The Hologram Theory is dead

reply to post by jfj123


I agree the wing can go through the building. No argument there. It's the inconsistency of how it goes through I have a problem with. Strong enough to cut perfectly cut through steel like butter without taking any damage one second and get ripped to shreds the next even though mass and velocity didn't change. If it broke up as it went through thats fine, but if steel was going to tear up a wing it would have done it when it went through the outer wall. Stronger steel 2 feet inside maybe?

Thats not even my big concern. It's the velocity of the plane going through the building. How did an entire 157 foot long plane fly completly into the building with no damage if the core is only 37 feet in? I'm missing 120 feet of plane somewhere that should be crumpling up on the way in. Video doesn't show that. Shows a plane going right in like nothing is there.
options:

A. Hit the core and flew through intact with only 8% loss of velocity (unlikely)
or
B. Hit the core and crumpled up only 37 feet in. Where is the other 120 feet of plane if only 37 feet actually went through the WTC? Video clearly shows plane flying straight through with no damage or contorting. Back of planr would be contorting if the front impacted the core and stopped only 37 feet inside. (unlikely)
or
C. Has enough kinetic energy to fly through outer wall of reenforced steel concrete taking no damage at all, but a few feet in it is ripped to shreds by the same steel concrete it just flew through like butter. Keeping in mind velocity only dropped 8%. That means it still has 92% of its kinetic energy.That 8% is the difference between a 767 slicing steel like butter and getting ripped to shreds by it in only a few feet? Both planes hit that magic 8% perfectly then if that was the case? (unlikely)

If it didn't fly through the core, and it didn't crumple up outside, and it didn't get shreded...Give me a D please as to where the missing 120 feet of airplane is =)

Only other option is it missed the core. If that was the case what killed 92% of its velocity INSTANTLY? Sure wan't the steel or concrete, that only knocked off 8% gradually. Not the core... planes flew in farther then 37 feet... where is my option D? =)







[edit on 20-10-2007 by b309302]

[edit on 20-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
Thats not even my big concern. It's the velocity of the plane going through the building. How did an entire 157 foot long plane fly completly into the building with no damage if the core is only 37 feet in? I'm missing 120 feet of plane somewhere that should be crumpling up on the way in. Video doesn't show that. Shows a plane going right in like nothing is there.
options:

The Purdue animation shows the plane being shredded by the steel as soon as it hits the building.

NTSB Breif

Whers in that NTSB brief does it say anything about what happened to the plane?

The breif is very short, and it clearly states that the plane was hijacked, and lost when it had an in-flight collision. No, it doesn't say WTC, but it sure would be a hell of a coincidence if this were talking about an unrelated incident. Just becauase you don't have access to the FBI files, doesn't mean there were no planes on 9/11. Surely you understand the logic here.

Tell me this: If the FBI reports were released to the public, would you change your mind? Why would you trust the FBI, when the Hologram theory requires that even news companies were in on the coverup?

Once again, I'll ask: Are you Calum Douglas?

[edit on 20-10-2007 by InnocentBystander]

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Tell me this: If the FBI reports were released to the public, would you change your mind?
Once again, I'll ask: Are you Calum Douglas?

[edit on 20-10-2007 by InnocentBystander]

I have been trying to get the FBI and NTSB reports for about 2 years now, along with other reports to try to find what really happened that day.

I have filed FOIA rquest to all the following.
FBI
NTSB (received data from flight 77 flight date recorder)
NIST
NSA

I have also e-mailed companies that were at ground zero.

No i am not Calum Douglas

Originally posted by b309302
reply to post by jfj123

 

I agree the wing can go through the building. No argument there. It's the inconsistency of how it goes through I have a problem with. Strong enough to cut perfectly cut through steel like butter without taking any damage one second and get ripped to shreds the next even though mass and velocity didn't change. If it broke up as it went through thats fine, but if steel was going to tear up a wing it would have done it when it went through the outer wall. Stronger steel 2 feet inside maybe?

Typically with large buildings, the core supports bear much of the weight. The outer steel framing of the building was probably not the same size as either the vertical or horizontal core supports beams. I'll try to find documentation of this for you.

