The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.

WOW you so completely missed my point. Please try calming down and re-reading what I wrote. None of what I said implied what you posted above.

Originally posted by jfj123
[Yes, I know DARPA has a hologram program, actually they have several. We've already gone over this.

But this means they do have the technology for holograms.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


There is no physical or empirical evidence for *QUARKS* yet scientists believe they exist and are a viable hypothesis based on the reason that they make sense of things that are being studied.

Physical planes make sense. To argue otherwise is to go against reason.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
[Yes, I know DARPA has a hologram program, actually they have several. We've already gone over this.

But this means they do have the technology for holograms.

You're missing the point. No they don't have technology to project a 3 dimensional, high resolution, moving, hologram that reflects light, creates sound, etc.

That's like saying just because we have laser pens, we automatically have a death star laser that can blow up entire planets.

And again, those hologram projects do NOT project real, visible holograms.

Originally posted by jfj123
You're missing the point. No they don't have technology to project a 3 dimensional, high resolution, moving, hologram that reflects light, creates sound, etc.

Oh so you have access to classified projects to know that there is no 3D hologram?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You're missing the point. No they don't have technology to project a 3 dimensional, high resolution, moving, hologram that reflects light, creates sound, etc.

Oh so you have access to classified projects to know that there is no 3D hologram?

Oh come on this is getting absurd. No of course I don't but I do know what the technological limitations are with regard to holograms. This info is really easy to find. Physics is physics regardless of whether it's top secret or not. 2+2 always equals 4. It doesn't matter if you're doing math for a super secret project or not.

There is ZERO evidence that these types of holograms can exist.

If you have some evidence I am wrong, please post it. I would love to see it.

Originally posted by neformore
I saw two planes hit the towers in news footage.
The difference being that thousands of other people on the ground and watching live news feeds saw the same thing on 9/11.
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.
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?
[edit on 12/1107/07 by neformore]

Boy are you talking my language(spelling?) here sweetipie, I love your metric conversion the best. Thanks for doing the research on math side of the actual plane theory, now if the otherside would only start doing research like this and posting their findings I might respect their rantings.

First and foremost what is being decribed as a hologram/holograph by definition is neither. So Wizard and John can we at least agree that your idea is something way beyond "hologram" please!

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh come on this is getting absurd. No of course I don't but I do know what the technological limitations are with regard to holograms. This info is really easy to find. Physics is physics regardless of whether it's top secret or not. 2+2 always equals 4. It doesn't matter if you're doing math for a super secret project or not.

Ok, but you have an opinion not evidence they do not exist.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh come on this is getting absurd. No of course I don't but I do know what the technological limitations are with regard to holograms. This info is really easy to find. Physics is physics regardless of whether it's top secret or not. 2+2 always equals 4. It doesn't matter if you're doing math for a super secret project or not.

Ok, but you have an opinion not evidence they do not exist.

No actually some pretty basic physics say they do not exist. Physics is not an opinion.

Like I said, if ANYONE can post evidence that holograms of this sophistication are currently possible, please, please post it as I would love to see it. It would mean a HUGE leap in technology that I would love to know about.

Originally posted by jfj123
Like I said, if ANYONE can post evidence that holograms of this sophistication are currently possible, please, please post it as I would love to see it. It would mean a HUGE leap in technology that I would love to know about.

Sorry, but as stated most of these types of projects are classified. At least for now.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Like I said, if ANYONE can post evidence that holograms of this sophistication are currently possible, please, please post it as I would love to see it. It would mean a HUGE leap in technology that I would love to know about.

Sorry, but as stated most of these types of projects are classified. At least for now.

Like I said though, regardless of whether or not they are classified, those projects MUST follow the same physics.

I do appreciate your input and the fact that you do indeed want to find the truth.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Thanks for doing the research on math side of the actual plane theory, now if the otherside would only start doing research like this and posting their findings I might respect their rantings.

They ignored it.

In fact you are the only person who picked up on it. What does that tell you about the state of this so called "debate" ?



[edit on 13/1107/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sorry, but as stated most of these types of projects are classified. At least for now.

So how do you know about them?

You call for evidence of the planes with one hand, dismissing witness testimony and live TV feeds, and on the other you use this as an excuse?

reply to post by neformore

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.

Excellent info ! Now my question is - what is the minimum force required to damage a structural core support, perimeter support, etc...? If we can determine that the force you calculated above, is much greater then a force needed to damage multiple core supports, we'll be making some serious headway.

Again good job for bringing something more scientific then an opinion to the discussion.

Wizard and lear I am waiting for a response?

why you dodging me?

Originally posted by neformore
They ignored it.

In fact you are the only person who picked up on it. What does that tell you about the state of this so called "debate" ?

[edit on 13/1107/07 by neformore]

I'm used to being ignored when I present facts and research by the the "Hologram Dudes", it's their modus operendi. Again your footwork is appreciated by the mathamaticly inclined and I will continue to battle this theory because my heart tells me to.

PS your avatar is a welcome break from the usual thing here on ATS, hows the weather on your side of the globe?

seridium...

They are dodging you because they can’t come up with a shred of evidence for the crackpot hologram theory - you have, as have many others on this board provided evidence to show that this theory is not only dead but absolute nonsense, thus answering the question.

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!!

Thanks for the post seridium and sorry for the delay in responding. You state that it is an engine core and that it was found on the ground.

Actually what was found on the ground was a General Electric CFM-56. That is the kind of engine attached to a Boeing 737 and some models of the DC-8. It doesn't have very much power and that is why it is used on smaller airliners or in the case of the DC-8 why they used four of them.

The airliner that appears to be crashing into the south tower is allegedly United Airlines Flight 175. United Airines uses Pratt and Whitney engines on its airliners not General Electric. So the engine you state was found on the ground could not have come from the plane which appeared to crash into the south tower.

In fact, the truth is, no airplane crashed into the south tower. It was a hologram which appeared to crash into the south tower with the pre-planting of explosives to finalize the illusion. Direct energy weapons, using molecular disassociation techonolgy completed the job of the total destruction of the WTC.

Someone was supposed to scatter some wreckage around the area below the twin towers but they didn't do a very good job. They 'planted' a General Electric CFM-56 when they should have planted a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D.

As far as evidence that a hologram was used I submit yourself as proof positive that holograms can fool anyone. If you would like a technical explanation of exactly how holographic technology was developed and deployed I suggest you address the issue to the Department of Defense and the Pentagon. I believe it is highly classified but they would be the people that would know.

Thanks for the post and again, sorry for the delay in responding.

Originally posted by smartie

seridium...

They are dodging you because they can’t come up with a shred of evidence for the crackpot hologram theory - you have, as have many others on this board provided evidence to show that this theory is not only dead but absolute nonsense, thus answering the question.

Thanks for the post smartie. I would respectfully suggest that the death of this thread is highly exaggerated. Currently there are 837 posts, 17, 104 views and 9 flags.

Thanks for your opinion though but Long Live The Hologram Thread!

John, whilst I admire your persistence and tenacity in keeping this alive, there is no evidence yet presented to do so.