The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by johnlear
Unfortunately that engine has been identified as a CFM-56 manufactured by General Electric. As you can see from the following posts United Airlines used Pratt & Whitney engines exclusively. No United Airlines Boeing 767 has ever used a General Electric CFM-56.

I've removed most of your last post John, but this part is interesting. Do you stand by this statement as fact?

If so, could this engine that was found on the street be placed there by a couple of people lifting it out of a van? Since you you know so much about this type of engine to be able identify it in its trashed form maybe you could explain to us ignorant cusses how much a CFM-56 manufactured by GE weighs.

Also why jump to the hologram theory when maybe its not an American Airlines jet that hit the building?

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

I've removed most of your last post John, but this part is interesting. Do you stand by this statement as fact?

Thanks for the post infinityoreilly. I am not an expert of engine cores. But I have read enough about this particular engine to believe it a General Electric CFM-56. That is might have parts used in a CF-6 is possible.

If so, could this engine that was found on the street be placed there by a couple of people lifting it out of a van?

No. What you see there weighs a lot more than 2 men could lift.

Since you know so much about this type of engine to be able identify it in its trashed form maybe you could explain to us ignorant cusses how much a CFM-56 manufactured by GE weighs.

I am afraid you have confused me with the experts who identified this engine as a CFM-56.

Here is the engine data card which states the engine weighs 5,139 pounds with normal accessories. That weight, of course includes the fan section which is missing from the engine in the street.

www.content.airbusworld.com...

Also why jump to the hologram theory when maybe its not an American Airlines jet that hit the building?

I am not jumping anywhere. No jets of any kind hit any building on 911. What the people saw was a hologram being projected.

Some have expressed an opinion that because a Boeing 737 engine was found in the street that it might have been a Boeing 737 that crashed into the WTC. If so then the holes that the Boeing 737 made match those of a Boeing 767 in the side of the building.

But my opinion is that no airplane crashed into the WTC on 911. That’s just plain ridiculous and the only people who buy into that theory are those who have little or no experience with airplanes or airplanes engines or reality.

Originally posted by johnlear

I am not jumping anywhere. No jets of any kind hit any building on 911. What the people saw was a hologram being projected.

That’s just plain ridiculous and the only people who buy into that theory are those who have little or no experience with airplanes or airplanes engines or reality.

Thankyou for your responce. Again you seem to be making a statement here about no airplanes hitting buildings on 911. I've had some discussions with long time commercial and military heavy aircraft operators and have tried to explain your position to them only to be laughed at or given the look that says "are you kidding me".

In addition by definition what was recorded and eyewitnessed cannot be a hologram, please look up this word in the dictionary. What you descibe as a hologram defies the definition of the word.

Thanks again for your promt responce

InfinityO'Reilly

reply to post by johnlear

I am not jumping anywhere. No jets of any kind hit any building on 911. What the people saw was a hologram being projected.

For the 37th time, please post some evidence of this. So far, AT BEST, you MAY have shown a different type of aircraft hit the buildings.

But my opinion is that no airplane crashed into the WTC on 911. That’s just plain ridiculous and the only people who buy into that theory are those who have little or no experience with airplanes or airplanes engines or reality.

A hologram is just plain ridiculous and the only people who buy into that idea are those who have little or no experience with holograms or reality

Sorry but you have NEVER once EVER, EVER, EVER, posted ANY evidence that a hologram of that sophistication is possible. If it's not possible, then it didn't happen. Your conveniently timed/imaginary conversations with friends who just happen to know everything about holograms, don't count, as you refuse to post what they said.

You claim holograms were used. Provide evidence of what you are saying. For some reason, some people here, take you at your word because of who you are. In my opinion, this is harmful as it spreads disinformation and non-factual information and dilutes this subject.

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry but you have NEVER once EVER, EVER, EVER, posted ANY evidence that a hologram of that sophistication is possible.

Jfj123, you’re spinning your wheels here. Maybe this simple equation will help you understand.

No evidence of real planes + eyewitness observations = possible presence of holograms

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry but you have NEVER once EVER, EVER, EVER, posted ANY evidence that a hologram of that sophistication is possible.

Jfj123, you’re spinning your wheels here. Maybe this simple equation will help you understand.

No evidence of real planes + eyewitness observations = possible presence of holograms

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

And your looking more stupid as you post, if you can't have anything relevant to the theory to say than don't say anything at all
I am tired of you WIzard you and your john lear bandwagon, get off it already!!

I posted evidence of real planes and real victims and real documentaries and real videos and real news articles, but I guess your head is stuck way to far up John Lears hologram theory to review any real evidence put forward.


Your replies are sickening to the core, irrelevant to any matter pertained in this thread and it seems all you have left is ridicule so enough already ATS doesn't need a peanut gallery.