Originally posted by b309302
Thats not even my big concern. It's the velocity of the plane going through the building. How did an entire 157 foot long plane fly completly into the building with no damage if the core is only 37 feet in? I'm missing 120 feet of plane somewhere that should be crumpling up on the way in. Video doesn't show that. Shows a plane going right in like nothing is there.
[edit on 20-10-2007 by b309302]

[edit on 20-10-2007 by b309302]

Could you please point me to the videos that show this? Thanks.
Also, from what you have written, you seem to only be looking for the truth. I find that very commendable.

reply to post by b309302


Part of the plane went through to the other side, and that was in the South Tower where most of the plane missed the Core, but some of it obviously hit some of the Core. Most of the plane was destroyed in the building.

What you see surviving is the same thing that survived when the Empire State building was struck, and it did the same exact thing. It went from the front to the back, and that thing is one of the Strongest pieces on a plane, namely the Engine.

The video evidence is not of high enough quality to see, but it sure looks like the engine stripped down that went through.

Furthermore if anything that actually hurts the hologram theory. What hologram would continue to go through with only a part of it showing>>?

I was searching around for photos to contribute in Craig's Pentagon thread and came across these photos.So far they are the clearest photos of the plane (or alleged planes) to hit WTC2.I say alleged because I'm not taking sides.
I post what I find with no agenda.I have not altered the photos in any way.What you see is what you get.

Taken from this site: Plane photos

I know nothing about this site or the contributors.







If these have been posted before, let me know and I will remove them.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by citizen truth]

This entire thread is depressing, disturbing and profane.

I knew Danny Lewin, who was the very first casualty that terrible day. He was sitting right behind the hijackers on Flight 11, and tried to stop them. They killed him before the plane impacted the tower. Danny was a real, flesh and blood human being, and he lost his life trying to stand up for what he believed in. He died a true hero.

One of my oldest and closest friends, Scott Myers, lived at 11 John Street, in the Penthouse apartment. After the first impact, he quickly set up a DV camera on a tripod, and caught the second impact on video. His video was the closest tripod-mounted footage of the second impact, and was used by the NIST to determine how long the buildings continued to sway after the impact.

www.youtube.com...

I've found blogs suggesting that Scott does not actually exist, that his footage is somehow faked. What a damned sad joke - I was the first person that Scott was able to reach via celphone that day, I helped the FBI find Scott and get the footage for analysis. They never tried to squelch us, they never threatened or otherwise harassed us, they were happy to accept a DUB, that's right, a COPY of the video. Scott kept the original, and the FBI was well aware of this.

The idea that there are people irresponsible - and ignorant - enough to suggest that these impacts were anything other than what the actually are, PLANES IMPACTING BUILDINGS, says so much about the state of our country, and about the level of discourse going on here on ATS. Lear is urinating on Danny's grave, as well as the many other people on those planes, by making their deaths out to be hoaxes, fabrications. Danny is dead, Lear, and what many of us would give that it weren't so. I am deeply offended and horrified by your absolutely insane allegations, how dare you denigrate the horrors of the deaths of those people, the terrible way they met their ends. You should be ashamed, but I know that you're getting a good laugh out of all of this, which makes me ill.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by davidbiedny]

Originally posted by davidbiedny
This entire thread is depressing, disturbing and profane.

I knew Danny Lewin, who was the very first casualty that terrible day. He was sitting right behind the hijackers on Flight 11, and tried to stop them. They killed him before the plane impacted the tower. Danny was a real, flesh and blood human being, and he lost his life trying to stand up for what he believed in. He died a true hero.

One of my oldest and closest friends, Scott Myers, lived at 11 John Street, in the Penthouse apartment. After the first impact, he quickly set up a DV camera on a tripod, and caught the second impact on video. His video was the closest tripod-mounted footage of the second impact, and was used by the NIST to determine how long the buildings continued to sway after the impact.

www.youtube.com...

I've found blogs suggesting that Scott does not actually exist, that his footage is somehow faked. What a damned sad joke - I was the first person that Scott was able to reach via celphone that day, I helped the FBI find Scott and get the footage for analysis. They never tried to squelch us, they never threatened or otherwise harassed us, they were happy to accept a DUB, that's right, a COPY of the video. Scott kept the original, and the FBI was well aware of this.

