The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by seridium
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.

Sorry to tell you but the nosecone of an airliner is made of graphite composite. It would not survive the intial impact of the building.

The rest of the airframe is thin aluminum and would be shredded by the steel beams of the building.

Please look at the Purdue animation to see the plane being shredded as it enters the building.

Maybe you should watch the video again

it is very plain to see for yourself that something came out the side of the building and it sure looked like the nose or the fuselage or the aircraft.

At that speed and velocity it would be very capable of exiting the other side, but believe what you want its your right I am just trying to show some proof here I thought that is what this thread was all about?
Not about my idea and your idea.

eyewitness86 -

You are obviously not familiar with the construction or design of the Twin Towers.

There was not solid steel walls, most were windows and thin outer coverings.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seridium
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.

Sorry to tell you but the nosecone of an airliner is made of graphite composite. It would not survive the intial impact of the building.

The rest of the airframe is thin aluminum and would be shredded by the steel beams of the building.

Please look at the Purdue animation to see the plane being shredded as it enters the building.

Originally posted by robert z

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.

Speed and velocity? This is rich!! You are right: We should expect to see the nose of the plane where we do in that picture, if only for that pesky Tower right in the way!! If the Tower was an illusion, then that would explain it to a degree, but the Tower was real.

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE, no earthly way, for the nose of an aircraft and the fuselage directly behind it to remain intact after hitting the steel network that made up the sides of the Towers. The nose would have deformed IMMEDIATELY upon impact with the side of the Tower. there is NO question about that. The entire plane would have been shredded to bits from striking the steel beams and supports as well as interior walls and partitions, etc. To imagine the nose of a plane surviving the crash into a Tower is beyond belief. It defies all logic and the nature of materials.

That picture is evidence of one of two things, and two things ONLY :

1. It represents a picture of the hologram being projected by the perps to make us think that planes were being flown into them. This would explain what is seen, but the shadow thrown by the image still would have to be explained: Is a hologram ' solid ' as in able to throw a shadow? Or is the shadow itself a hologram of a black nature?

2. It is a picture of a cannister being ejected from the far side of the strike to simulate airliner debris, containing false paperwork to be found later..the engine of an aircraft, parts and bits enough to allay a causal examination by a complacent media. The cannister would have opened and destructed and flung the contents around and look like debris from the explosion above.

It is NOT logical or possible for the nose of an airliner to survive the crash intact under ANY scenario, no matter how favorable to the assumer of such. The lightweight nose frame of an airliner is made not to withstand any crashes, but to stand up to the forces of flying only.It was not made in any way to try and protect the pilots in case of a crash; airline crashes always assume the worst case scenario anyways, where survivors are miracles rather than normal events.

So, what is it? Is it the hologram caught in action doing something that is physically impossible to be done in real life, or is it a pod of debris blown out to replicate a crash? Or something else? Lets hear what others think.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Speed and velocity? This is rich!! You are right: We should expect to see the nose of the plane where we do in that picture, if only for that pesky Tower right in the way!! If the Tower was an illusion, then that would explain it to a degree, but the Tower was real.

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE, no earthly way, for the nose of an aircraft and the fuselage directly behind it to remain intact after hitting the steel network that made up the sides of the Towers. The nose would have deformed IMMEDIATELY upon impact with the side of the Tower.

For starters its not the nose of the plane its the engine core and that is very possible so possible that holy cow look at the video and evidence of the wreckage that it in fact was found on the ground WOW how bout that hey!!



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

Originally posted by seridium
it is very plain to see for yourself that something came out the side of the building and it sure looked like the nose or the fuselage or the aircraft.

Not about my idea and your idea.

Yes something did , but not the nosecone. it would not have survived the intial impact.

Do you have any eviednce to support your theory that it was the nosecone, or is it just your opinion?

Originally posted by seridium
For starters its not the nose of the plane its the engine core and that is very possible so possible that holy cow look at the video and evidence of the wreckage that it in fact was found on the ground WOW how bout that hey!!

So now your changing your theory? First it was the nosecone now its tha engine. Can you make up your mind and show evidence to support your theories?




[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by seridium
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.

I posted no such picture.
So quit trying to dodge the obvious I posted many statements & questions for you which you simply overlooked, so here they are again.
Maybe now you will want to try and answer them since there just one click away?

questions and statements part 1

statements and evidence part 2

Originally posted by seridium
Originally posted by Johnlear

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.

