happen unless he flys into court on a holographic airplane. The companies don't have to prove their case, the government already did that for them. Sorry John, just can't back you on this one... =)

Thanks for the post b309302. It's painfully clear that you didn't read one single word of the Quit Am Complaint. Not one word. Its 27 pages long and contains a lot of information. I would comment on it for you but as you don't even know what the suit is about I think I would be wasting my time.

But thanks for the post, your input is always appreciated.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by b309302

Alligations, and heresay aren't going to hold much water when your comparing it to first hand accounts from offical investigators who say a plane hit the WTC. That whole prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt thing... isn't going to happen unless he flys into court on a holographic airplane. The companies don't have to prove their case, the government already did that for them. Sorry John, just can't back you on this one... =)

Thanks for the post b309302. It's painfully clear that you didn't read one single word of the Quit Am Complaint. Not one word. Its 27 pages long and contains a lot of information. I would comment on it for you but as you don't even know what the suit is about I think I would be wasting my time.

But thanks for the post, your input is always appreciated.

OK so you feel no responsibility to personally back up your ideas? Since you're making these wild claims, why not actually go that extra step and respond to peoples questions without posting a 27 page lawsuit that may or may not have any validity. Remember this is the United States where anyone can sue anyone else for anything they like.
Did you bring up an idea that the 9/11 planes were holograms? If you did, why not show the proof?? Please don't say the proof is in the 27 page lawsuit because nobody but a retired person or someone who is being PAID, will have time to sift through it. Sorry but true.
So I ask again. PROVE the planes were holograms if that is indeed what you believe.

reply to post by jfj123

It's a good observation. Here is a video link that shows the physics of what happened.

I forgot to add the link for the modelling you provided.In this simulation it shows debri exiting the building ( NIST says there was no exit debris).

How would one explain this picture then?A fully intact nose of an aircraft survived all of that concrete,glass,steel,furniture,bodies etc.
I'm used to not getting arguements for my comments and that's fine.



Someone please explain how an aircraft went through all of this and came out looking like this....







I'm curious what this white object is.




Someone mentioned glass and concrete.This looks like a whole lot of steel to me.




I'm not siding with plane versus no planes, I'm saying that things aren't right with the official story.

Some people mentioned CGI.Perhaps those folks can explain this photo.It doesn't matter who faked it, it's still fake(to some and not others) and obviously easy to do.
This is an alleged fly by of the hit on WTC2.




If people think that their government aren't capable of any heinous crimes maybe you should read this.........



I don't like the term "truthers" since all of us want the truth.I can't use "skeptics" either since both sides are skeptical of the opposing view.
All I see is a lot of pigeon holing on both sides and we shall never know the real facts unless "We the People" DEMAND it.

I'm still looking at holographic technology but I haven't found anything that confirms or denies the existence of such technology, other than ones in fashion shows or car shows.
Thanks for listening.

Edit for typo

[edit on 17-10-2007 by citizen truth]

Originally posted by jfj123 and directed at John Lear
Did you bring up an idea that the 9/11 planes were holograms? If you did, why not show the proof?? Please don't say the proof is in the 27 page lawsuit because nobody but a retired person or someone who is being PAID, will have time to sift through it. Sorry but true.
So I ask again. PROVE the planes were holograms if that is indeed what you believe.

Go ahead, gripe but I’m chiming in again!

The Qui Tam Lawsuit (QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND) is not about holograms, it’s about no-planes. Although the two issues are related they still are different. The case is actually 34 pages long and very easy to read, at least I think so. It was filed on 11-Jul-2007.

Summary excerpt from Morgan Reynolds’ homepage:

“Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents "the government" declined to intervene in the case. The suit, a so-called qui tam case, alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus, impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared.”

That wasn’t so hard to read now, was it?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123 and directed at John Lear
Did you bring up an idea that the 9/11 planes were holograms? If you did, why not show the proof?? Please don't say the proof is in the 27 page lawsuit because nobody but a retired person or someone who is being PAID, will have time to sift through it. Sorry but true.
So I ask again. PROVE the planes were holograms if that is indeed what you believe.

Go ahead, gripe but I’m chiming in again!

The Qui Tam Lawsuit (QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND) is not about holograms, it’s about no-planes. Although the two issues are related they still are different. The case is actually 34 pages long and very easy to read, at least I think so. It was filed on 11-Jul-2007.

Summary excerpt from Morgan Reynolds’ homepage:

“Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents "the government" declined to intervene in the case. The suit, a so-called qui tam case, alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus, impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared.”

