The Hologram Theory is dead

Scrap, to answer your latest question re: numbers from crash debris. No, I haven't done that research. Have you? Really, if you can tell me where to start the research, I'd be happy to do it, along with you. I'm not teasing, just saying I haven't determined that research necessary.

My opinion, based on my Airline experience is, hijackings and terrorism. THAT'S my opinion...I will, however, politely examine info from anyone who dissents. I always have an open mind...

I invited ridicule when I mentioned that I'm open to the concept of ET contact since the 1940s...and the DEEP Gov't cover-up that continues...

BUT I cannot wrap my mind around a 'fake' 9/11/2001. NOT then...but ANOTHER 'False FLag OP?'?? Given what I know about this administration, I'm afraid to say it's likely.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks WeedWhacker,

Edit - got it, thanks!!
scrap

[edit on 19-10-2007 by scrapple]

Photon is gone, but I'll write anyway.

Photon's last post indicated he didn't read what I wrote...the sturcture of the Pentagon is NOT THE SAME as the sturcture of the WTC Towers!


A 757 flew close to the ground (my friend in his apartment on Columbia Pike saw the airplane go by his balcony that morning). Look at a map of Arlington, VA. Look for a road called 'Columbia Pike'. AA175 was aimed at the Pentagon. A light pole was struck by the wing, microseconds before the main impact into the building. IT WAS NOT a missile! I knew the FIrst Officer on AA 77. He is dead.

I lived 2.6km away from the Pentagon...I felt the floors collapse...not the impact, the floors collapse. This at about 0956 EDT. Don't hold me to that time, I jsut know it was near 10AM. My neighbor ran out of his house and said we should evacuate. I talked him out of THAT...'cuz I'd been watching TV and knew that panic was the last thing we needed...

wish I knew how to edit, I'd correct my typos...



[edit on 19-10-2007 by weedwhacker]

meant to write ....

[edit on 19-10-2007 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 19-10-2007 by weedwhacker]

Oh my....I MEANT to write...........

Did it work this time?

[edit on 19-10-2007 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by robert z

What opinion of UFO technology would you like? I saw Transformers with my kids the other days and thought it was one of the best movies I ever saw. Does that count?

Sure it does. Thanks

This is what I am trying to get at,

You do seem pretty adamant in your exclusion of the ‘possibility’ of adequate conspiracy hologram technology on 9/11.

And, I assume you would agree that there is some sort of UFO phenomena which people report in our skies on a pretty regular basis?

So from your position does misperception and fakery explain each and every one of these reported cases – every one - up to 9/11?

I think it kind of has to, because the possibility of beliveable UFO holograms is out of the question for you.

This iwould be a reasonable but bold assessment - all UFO’s up to 9/11 were misperception or fakery – considering this website.

That is unless, just possibly, you may be willing to concede that one and only one UFO in the history of human reporting, was an actual and much advanced flying craft? (its owners being irrelevant )

My point may not prove holograms on 9/11 but 'maybe' only uses your postion to help support the possibility of transformers?


[edit on 19-10-2007 by scrapple]

reply to post by weedwhacker


WeedWhacker

If you havent already check this site

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

The site and its people seem solid. (here come the attacks)

I do warn you in advance that from the little you have wrote you may not like its conclusions - but take a look if you have not already and hit me with some feedback. I am not a pilot myself but I like to hear the pro's opinions

-scrap

Well, Scrapple...

You seem to be getting very close to the truth. Meaning, there are layers and layers of info, and dis-info, out here.

I'm afraid the Administrator may object to my comments, but here goes --

Occam's Razor as applies to Terrorist attacks on 9/11? Obvious.

Deeper truths to be discovered re: Our (Humanity's) position in the Universe? Still to be determined...

Originally posted by Clownshoes
Hi, I'm new here and I've been reading through some of this thread.

I keep seeing this question, "How could it be done and how could the explosives be put off to the milliesecond? How could you make a plane shaped hole?"

An even more important question is, how do you get explosives to impload? That is what would need to happen for the hologram idea to even start to be valid.

you pre plan the entire movie in autocad, plan the placement of your projectors with redundent backups. You know the impact point to the millimeter on the wall of the building and wich floor so all you need to do is bring in a video projector with the outline of a plane into the buildings inside and project it onto the inner wall to mark and line the projection with shaped plastique charges to blow the holes.

But you would need to put the plastic explosives on the OUTSIDE of the building to make it blow inward OR make an explosive that imploads.


Looks as if you put a lot of thought into it. I appreciate your time spent. Now this leads to a question I have had but never has been answered by the holo-boys. WHY? Even if we had the technology, why would we do it? Why not just load the luggage compartment of a real 767, with explosives and do it for real????
Remember, a hologram is not real so anything could travel through the hologram mid-flight or go through the hologram as it's entering the buildings and ruin the entire OP. Birds hit planes in flight. Debris could fall off the building and pass through the hologram, etc.... Sounds like a huge risk with such an advanced technology that is so SUPER SECRET, nothing even close to it has even been heard about.

Originally posted by citizen truth
reply to post by jfj123

 

Just to play devils advocate, if that was indeed a military aircraft painted to look EXACTLY like a 767, then who painted it? Thats a pretty big job. That adds a lot more potatoes to the stew, so to speak. The conspiracy of silence is getting bigger and bigger.