The idea that there are people irresponsible - and ignorant - enough to suggest that these impacts were anything other than what the actually are, PLANES IMPACTING BUILDINGS, says so much about the state of our country, and about the level of discourse going on here on ATS. Lear is urinating on Danny's grave, as well as the many other people on those planes, by making their deaths out to be hoaxes, fabrications. Danny is dead, Lear, and what many of us would give that it weren't so. I am deeply offended and horrified by your absolutely insane allegations, how dare you denigrate the horrors of the deaths of those people, the terrible way they met their ends. You should be ashamed, but I know that you're getting a good laugh out of all of this, which makes me ill.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by davidbiedny]

I'd just like to say, I'm sorry for your loss and for all those who lost friends and family on that day. I COMPLETELY agree with your statements. I feel it is sad that people must take this attitude. I don't understand it myself and wish people who have influence over others, such as Mr. Lear would use said influence to try and make things better instead of using it to instill fear and paranoia.

Thank you for taking the time to express yourself here and add something REAL to this discussion.

Just my humble opinion.

reply to post by davidbiedny



Exactly. Actually one of Wayne Gretzky's former linemates was on one of those planes, and at that time was a scout for the L.A Kings, they knew his flight. Are these people suggesting the LA KINGS were 'in on it'?

This is my point. Although we may have different eyewitness testimony there is a very strong amount that agrees that planes hit those buildings.

To call it CGI is totally off base.
To call it a hologram is to ignore the real flesh and blood that was out flying that day.

Originally posted by jfj123
I don't understand it myself and wish people who have influence over others, such as Mr. Lear would use said influence to try and make things better instead of using it to instill fear and paranoia.
.

Why is that anyone who tries to find the truth of what happened that day insulted and called names?

Just because some of us have intelligence and common sense and try to find the truith (instead of living in safe fantasy world and believing what we are told) we are insulted for it.

Its not the fact that planes hit the towers or not, its the fact that we do not have all the facts and reports we should have of what actually happened that day.

I have had a reward of $1,000 on other forums if anyone who believes the official story can come up with actual evidence and official reports to support the official story. No body even tried.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why is that anyone who tries to find the truth of what happened that day insulted and called names?

Just because some of us have intelligence and common sense and try to find the truith (instead of living in safe fantasy world and believing what we are told) we are insulted for it..

And you are insulting the memories of all who died that day by supporting baseless theories invented by sensationalists like the WebFairy and the makers of September Clues, who have both been caught falsifying evidence more than once. You're not looking for truth, youre just doing your best to defend a completely ludicrous theory.

Its not the fact that planes hit the towers or not, its the fact that we do not have all the facts and reports we should have of what actually happened that day.

Actually, this thread is about if planes hit the towers or not. Regardless, just because you don't have all the facts and reports that you feel you should have, doesn't mean there weren't any planes.

I have had a reward of $1,000 on other forums if anyone who believes the official story can come up with actual evidence and official reports to support the official story. No body even tried.

A cashier's check will be fine, let me know when you need my information. I showed you a NIST breif on the last page that said the flight was hijacked and destroyed by a mid air collision in New York City. Key points: There was a plane, it was hijacked, it was destroyed in a collision.

The problem is, there's plenty of evidence, it's just not good enough for your side. How about any of the 40+ videos, or 10,000 eyewitnesses? Why do you think you know more than the people who witnessed the event first hand?

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
And you are insulting the memories of all who died that day by supporting baseless theories invented by sensationalists like the WebFairy and the makers of September Clues, who have both been caught falsifying evidence more than once. You're not looking for truth, youre just doing your best to defend a completely ludicrous theory.


The problem is, there's plenty of evidence, it's just not good enough for your side. How about any of the 40+ videos, or 10,000 eyewitnesses? Why do you think you know more than the people who witnessed the event first hand?

If anyone is insulting the memories of those who died it people like you who spread the media lies instead of trying to find out what really happened.

If you have all this evidence then show me an actual video or photo of fight 77 hitting the Pentagon, show me a 757 hitting the Pentagon and will gladly admit i am wrong.

If you cannot then you must admit you do not have the evidence and do not know what happened on 9/11

Are you talking about the witnesses who could not decide what type of plane it was?

The witnesses who some admitted later they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told it was a 757?

The witnesses who would be torn up in court as witnesses?





[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I don't understand it myself and wish people who have influence over others, such as Mr. Lear would use said influence to try and make things better instead of using it to instill fear and paranoia.
.

Why is that anyone who tries to find the truth of what happened that day insulted and called names?