That wasn’t so hard to read now, was it?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So where did it say they believe there was no aircraft? You mentioned that the contractors made stuff up, possibly to get out of doing work ??? Government contractors overcharging and under producing is the norm unfortunately.

Thanks for the overview, I appreciate it

Originally posted by jfj123

Remember this is the United States where anyone can sue anyone else for anything they like.

Thanks for the post jfj123. Let me respectfully suggest that you are not reading my posts. If you had you would know that your statement "where anyone can sue anyone else for anything they like" is wrong.

This statement is not true and it is prevented by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules For Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts (amendments received to February 10, 2006) which I explained in detail in my previous post.

Now the United State District Court did not dismiss the complaint as frivlous, and they obviously find ample evidence supporting the theory that no planes hit the towers and that directed energy weapons were used for the towers' destruction. Thats the United States Distrcit Court for the Southern district of New York.

However in your case, you are making challenges of spurious allegations and you don't even know what the suit is about.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are going to debate an issue that you find as much about the issue as you possibly can. To complain that only a retired person or person who was getting paid for it has time to sift through a 27 page document is just downright lazy. What would it take...30 minutes?

Now if I am going to debate an issue, for instance the Quit Am Complaint, I print it out, set aside some time to read it, turn off the phones, shut the door and really concentrate. I use a yellow and orange highliter for the important points and a black and blue felt tip pens for underlining. I make notes in the margins for areas that need further research.

Here is an example of my research on the Complaint (page 14 of 27 pages):




So the point of all this is if you are going to challenge me jfj123 let me respectfully suggest that you need to have done your homework and your ammo should be dry.

Thanks for the post it is truly apprecaited.

Originally posted by jfj123

So where did it say they believe there was no aircraft? You mentioned that the contractors made stuff up, possibly to get out of doing work ??? Government contractors overcharging and under producing is the norm unfortunately.

That (paragraph) IS SAYING that there were no aircraft, abeit in an indirect way.

The suit claims that NIST contractors ripped off our country’s government (which belongs to us) by willfully producing phony and fake analyses of things that never happened, i.e. Boeing aircraft flying into WTC 1 and 2.

Hope that helps. Legalese is a tricky language.
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Thanks for the post jfj123. Let me respectfully suggest that you are not reading my posts. If you had you would know that your statement "where anyone can sue anyone else for anything they like" is wrong.

Actually, it's not wrong. There are frivolous lawsuits all the time that we all have heard about. I myself was involved in a frivolous lawsuit so YES you can sue anyone for about anything. Doesn't mean you will win or that the suite won't be dismissed eventually, but yes you can sue for just about anything.

Now the United State District Court did not dismiss the complaint as frivlous, and they obviously find ample evidence supporting the theory that no planes hit the towers and that directed energy weapons were used for the towers' destruction. Thats the United States Distrcit Court for the Southern district of New York.

However in your case, you are making challenges of spurious allegations and you don't even know what the suit is about.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are going to debate an issue that you find as much about the issue as you possibly can. To complain that only a retired person or person who was getting paid for it has time to sift through a 27 page document is just downright lazy. What would it take...30 minutes?

PLEASE... Must I actually respond to this????

Now if I am going to debate an issue, for instance the Quit Am Complaint, I print it out, set aside some time to read it, turn off the phones, shut the door and really concentrate. I use a yellow and orange highliter for the important points and a black and blue felt tip pens for underlining. I make notes in the margins for areas that need further research.

Here is an example of my research on the Complaint (page 14 of 27 pages):

So what you posted was a complaint. How did the suit end? Who won?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123

So where did it say they believe there was no aircraft? You mentioned that the contractors made stuff up, possibly to get out of doing work ??? Government contractors overcharging and under producing is the norm unfortunately.

That (paragraph) IS SAYING that there were no aircraft, abeit in an indirect way.

The suit claims that NIST contractors ripped off our country’s government (which belongs to us) by willfully producing phony and fake analyses of things that never happened, i.e. Boeing aircraft flying into WTC 1 and 2.

Hope that helps. Legalese is a tricky language.
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Actually, legal documents are very specific items that are not designed for us to read between the lines. Please show me where it says there were no planes. Thanks for the follow up.

Originally posted by jfj123

So what you posted was a complaint. How did the suit end? Who won?

Are you kidding? How old are you anyway?

Thanks for the post.

Also, I am still waiting for proof of the whole hologram idea. I'd appreciate a response.

Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jfj123

So what you posted was a complaint. How did the suit end? Who won?

Are you kidding? How old are you anyway?

Thanks for the post.

Nope, I'm not kidding. Please simply answer the question. How did the suit end??? Thanks.

Originally posted by citizen truth
( NIST says there was no exit debris).

How would one explain this picture then?A fully intact nose of an aircraft survived all of that concrete,glass,steel,furniture,bodies etc.

Someone please explain how an aircraft went through all of this and came out looking like this....

What you're seeing is believed to be the engine/core colum, not the nose of the plane. The engine was found blocks away, and there are numerous explanations as to the path it fell to get there. Please provide proof as to your claim that the NIST said no debris exited the towers, I have not heard that before.

Originally posted by citizen truth



How would one explain this picture then?A fully intact nose of an aircraft survived all of that concrete,glass,steel,furniture,bodies etc.
I'm used to not getting arguements for my comments and that's fine.

Three things:

First, when you look at the internal structure of WTC2 it is apparent that whatever came out the other side did not hit the inner core columns.

Second, based on where the plane entered on the south face, and on the fact that an engine was recovered in almost a direct line from the object emerging from WTC2, it is likely that what the photo shows is the right engine, pushing debris in front of it.

I forget how much the engine weighs, but I would suggest that the engine had substantial mass traveling at 500 mph. This would be more than sufficient to plow through interior walls of WTC2.

Finally, if it was a hologram that people saw, how could the hologram cast a shadow across the face of the WTC when it emerged from the building?

In summary, everything about this photo is consistent with a plane hitting WTC2, and corroborates the evidence found at the site, i.e., the engine.

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, legal documents are very specific items that are not designed for us to read between the lines. Please show me where it says there were no planes. Thanks for the follow up.

Me too, I wanna also know how ‘old’ you are! Who, what am I talking to???

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

You see how we all get bogged down in this. An argument that leads us no where closer to the truth.

Thanks holograms.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, legal documents are very specific items that are not designed for us to read between the lines. Please show me where it says there were no planes. Thanks for the follow up.

Me too, I wanna also know how ‘old’ you are! Who, what am I talking to???

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So is Wizard in the Woods, a second screen name for John Lear or you simply his lap dog?

It's amusing that both of you try to belittle anyone that disagrees with you or asks you to simply PROVE something for once.

If someone is going to state something as a fact, I expect them to prove it. If you want to express your opinion, please tell us it is an opinion. If we aren't going to have any standards here, lets just call ATS the new fiction site and get it over with.

Originally posted by citizen truth

[edit on 17-10-2007 by citizen truth]

Are these captures from a video? If so, could you provide a link to that video? Thanks.

edit-to remove a picture.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]

[edit on 17-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by robert z

Originally posted by smilodon

Your theory is scaring readers, because it doesn't just propose a terrorist event was staged, it actually opens up the possibility that the world as we know it, REALITY is staged.

What is scaring readers is that theories like the hologram theory are nothing but fodder to make the truthers look like complete tin foil hat wearing idiots. Then, when legitimate evidence is brought into question, it will be dismissed as coming from the same nutjobs that said there were no planes.

robert z,

Your post at least is evidence that different readers are scared by different things! My comment on John Lear's Hologram Theory IS valid: If one is to contemplate the enormity of a staged 9/11, effectively mass murder by a secret U.S. agency on its own citizens, and foreign nationals, all of reality becomes suspect. What else is faked? As a hypothesis, is that a scary thought or what!

Your fears too are real, but of another order. If mr. Lear is wrong, those serious truth-seekers discussing him may look like idiots, and be dismissed by some as nutters, based on mere association. (With the hologram subject.)

But that is the risk of any wideranging debate. Look into any and all alternative explanations for this 9/11 event, and in the end some will be proven wrong. That's a risk a thorough researcher must take, in order to get at the truth.

smilodon

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
You see how we all get bogged down in this. An argument that leads us no where closer to the truth.

Thanks holograms.

Yes I do. This is the big problem with the whole 9/11 truth movement. There are so many conspiracies and many conflict with others so if something questionable, really does come up, it gets drowned out by Top Secret directed energy weapons that everyone knows about, or holograms, or purple wombats, etc...

I think one way to weed out all this extraneous garbage is, prove what you say or state it as an opinion so we can give the idea proper weight and move on.

This is an example of how NOT to prove something:
-Can you please provide evidence of your statement?
-Well if you don't get it you never will so I can't help you.
-But you never provided proof so there is nothing to get.
-Are you kidding me?
ETC...