Post some evidence to your ridiculous claims other than following the leader and showing us your ignorant attitude.

You are only creating arguments with your senseless replies. get lost!

[edit on 093030p://upMonday by seridium]

[edit on 093030p://upMonday by seridium]

Originally posted by seridium
I am tired of you WIzard you and your john lear bandwagon, get off it already!!

If you’re tired, go get some sleep. If you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen. I will continue to post as long as I please. I want it to be on record that not the entire humanity was too stupid to understand 9-11.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So where is yoru proof your limitless attempts have no proof to your assumptions.
I have asked for proof 20 pages back and you ignored it, are you dense in the head? do you not understand a question when directed right toward you?

I understand fully about 911 read my post back a few pages i summed it up with real questions and answers not rude limited statements like some people.


Im not tired in a sleepy sense, im tired of you dodging questions and disregarding statements and evidence thrown right in your face.

I will ask you again some simple questions lets see if you can handle the heat.

Question 1
What makes you believe holograms were used

Question 2
What evidence can you provide that there actually were no planes( your own evidence not someone elses.)

Question 3
What kind of holograms were used>?

Question 4
why have you not attempted to answer any previous questions, regarding the hologram theory?

Question 5
Are you
John Lear?





[edit on 093030p://upMonday by seridium]

Please read;

Courtesy is mandatory

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(fair warning)

Originally posted by seridium

And your looking more stupid as you post, if you can't have anything relevant to the theory to say than don't say anything at all
I am tired of you WIzard you and your john lear bandwagon, get off it already!!

Thanks for the post seridium. You might have missed a lot of the information I have posted regarding the alleged crashed into the WTC.

One thing I would like to respectfully point out is that name calling is the last refuge of the defeated.

I posted evidence of real planes and real victims and real documentaries and real videos and real news articles, but I guess your head is stuck way to far up John Lears hologram theory to review any real evidence put forward.

Please refresh my memory seridium, did you post that picture of the General Electric CFM-56 standing up on the sidewalk? If you did post that picture I am wondering if you could tell me where that engine came from?



I have already posted testimony and evidence that United Airlines had Pratt & Whitneys on its Boeing 767's. So my question is where in the heck did that General Electric come from?

Not to mention the fact that if you look at the size of that core you cannot help but realize that this engine could not possibly be part of powerplant, only 2 of which allegedly propelled a 300,000 pound airliner at 500 mph. I mean look at it.

To give you an example of how small this engine is it took 4 of them to power a DC-8 which weighed less than the Boeing 767.

So if you are submitting this engine on the sidewalk as evidence of an airplane crash into the WTC you are on very shaky ground so to speak.

Other than that engine about all you have is:



This piece of fuselage doesn't look like it belonged to any airplane fuselage that telecoped into the WTC in less than one fifth of a second. You know what I mean?

Your replies are sickening to the core, irrelevant to any matter pertained in this thread and it seems all you have left is ridicule so enough already ATS doesn't need a peanut gallery.

This comment seems to be more of an opinion which excludes the evidence I have posted on the debris including the data on the General Electric engine.

Post some evidence to your ridiculous claims other than following the leader and showing us your ignorant attitude.

I would respectfully caution your use of this type of language as it borders on insult of a member which is expressly prohibited in the T&C. I would respectfully suggest that you use different terms for your opposing viewpoint and would again remind you that the last refuge of the defeated is insult.

You are only creating arguments with your senseless replies. get lost!

Get lost? I would respectfully suggest that “get lost!” is not good debate technique, manners or quality.

But thanks for the post.

Originally posted by seridium
So where is yoru proof your limitless attempts have no proof to your assumptions.
I have asked for proof 20 pages back and you ignored it, are you dense in the head? do you not understand a question when directed right toward you?

Seridium, seridium, seridium. Why must you make things so hard on yourself? The answers to most of your questions have been there all along. You just posted the main explanation above in your quoting my formula: (a)No evidence of real planes + (b)eyewitness observations = (c)possible presence of holograms

Question1: If (a) and (b) are true then (c) must be true also. Holograms are the only plausible theory proposed so far.
If (b) is untrue because the eyewitnesses are hired actors then this strongly puts (c) in question.

Questions 2: No planes because:
+ physically theoretically impossible penetrations through perimeter columns in WTC1 and 2
+ physically theoretically impossible crash location and profile pattern at Pentagon
+ physically theoretically impossibly mismatched crash imprint at Shanksville
+ no plane parts matching purported flights found at any four crash sites
+ no plane parts in streets of NYC in any of the ‘live’ reports on morning of 9-11
+ no crash reports from NSTB or any other governmental institution for first time in U.S. aviation history for commercial jets lost above land

Question 3: I have no idea what kind of holograms were used.
Question 4: I did answer. But obviously I explained things from the ‘wrong angle’.
Question 5: I consider that question a strong compliment.

