The Hologram Theory is dead

reply to post by jfj123


jfj123 is correct --- a B757 and B767 cannot exceed Mach 1 and still remain controllable, let alone reach M2.7!

A normal cruise Mach for both will range from .80 to .83Mach. Mach number is a relationship between air temp and density, so 'true airspeed' at a given Mach number will vary according to altitude (density) and temperature. Modern swept-wing passenger jets will encounter a phenomenon called 'Mach tuck' after exceeding their maximum 'critical' designed Mach speed - but before the 'tuck' there will be an increasing buffeting, the whole airframe will shake and eventually the ailerons will lose their effectiveness. (Both airplanes are stable up to about .85, but I've felt the beginning of mach buffet at about .86-.87...this can occur when encountering mountain wave atmospheric phenomena as the auto-pilot attempts to hold altitude. Pilot vigilance is required, and control is easily maintained by skilled, professional pilots).

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

I'm not sure anyone would have felt the turbulence, the planes hit the buildings hundreds of feet in the air. In some of the closer videos, the sound is extremely loud though.

I was talking about the supposed 757 at the Pentagon.

The planes that hit the towers were supposed to be 767.

My bad. Were there people standing in the approach path, on the lawn or by the interstate? Do you think the plane that struck the Pentagon was a hologram?

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
My bad. Were there people standing in the approach path, on the lawn or by the interstate? Do you think the plane that struck the Pentagon was a hologram?

According to the official story there were witnesses all over the place.

Some say it flew right over them on the highway.

No, it was not a hologram, but was it Flight 77?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I don't think anyone heard sonic booms.

You mean like no one reported turbulence from the 757 flying at 500 mph at low level.

What do you mean? Who would have reported turbulence?
Are you referring to the 767 200ER?
How low did the plane fly?
What type of turbulence is expected?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

I'm not sure anyone would have felt the turbulence, the planes hit the buildings hundreds of feet in the air. In some of the closer videos, the sound is extremely loud though.

I was talking about the supposed 757 at the Pentagon.

The planes that hit the towers were supposed to be 767.

We were talking about the video regarding the WTC towers and not the pentagon. Please let us know when making subject changes in the middle so it doesn't seriously confuse what we're talking about. Thanks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
My bad. Were there people standing in the approach path, on the lawn or by the interstate? Do you think the plane that struck the Pentagon was a hologram?

According to the official story there were witnesses all over the place.

Some say it flew right over them on the highway.

No, it was not a hologram, but was it Flight 77?

Something I've noticed is that many people have a hard time guaging distance when it comes to planes so right over the highway may have been fairly high.

Also, I drive a road which runs perpendicular multiple take off and landing strips at a local airport. I've driven down the road while both large and small planes have taken off and landed and never felt any turbulence. Just making an observation.

Originally posted by jfj123
I've driven down the road while both large and small planes have taken off and landed and never felt any turbulence. Just making an observation.

How high off the ground were the large planes?

Were the large planes traveling 500mph?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I've driven down the road while both large and small planes have taken off and landed and never felt any turbulence. Just making an observation.

How high off the ground were the large planes?

Were the large planes traveling 500mph?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You're a few questions behind. I asked you the following:

What do you mean? Who would have reported turbulence?
Are you referring to the 767 200ER?
How low did the plane fly?
What type of turbulence is expected?

Originally posted by jfj123
You're a few questions behind. I asked you the following:

What do you mean? Who would have reported turbulence?
Are you referring to the 767 200ER?
How low did the plane fly?
What type of turbulence is expected?

No, you missed my statement that i was talking about the 757 at the Pentagon.

Please be courtious enough to read my post before posting.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You're a few questions behind. I asked you the following:

What do you mean? Who would have reported turbulence?
Are you referring to the 767 200ER?
How low did the plane fly?
What type of turbulence is expected?

No, you missed my statement that i was talking about the 757 at the Pentagon.

Please be courtious enough to read my post before posting.

I was, I didn't understand your post as you didn't tell us you were making a complete subject change from the WTC to the pentagon. It was really confusing to several people including myself.

Mr. Lear,

Since you are an accomplished pilot, could you please identify these items, and adress their significance to your speculation about holographs;

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Mr. Lear,

Since you are an accomplished pilot, could you please identify these items, and adress their significance to your speculation about holographs;

Well i have a few answers. John may have more.

1. No name of photographer.

2. No date, time photos taken.

3. No locatoin of photos taken.

4. No official reports matching the parts to the 9/11 planes.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by jfj123
I was, I didn't understand your post as you didn't tell us you were making a complete subject change from the WTC to the pentagon. It was really confusing to several people including myself.

Well let me explain it to you. You made the statement about no one reported hearing a sonic boom at the WTC if the plane was going as fast as the poster stated.

I then made the stement that no one reported turbulence at the Pentagon.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


lol, did you apply the same scrutiny to the holograph theory ?

I'm asking Mr. Lear because he is a pilot

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

I'm asking Mr. Lear because he is a pilot

Well i was a crew chief in the Air Force so i have a background in aviation.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


then I'm sure you can see a wheel, and an engine, and come to a reasonable conclusion that a real jet hit the WTC

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I was, I didn't understand your post as you didn't tell us you were making a complete subject change from the WTC to the pentagon. It was really confusing to several people including myself.

Well let me explain it to you. You made the statement about no one reported hearing a sonic boom at the WTC if the plane was going as fast as the poster stated.

I then made the stement that no one reported turbulence at the Pentagon.

Here is the statement I made

Originally posted by jfj123
I don't think anyone heard sonic booms.

Here is the statement you made

You mean like no one reported turbulence from the 757 flying at 500 mph at low level.

You did not make a subject change by saying "Pentagon" anywhere in your post so that's what was confusing.

So when you tell me you made the statement, "I then made the stement that no one reported turbulence at the Pentagon.", I know that is not entirely correct.

I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm getting confused regarding some of your statements and I want them to be as clear as possible so there are no misunderstandings regarding what we are talking about.
"

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
then I'm sure you can see a wheel, and an engine, and come to a reasonable conclusion that a real jet hit the WTC

Yes, i do see a wheel and an engine, but who took the photos and when, where were they taken, and what plane are they from?

If i posted a photo of a plane part and said it was from the WTC or Pentagon, would you believe me or would you want proof?

Originally posted by jfj123

You mean like no one reported turbulence from the 757 flying at 500 mph at low level.

You did not make a subject change by saying "Pentagon" anywhere in your post so that's what was confusing.

So you did not know that it was supposed to have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon?


767s were supposed to have hit the towers, a 757 was supposed to have hit the Pentagon in case you did not know.


[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So you did not know that it was supposed to have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon?

If I knew what you were talking about, I never would have brought it up.

767s were supposed to have hit the towers, a 757 was supposed to have hit the Pentagon in case you did not know.

I assumed you made a mistake and meant to write 767 because of the current discussion.

Originally posted by jfj123
I assumed you made a mistake and meant to write 767 because of the current discussion

I assumed you knew what planes were supposed to have been used that day.