Just because some of us have intelligence and common sense and try to find the truith (instead of living in safe fantasy world and believing what we are told) we are insulted for it.

Its not the fact that planes hit the towers or not, its the fact that we do not have all the facts and reports we should have of what actually happened that day.

I have had a reward of $1,000 on other forums if anyone who believes the official story can come up with actual evidence and official reports to support the official story. No body even tried.

I have no problem with anyone such as yourself who is simply looking for the truth. To make my position perfectly clear, I AM NOT INSULTING YOU IN ANY WAY.
I do however, take issue with people who are not looking for the truth but who are more interested in making irresponsible statements without a shred of evidence to support said statements.

For example, a lot of people on this thread and other threads have asked mr. lear and wizard in the woods to simply present facts to back up statements they have presented as factual. To date, they have not done so but continued with their hologram diatribe. If someone doesn't want to be called to the carpet on an issue, they shouldn't present an opinion as factual material.

Now that being said, my position is that a lack of evidence is not a presumption of guilt. In addition, as an analogy, nobody would like to be arrested and accused of a crime, then told, "prove you're innocent".

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
And you are insulting the memories of all who died that day by supporting baseless theories invented by sensationalists like the WebFairy and the makers of September Clues, who have both been caught falsifying evidence more than once. You're not looking for truth, youre just doing your best to defend a completely ludicrous theory.


The problem is, there's plenty of evidence, it's just not good enough for your side. How about any of the 40+ videos, or 10,000 eyewitnesses? Why do you think you know more than the people who witnessed the event first hand?

If anyone is insulting the memories of those who died it people like you who spread the media lies instead of trying to find out what really happened.

If you have all this evidence then show me an actual video or photo of fight 77 hitting the Pentagon, show me a 757 hitting the Pentagon and will gladly admit i am wrong.

This video has been released and is available. I believe you have even commented on it. As far as I know, this was the only CCTV cam in the area that has been released.

Are you talking about the witnesses who could not decide what type of plane it was?

First, there is a big difference between not knowing what kind of plane hit the buildings and NO plane hit the buildings.
Do you honestly expect joe schmo to know whether the planes that hit were 767, 757's etc. especially as quickly as it happened?

The witnesses who would be torn up in court as witnesses?

Unfortunately, this happens in EVERY case that has witnesses, nothing unusual.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If anyone is insulting the memories of those who died it people like you who spread the media lies instead of trying to find out what really happened.

In case you've never read my posts, I'll let you in on my position. I don't believe the official story.

If you have all this evidence then show me an actual video or photo of fight 77 hitting the Pentagon, show me a 757 hitting the Pentagon and will gladly admit i am wrong.

Once again, this thread is about the WTC impacts, weather they were holograms or real planes. I have not made any statements about the Pentagon. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Please stay on topic.

Are you talking about the witnesses who could not decide what type of plane it was?

For now, yes. Even those witnesses corroborate my position, that there were planes hitting buildings that day.

The witnesses who would be torn up in court as witnesses

I'm glad you brought this up. Let's say we went to court, and the judge asked you, "Ultima1, what evidence do you have that no planes struck the WTC on 9/11. What would you say?

Originally posted by jfj123

This video has been released and is available. I believe you have even commented on it. As far as I know, this was the only CCTV cam in the area that has been released.

Do you honestly expect joe schmo to know whether the planes that hit were 767, 757's etc. especially as quickly as it happened?

The witnesses who would be torn up in court as witnesses?

Unfortunately, this happens in EVERY case that has witnesses, nothing unusual.

You mean the video of a blur, not showing any aircraft? I asked for an actual video or photo of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

But even joe schmo should be able to tell the difference between a small business jet and a commercial airliner, they also should be able to tell if it has 2 engines ot 4 and where they are locatedon the plane.

So you agree the witnesses would not stand up in court?

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
In case you've never read my posts, I'll let you in on my position. I don't believe the official story.

I'm glad you brought this up. Let's say we went to court, and the judge asked you, "Ultima1, what evidence do you have that no planes struck the WTC on 9/11. What would you say?

If you do not believe the official story why do you debate against me because i am looking for the truth?

Well in case you never read my posts i never stated no planes hit the WTC. I have stated we have no real evidence or official reports of what planes hit the WTC or the Pentagon.

And if we were in court and judge asked you what evidence do you have that flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC what would say ?