Greetings,
The Wonderful Wizard In The Woods

Some of those plane parts would have weighed a lot, how is it possible that they were planted without scores of people seeing??

For the people that do not believe in the hologram theory, can anyone show me that an agency like DARPA can not have a hologram program?

I mean people keep asking about evidence of the hologram, how about showing evidnece that no hologram program exist.

Wizard_In_The_Woods you believe that it was just holograms and nothing striked the towers , or the hologram was used to hide something?

[edit on 12-11-2007 by dracodie]

Here is fact not fiction read up and throw you theory out the window.


Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Controlled demo would be a way more plausible cause of the collapse of the towers.

But it seems F.E.M.A and N.I.S.T get all the glory.

Holograms cannot be proven they can only be assumed,

There is one video that soundly debunks the blue screen theories and should be used to put this deception to bed for good. Japanese news footage of Flight 175 striking the south tower shows the fuselage of the aircraft briefly exiting the opposite face of the building before the entire plane is engulfed in flames from the exploding jet fuel (located well behind the nosecone). Watch the clip below.

Video Link here

To maintain that this was a hologram necessitates that the "ghost plane" was also somehow superimposed inside the tower so it could be seen exiting at the exact right moment. This is a ridiculous concept.

Here is a close-up frame of the nose exiting the tower.

Source

There is no credible evidence that what crashed into the South Tower on 9/11/01 was anything other than Flight 175. The jet was seen by hundreds of people and recorded by scores of cameras as it flew over the Hudson River, approaching the World Trade Center from the southwest, and careened into the South Tower, erupting into a spectacular fireball.






Holograms Uncovered:

From what I have tried to uncover about holograms is this the hologram theories in this thread violate basic principles of physics. For starters holograms need a generator or imaging device which materializes about 65 cm away from the generator, so to have a airplane hologram generated 1000's of feet away from the target (WTC) would be a ridiculous idea, and it would go against science physics etc...
There are two basic categories of holograms -- transmission and reflection. Transmission holograms create a 3-D image when monochromatic light, or light that is all one wavelength, travels through them. Reflection holograms create a 3-D image when laser light or white light reflects off of their surface.
so you see you need a certain light and a certain kind of device which only will work in a certain radius.

To make clear holograms, you need to reduce vibration in the air as well. Heating and air conditioning systems can blow the air around, and so can the movement of your body, your breath and even the dissipation of your body heat. For these reasons, you'll need to turn the heating and cooling system off and wait for a few minutes after setting up your equipment to make the hologram.
Holography also requires a working surface that can keep the equipment absolutely still -- it can't vibrate when you walk across the room or when cars drive by outside. Holography labs and professional studios often use specially designed tables that have honeycomb-shaped support layers resting on pneumatic legs. These are under the table's top surface, and they dampen vibration.

So you see with just a little research into holograms they violate basic principles of physics, which means in conclusively they could not have been projected hologram planes that hit the WTC.


Source

hologram in daylight

Well I am done, pointing out the obvious if you want to discredit real information and make wild assumptions you go ahead.

I've posted a few times in the "no plane" threads.

I even posted a trash-binned parody of them to make a point.

The fact is that the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

I saw two planes hit the towers in news footage. I also saw the Whitehouse get blown to pieces in Independence Day.

The difference being that thousands of other people on the ground and watching live news feeds saw the same thing on 9/11.

As far as I can recall no one has seen a 15 mile wide Alien Spaceship trash the Whitehouse...yet.

You can credit Star Trek with many things in the modern age such as cell phones, portable medical equipment etc but the projection of substantial three dimensional holograms into bright sunlight that cast shadows and reflect light is, to be frank, pushing way beyond the streches of imagination.

So instead of indulging in the realms of fantasy, lets indulge in the realms of science.

If you are a competent mathematician, you can work out the impact force of a plane travelling at, say 450mph, providing you know its weight. - Here, I'll do it for you. The basis of the maths here is taken from this page on the internet;

How do I calculate

Which deals with a smaller object hitting a wall at 40mph. However the basic premise here is the same, so here goes.

According to Wikipedia Boeing 767 a Boeing 767-200 has a maximum takeoff weight of 315,000lb. I'm going to drop that slightly because I have no idea of the actual takeoff weight, so we'll run with 280,000.

The plane was, according to reports, travellling at 466mph

The force of the impact is mass x acceleration.

The acceleration in this case is the time taken for the plane to go from speed to a full stop. Thats hard to figure out , so lets use 3/10ths of a second.

So , Force = mass x acceleration

Force = 280,000 x (466/0.3) x .0455

(The 0.0455 figure is a conversion used on the page I "borrowed" this calc from - and it converts pound-miles per hour per second into straightforward pounds of impact force.

