The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by robert z
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.

I bet there are a lot of people that beleive the official 9/11 story that are at those flat earth socirty meetings.

I mean if they can still believe the official story i am sure they can still believe the earth is flat.

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.

No, it is indeed dead. The problem is there are a few people who refuse to let the dead rest. You know those people who state things as facts but NEVER provide actual evidence

Originally posted by jfj123 You know those people who state things as facts but NEVER provide actual evidence

Oh you mean the people who believe the official story ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 You know those people who state things as facts but NEVER provide actual evidence

Oh you mean the people who believe the official story ?

OK, there is a huge difference between believing the official story and believing that giant holograms were responsible for 9/11. Don't assume to know other people's beleifs just because they don't buy yours.

If you have any evidence whatsoever to corroborate the No Plane business, then present it. The evidence for planes is: 47 home videos, 5 live news broadcasts, tens of thousands of New Yorkers who watched it first hand, the cartoon cutouts blasted into the buildings, plane parts ejected from the buildings, radar records, flight transcripts, and much more. Your turn.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 You know those people who state things as facts but NEVER provide actual evidence

Oh you mean the people who believe the official story ?

No I mean the holo nuts

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 You know those people who state things as facts but NEVER provide actual evidence

Oh you mean the people who believe the official story ?

OK, there is a huge difference between believing the official story and believing that giant holograms were responsible for 9/11. Don't assume to know other people's beleifs just because they don't buy yours.

If you have any evidence whatsoever to corroborate the No Plane business, then present it. The evidence for planes is: 47 home videos, 5 live news broadcasts, tens of thousands of New Yorkers who watched it first hand, the cartoon cutouts blasted into the buildings, plane parts ejected from the buildings, radar records, flight transcripts, and much more. Your turn.

OK this is my favorite part. You presented factual statements clearly and concisely. At some point, very shortly, someone will now tell you everything you posted is wrong but will fail to prove why it is wrong. IT JUST IS

READY?? 1, 2, 3... GO

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
The evidence for planes is: 47 home videos, 5 live news broadcasts, tens of thousands of New Yorkers who watched it first hand, the cartoon cutouts blasted into the buildings, plane parts ejected from the buildings, radar records, flight transcripts, and much more. Your turn.

Planes might have hit the towers but what planes were they and what exactly happened? Oh, and what about.

0 FBI and NTSB crime scene reports.

0 FBI and NTSB reports that match the parts found to any of the WTC planes.

0 black boxes from the WTC.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
The evidence for planes is: 47 home videos, 5 live news broadcasts, tens of thousands of New Yorkers who watched it first hand, the cartoon cutouts blasted into the buildings, plane parts ejected from the buildings, radar records, flight transcripts, and much more. Your turn.

Planes might have hit the towers but what planes were they and what exactly happened? Oh, and what about.

0 FBI and NTSB crime scene reports.

0 FBI and NTSB reports that match the parts found to any of the WTC planes.

0 black boxes from the WTC.

The problem is that the entire government can't be in on the conspiracy if there is indeed one. My personal feeling is that this is the first time this has ever happened and because of that, the investigators simply can't find and don't have all the answers so they must fill in the blanks at times. They may or may not be right as they are only human. Remember, those investigators are people just like you and me. They don't have special psychic abilities or super human intelligence'.

Originally posted by jfj123
The problem is that the entire government can't be in on the conspiracy if there is indeed one. My personal feeling is that this is the first time this has ever happened and because of that, the investigators simply can't find and don't have all the answers so they must fill in the blanks at times. They may or may not be right as they are only human. Remember, those investigators are people just like you and me. They don't have special psychic abilities or super human intelligence'.

I did not say the government was in on it. they might have left it happen.

This is not the first time, we also had plenty of warnings.

They may not have special abilites but their are still procedures and protocols to follow.

Why has the FBI not accounted for the black boxes at the WTC?

I did not say the government was in on it. they might have left it happen.

Possible.

This is not the first time, we also had plenty of warnings.

This is the first terror strike of this size in the United States.

They may not have special abilites but their are still procedures and protocols to follow.

And as we know, everyone is familiar with said procedures and everyone follows said procedures.

Why has the FBI not accounted for the black boxes at the WTC?[/quoe]
Don't know. Did they say they haven't?

Originally posted by jfj123
[And as we know, everyone is familiar with said procedures and everyone follows said procedures.

Why has the FBI not accounted for the black boxes at the WTC?[/quoe]
Don't know. Did they say they haven't?

Well if the FBI does not follow procedures at a crime scene it could lead to being fired or even jail time. In fact some FBI agents did get into trouble for taking stuff for the crime scene.

The FBI has never stated that have found the black boxes at the WTC.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
[And as we know, everyone is familiar with said procedures and everyone follows said procedures.

Why has the FBI not accounted for the black boxes at the WTC?[/quoe]
Don't know. Did they say they haven't?

Well if the FBI does not follow procedures at a crime scene it could lead to being fired or even jail time. In fact some FBI agents did get into trouble for taking stuff for the crime scene.

The FBI has never stated that have found the black boxes at the WTC.

Have they stated they didn't find the black boxes? I don't know so I'm asking.

Also, do you know if they found the black box at the Pentagon?

Thanks

Originally posted by jfj123

Also, do you know if they found the black box at the Pentagon?