That's fair enough.I can play Devil's advocate as well.Couldn't this plane have been painted up under the guise of military exercises....war games etc?You know, make it more realistic.
I'm sure there is a bone yard of decommissioned planes at the disposal of the U.S. military.

Sure, but wouldn't it seem odd to the ground crew, mechanics, fueling crew, etc. that a decommissioned plane was repainted to look EXACTLY like a 767 then wait a 767 hit a building? 2+2 = ??????

Originally posted by scrapple
reply to post by jfj123

 

“Are you saying that if realistic holograms aren't real, then UFO's aren't real?”

The words Id use instead are ‘possible in a physics sense’ as opposed to ‘real’
- but yep that’s what I am saying,

Are you also assuming UFO's in this case are made by the US government? If so, for what reason are you saying they are being made?

Also, how do you link UFO technology with HOLO technology?

Originally posted by scrapple
reply to post by robert z

 

Come on Robert Z,

I thought my flying screen answer for your previous ‘what type of screen was used’ post was pretty decent?

Are you willing to go on record stating that 911 (real enough) hologram technology did not exist on that day? Just curious or are you only a sniper?

And if you would or could give your opinion on the ‘possibility’ of UFO technology on 9/11?

Thanks
Scrap

There is a COMPLETE lack of evidence that there is any type of hologram technology advanced enough to pull this off. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. I am a tech head and find advanced tech. fascinating

I generally ignore 9/11 forums, and for one primary reason. I think a bunch of terrorists flew some planes into buildings, killing a bunch of people and destroying two very large structures.

I can't get around this question.....If the government has some complicity in this....why the complexity? I don't have a lot of confidence in our government for much at all.....but I do acknowledge there are some bright people involved at all levels. In all of the planning, no one pointed out how simple it would be to have two dumbasses tote really big bombs up 100 stories and detonate them? You could still blame radical terrorists.....and come in way under budget.

Peel all of the useless stuff away from the argument.....Why the complexity? What function does all of the complexity suggested here perform? Absolutely none. Doesn't add to the effect, certainly doesn't improve the chances for success, and finally, dramatically increases the chances of leaks.

Stop looking at the results and trying to determine methods, goals, and motives. Look at the motives and goals and use your intellect to project methods. It really simplifies things.

Originally posted by scrapple

So from your position does misperception and fakery explain each and every one of these reported cases – every one - up to 9/11?

No, of course not.

I think it kind of has to, because the possibility of beliveable UFO holograms is out of the question for you.

This is really convoluted logic. People witnessing planes flying into and damaging the WTCs has nothing to do with people seeing UFOs.

This iwould be a reasonable but bold assessment - all UFO’s up to 9/11 were misperception or fakery – considering this website.

No, if you follow the logic, the conclusion would be the exact opposite. Maybe all the UFOs were real aircraft.

That is unless, just possibly, you may be willing to concede that one and only one UFO in the history of human reporting, was an actual and much advanced flying craft? (its owners being irrelevant

)

Sure. Maybe UFOs are time travelers. Maybe the aliens are really angels or demons. Maybe we are all living in the Matrix and 9/11 never happened.

Like I said in my previous post, when a theory requires the existence of UFOs to even be discussed, then the theory is pretty much dead in the water.

With all due respect to the title of this thread "The Hologram Theory is dead" this thread now has 18 pages, 354 posts and 7,600 views.

I think its safe to say that either the theory is a zombie or its still alive. But I repeat myself.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed-

I didn't get a chance to read your last post before posting mine about the Pentagon. I guess my attempt to make a point came across a little strongly about what actually occurred there and in Shanksville. I believe what you say about what happened in DC.

To me though, the Pentagon and the Shanksville crash have more questions that need answering than the WTC crashes.

Originally posted by johnlear
With all due respect to the title of this thread "The Hologram Theory is dead" this thread now has 18 pages, 354 posts and 7,600 views.

Excellent, now everyone can see that the theory lacks any actual evidence whatsoever. Thank god, because in my opinion this is really making the entire movement look bad. It's one thing to keep an open mind, it's another to throw around wild theories with no basis in reality. Maybe this will stop people from profiting off of this tragedy through exploitation and sensationalism.

Thanks for your post, your input is greatly appreciated.

Scrapple, I've got to be honest. What you're saying just doesn't make sense to me, and it sounds like I'm not alone. Maybe it just went over my head, but either way I think the point is moot. Instead of rehashing the same point over and over, tell me this: Do you have any information that suggests the object in question was anything other than a jet?

reply to post by johnlear


Isn't that weird John? How some of the goofiest threads and their content just keep going on and on? I find that really interesting too.

Originally posted by johnlear
With all due respect to the title of this thread "The Hologram Theory is dead" this thread now has 18 pages, 354 posts and 7,600 views.

I think its safe to say that either the theory is a zombie or its still alive. But I repeat myself.

With all due respect, John, there is still a flat earth society that holds regular meetings. But that does not mean that the earth is flat. Or is this one of the things you believe too? If so, I apologize in advance. I meant no disrespect.