Sorry I should have just posted this it was posted by

Originally posted byJfj123
John Lear uses the following formula:

Ridiculous claim + ZERO evidence = Absolute proof he is correct

Just my opinion.

Maybe this will sum up my viewpoint and opinion of your hologram theory.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seridium
it is very plain to see for yourself that something came out the side of the building and it sure looked like the nose or the fuselage or the aircraft.

Not about my idea and your idea.

Yes something did , but not the nosecone. it would not have survived the intial impact.

Do you have any eviednce to support your theory that it was the nosecone, or is it just your opinion?

Originally posted by seridium
For starters its not the nose of the plane its the engine core and that is very possible so possible that holy cow look at the video and evidence of the wreckage that it in fact was found on the ground WOW how bout that hey!!

So now your changing your theory? First it was the nosecone now its tha engine. Can you make up your mind and show evidence to support your theories?




[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Sorry man the actual article I got those pictures and videos from claim a nose cone but as i read more into it it seems that was the Engine core that was found in the city.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So now your changing your theory? First it was the nosecone now its tha engine. Can you make up your mind and show evidence to support your theories?

Yep I am changing it because what was said about a nose is false it was a engine core.

An engine was found on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC.
info found here

Originally posted by seridium
Yep I am changing it because what was said about a nose is false it was a engine core.

So you agree the nose would not have withstood impact with the building?

You also might want to do more research into what engine was found. By most reports it was not an engine from a 767.

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

Evidence of real planes has been verified by eye witness testimony, video, and photos.
The problem with the hologram idea is that it is not technologically possible. So if it's not possible, it's not a hologram. It's really, really, really simple. If you can prove holograms of this sophistication are possible, then post the info so we can review it. If you can't then get over it and move on to something REAL.

Once again, since holograms of this sophistication are NOT possible, it CAN'T be a hologram. I don't know how much more simple I can make it for yourself and John. Do you get it yet???? MY GOD I hope so !!

Originally posted by jfj123
Evidence of real planes has been verified by eye witness testimony, video, and photos.

But no actual physical evidence or official reports..

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

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

Can you please support these statements with evidence?

The point is this.

In 2 different video's something came out the other side of the building. A hologram wouldn't do that, and why would they CGI that in? Some have argued it was a mistake. Well why even show the other video? Some have argued to cover the mistake. But the point is no-one would have even noticed had it been in just the one video, if they are the ones securing all the footage.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.

You keep asking this question but this question is not answerable. It's simply not a good question.

Can you prove that invisible, giant, blue fairies with bunny ears, DON'T exist? If you can't then by your argument, they do.

Let me say this, there are 2 HUGE technological LEAPS that would need to be made to allow for a hologram of this sophistication. If John Lear really did speak to an expert, he would know what they are and could explain them. I have asked him 4 times to please explain these 2 items but he has refused to do so. I don't want to post what the 2 items are yet as I want to see what Mr. Lear and/or his 2nd incarnation Wizard in the Wood, is going to say-if he/they says anything.

Mr Lear posted that he had dinner with a expert in holographic technology last Thursday night and that expert explained EVERYTHING to him so why hasn't he posted that info here? He has posted other info here after Thursday so we know he could have posted the information if he really had it.

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep asking this question but this question is not answerable. It's simply not a good question.

Oh but i can post evidence that the DARPA budget has a hologram program listed.

So why couldn't you find any evidence to debate a hologram program?





[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Evidence of real planes has been verified by eye witness testimony, video, and photos.

But no actual physical evidence or official reports..

For example, if thousands of people witness a murder where the killer kills his victim with a knife. The killing was on tv, people took photos, people saw the killing and testified to such. You're saying that if the police can't find the body, then the murder never happened? It would be great evidence to find the body but just because they can't doesn't mean it didn't happen. RIGHT?

Originally posted by jfj123
For example, if thousands of people witness a murder where the killer kills his victim with a knife.

So that means then that the police do not have to do an actual investigation RIGHT ?

We do not need CSI people any more, the police can just go by what people saw and what they were told.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep asking this question but this question is not answerable. It's simply not a good question.

Oh but i can post evidence that the DARPA budget has a hologram program listed.

So why couldn't you find any evidence to debate a hologram program?

[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Yes, I know DARPA has a hologram program, actually they have several. We've already gone over this. Those programs have nothing to do with projecting actual 3-D images. I have thoroughly read the programs you are referring along with several others, and they could not be adopted to do what John Lear claims. If you don't believe me, read them yourself in detail.