Thanks

Yes they did find the black boxes at the Pentagon, in fact i ahve the data from the flight data recorder. I received it from a FOIA request from the NTSB.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

Also, do you know if they found the black box at the Pentagon?

Thanks

Yes they did find the black boxes at the Pentagon, in fact i ahve the data from the flight data recorder. I received it from a FOIA request from the NTSB.

Are you Calum Douglas?

In June 2007, university student Calum Douglas, from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, presented an analysis of (allegedly) Flight 77 black box data.[104] Douglas says he obtained the data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) after issuing a petition via the Freedom of Information Act.

If so, well done. What have you gathered from the information?

This thread is about holograms hitting the WTC, not about procedural failure in time of national conflict. So unless you have something that suggests no planes hit the towers on 9/11, and all the videos, witnesses, and records are false, I respectfully request you post irrelevant information elsewhere.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
This thread is about holograms hitting the WTC, not about procedural failure in time of national conflict. So unless you have something that suggests no planes hit the towers on 9/11, and all the videos, witnesses, and records are false, I respectfully request you post irrelevant information elsewhere.

The information ULTIMA1 is discussing IS RELEVANT. It touches very the heart of the issue – whether or not there were planes on 9-11. Before discussing holograms, one must investigate the notion of no-planes first. ULTIMA1 has been doing exactly that all along — trying to compile whatever documents he/she can pertaining to the 9-11 flights. We can draw conclusions based on the quantity and quality of what’s been gathered.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
This thread is about holograms hitting the WTC, not about procedural failure in time of national conflict. So unless you have something that suggests no planes hit the towers on 9/11, and all the videos, witnesses, and records are false, I respectfully request you post irrelevant information elsewhere.

The information ULTIMA1 is discussing IS RELEVANT. It touches very the heart of the issue – whether or not there were planes on 9-11. Before discussing holograms, one must investigate the notion of no-planes first. ULTIMA1 has been doing exactly that all along — trying to compile whatever documents he/she can pertaining to the 9-11 flights. We can draw conclusions based on the quantity and quality of what’s been gathered.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Sure, you can draw conclusions regarding the thouroughness, accuracy, and depth of the investigation. Point taken. However, nothing in this 'evidence' suggests the lack of planes on 9/11.

A more effective approach for your side, in my opinion, would be to address the many questions posed on this and other threads time and time again. Lack of documentation does not constitute lack of planes. We can start with the obvious, "What caused the cartoon cutouts in the side of the World Trade Center?" I honestly look forward to reviewing the evidence you've compiled that corroborates your position. Until that point, R.I.P.

edit to add: Wizard, the flight recorder data being discussed is from the Pentagon impact, so I respectfully maintain that it's off topic and should be discussed in another thread.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by InnocentBystander]

reply to post by InnocentBystander


Ain’t gonna be no requiescat in pacem tonight. Request not granted. If there was no plane at the Pentagon (or in Shanksville), then it’s much more probable that there weren’t any at the WTC’s either.

What’s up with this cartoon cutouts’ question? It doesn’t make any sense. Why would real airplanes be necessary to do that??? The buildings were packed with explosives already anyways —nukes, tens of thousands of column cutting charges — so why would a few extra detonations require an impossible effort?

Also, why do you keep hollering for hard evidence proving explosives? There is definitely no ‘hard’ evidence for aircraft either. So when forced to make a guessed choice between planes versus explosives as cause of the impact holes — isn’t it a no brainer that bombs were used? Given that the rest of the buildings were later blown up also?

Greetings, and dona nobis pacem,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/19/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

You know I believe 9/11 is not what we were told and that elements with the Gov allowed this to take place.

However, the size of a conspiracy that would be needed in order for holograms and or just CGI to take place is enormous. In this case, the GOV isn't allowing it to happen, they are behind almost ever single detail. That is a lot of people.

The more people you add on, the more unlikely that conspiracy is true. People do talk.

Next, most people who do CGI are artists, hardly the personality types to be busy in such a conspiracy, and one would wonder how they were sold to the military.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Sure, you can draw conclusions regarding the thouroughness, accuracy, and depth of the investigation. Point taken. However, nothing in this 'evidence' suggests the lack of planes on 9/11.

Do you have any FBI or NTSB reports on the planes hitting the towers?

Do you have any FBI or NTSB reports matching the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
If there was no plane at the Pentagon (or in Shanksville), then it’s much more probable that there weren’t any at the WTC’s either.

So you're using the black box data from the plane at the Pentagon for proof there was no plane at the Pentagon...brilliant....

What’s up with this cartoon cutouts’ question? It doesn’t make any sense. Why would real airplanes be necessary to do that??? The buildings were packed with explosives already anyways —nukes, tens of thousands of column cutting charges — so why would a few extra detonations require an impossible effort?

Well Wizard, as you know, the outside colums were bent inward. How is it possible the explosives inside the bulding pulled everything towards them? Instead of judging the question, try answering it.

Also, why do you keep hollering for hard evidence proving explosives? There is definitely no ‘hard’ evidence for aircraft either.

Wrong, it's actually one of the most documented events in human history. Plane parts, body parts, live news broadcasts, videos, thousands and thousands of eye witnesses.

So when forced to make a guessed choice between planes versus explosives as cause of the impact holes — isn’t it a no brainer that bombs were used?

Oh, it's a no-brainer alright...