The Force of the impact was 19789466.67 pounds.

Divide that by 2000 to get imperial tons and that makes the impact force

9894.73 tons

or, in metric flavour, 8978.88 tonnes is what was punching through the towers at impact point.

Which kind of explains why there wasn't much left of the aircraft that did it, don't you think?

BTW, I did post this in the other "stop with the crazy claims" thread, but its relevant here t0o and rather than link to it, which no one will read, I thought it better to reproduce it - because Wizard has repeatedly claimed that the impact could not breach the towers. I think 9894 tons of force is more that enough to do that.

[edit on 12/1107/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by dracodie
Wizard_In_The_Woods you believe that it was just holograms and nothing striked the towers , or the hologram was used to hide something?

Dracodie:

I’m not sure about the holograms. They weren’t really necessary.

Virtually all of us, including the inhabitants of NYC get their news from mainstream media. There’s nothing wrong with that. Better than getting it through word of mouth or some raggedy pamphlet as in the olden days. Never in history has the general populace had such absolute access to information as today.

But being that we will always only find out what’s going on in an indirect way — unless we happen to be at an event — we will always be vulnerable to getting duped. I believe all the talk and all the pictures of planes on 9-11 — all 100% of them — are fabricated.

I think it certain that nothing struck the towers. NOTHING. Because if something had hit them, there would have been evidence of that. Even if only a little bit. Something would have dropped down. Something — embarrassing and inconsistent with the official story — would have been caught on camera. But there is nothing. Which means the 9-11 cabal played it safe and did nothing (to strike the twin towers). Having nothing on film (other than the CGI) and having nothing in the streets of NYC (other than what was planted) was the best strategy because it forced people to accept the official theory.

When folks are given the choice between believing a theory which is based on something such as the OT is (CGI video fakery) and a supposition which relies on having ‘nothing’ such as the hologram idea (no plane parts found on 9-11) they always choose the former. People are touchy-feely/anal-retentive. Abstract concepts are difficult to grasp. They prefer to go with the tangible. Sure, in the realm of mathematics, the number zero is indeed something. It’s a number just like any other. But in the world of 9-11 theories phony videos are much more believable than the concept of ‘there was nothing at all’ or there were ‘fleeting holograms’.

Dracodie, I say there was nothing at the WTC’s except for good ol’ fashioned bombs. And some more ‘modern’ ones of course to bring em down.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by seridium




WHAT?? The NOSE of an aircraft striking the building and entering it and coming out untouched on the other side?? Who could believe that? It is insane!! How in the world could anyone accept the story that the nose of a commercial jet could survive crashing thru a steel framed building and not crumple and be torn to bits? Am I not getting this right? Are some people actually suggesting that the picture above showing the nose of the ' plane ' coming thru the other side is actually the same nose that tore into the Tower? How could anyone think that?

To think that an aircraft nose could survive ANY collision with anything but a bird and remain intact is the height of folly..amazing. Somehow I keep thinking that I am misinterpreting all this..no one could possible be that gullible..could they?

Either a hologram was used to simulate the attacks or we have a really weird anomaly in that picture of that nose coming out...what could explain that EXCEPT a hologram? Any ideas? And to expect john Lear to come up with the inside info on the governments secret abilities in the field of holograms is silly: It can be safely assume that the powers that be have technology far in advance of what we see in public, we all know this: So we can speculate on those abilities without being shallow: We may not know the exact systems used, but we know that the ' planes ' crashing into the Towers exhibited far too many ' anomalies ' to be pushed aside and forgotten.

Look at that picture again posted above of the plane nose coming out after the crash..how in heavens name could anyone think that a nose could survive the crash intact?? Its laughable if not for the desperation it signals.

Well was the exterior frame of the building made of titanium?
In real life they don't build planes with paper machete.

What is hard to believe about that picture ? that it is real evidence compared to hearsay and bull# stories?

In the "Chopper 5" video, which aired live, what appears to be the nose of the airplane exits out the opposite (north) side of the south tower, at about the 89h floor, followed by a quick fade down to a black picture.

In at least one other video, which did not air live, a similar, silvery cone-shaped object appears to exit the north face of the building, at about the 89th floor, afterwards it is consumed by a flame. This flame is a distinctly yellower, lighter color than the other, more orange parts of the "fireball".

source

[edit on 013030p://upMonday by seridium]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Dracodie, I say there was nothing at the WTC’s except for good ol’ fashioned bombs. And some more ‘modern’ ones of course to bring em down.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So your evidence is that there is no evidence

no evidence + even no more evidence = Wizard_in_the_woods


So then your here just to derail this thread with your comments and dodging evidence?