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.

Whether or not you believe planes hit the towers or whether it was holographs or not, this piece of evidence can't be ignored, if it is true.

I read how some people love to use Occam's Razor to debunk anything that THEY don't understand. Personally, I hate Occam's Razor, I think it is counter-intuitive and does not consider the human motives for how events unfold they way that they do. Humans are notoriously illogical on many fronts when driven by ego and emotions.

Anyway, if the engine found on the street does not come from THE plane that crashed in to the tower, then wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest THAT plane did not crash in to the tower? Seriously, where in the hell can the two large engine cores disappear to, without a trace, except for a wrong engine found on the street?

It must logically follow that the official story is a lie, whether you believe it is a hologram or not.

By the way, could it have been possible that a missile was fitted with a holographic projector or other camo-scheme to make it take the shape of a plane while in flight? I have no knowledge about holograms at all, so I'm merely asking.

If the WRONG engine was found on the street, then what did cause the explosion in the tower?

Go ahead, flame me if you like - I live in another country, so it won't burn me too much. Besides, if I was made of steel, then would I be capable of surviving a jet-fuel burn or not?

reply to post by johnlear


Once again, the single piece of info you are posting is a simple, proposal sheet. These sheets are presented by the higher ups all the time. Once they hit the science department the proposals are either set aside or rejected as the technology simply doesn't exist, is cost prohibitive, etc...

Here is some info. regarding your "pie in the sky" proposal sheet.

Real life holograms are a lot more limited, so I was interested to see this study carried by Dr David Watt on Holograms As Nonlethal Weapons for NTIC, the Nonlethal Technology Innovations Center in New Hampshire.

This is a serious look at the technical possibilities for holograms. It’s a far cry from blue sky fantasies like the Air Force 2025 Airborne Holographic Projector which ”displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator” or the even more wildly optimistic “Hologram, Death: Hologram used to scare a target individual to death.”

This excerpt specifically mentions Mr. Lears 2025 hologram PROPOSAL and even calls it blue sky fantasy.

Real holograms will not fool people at short range and they do not move, nor can they be ‘projected’ into a remote location. But they might still have their uses.

Here's a big deal killer for the hologram idea.

The human eye is difficult to fool, notes Dr Watt, but infra-red sensors are much less sophisticated – there is no need for the same level of colour fidelity. ....... However, as Watt points out the technology does not yet exist to create infra-red holograms.

This is a much more interesting military application for holographic technology. DARPA also has a proposal project that says they would like to develop a technology to project images that show up on enemy radar.

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.

Whether or not you believe planes hit the towers or whether it was holographs or not, this piece of evidence can't be ignored, if it is true.

Yes, IF it is true.

Anyway, if the engine found on the street does not come from THE plane that crashed in to the tower, then wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest THAT plane did not crash in to the tower?

The next simplest answer would be that a different plane crashed into the tower.

Seriously, where in the hell can the two large engine cores disappear to, without a trace, except for a wrong engine found on the street?

Like finding a needle in a gigantic haystack?

By the way, could it have been possible that a missile was fitted with a holographic projector or other camo-scheme to make it take the shape of a plane while in flight? I have no knowledge about holograms at all, so I'm merely asking.

No it is not possible.

If the WRONG engine was found on the street, then what did cause the explosion in the tower?

The plane the engine belongs to?

Go ahead, flame me if you like - I live in another country, so it won't burn me too much. Besides, if I was made of steel, then would I be capable of surviving a jet-fuel burn or not?

I think you're asking good questions but I don't know whether what they found belonged to a 767 or not. I have not found any information about the posted photo.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions and posting ideas so I don't think you should be flamed for it.

Originally posted by jfj123

Anyway, if the engine found on the street does not come from THE plane that crashed in to the tower, then wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest THAT plane did not crash in to the tower?

The next simplest answer would be that a different plane crashed into the tower.

Sure, it could have been another plane, but maybe it wasn't. Either way, the official story is completely bogus, if the engine core on the street did not belong to the plane that struck the tower.

If that's not enough to make people question the official fable, then I don't know what is.

I don't believe that two large engine cores would have been difficult to find in the removal of the debris. Most definitely not a needle in a haystack. Sure, it might have taken a while to do so, but the whole site was cleared, eventually, and those engine cores would had to have been removed by one or more of the tip-trucks. One of the excavator operators must have noticed the engines of a 767 in his scoop bucket - they would have known that the plane wreckage would be vitally important to investigators.

I don't believe that a passport, from the plane's cabin, can survive without damage, to be found on the street below, yet two large engines could be reduced to the level of scrap that would make the unidentifiable. Again, Occam's Razor would suggest that no significant pieces of 767 wreckage = no 767 struck the tower. Maybe something else struck the tower instead, maybe it was a holograph and explosives? Who knows, it could have been another plane? Either way, we're being LIED to and they got away with it.

Originally posted by johnlear
Hologram Bedtime Story:

Come on Uncle John that wasn't nearly long enough, I'm not sleepy yet!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So your stating that that 1 NIST report is correct and all prior NIST reports and all other reports are wrong?

No, if I was stating that I would have typed it. I'm providing you with links to the NIST report and then explaining them to you because you obviously don't understand it's conclusions.

Lets refresh, you asked, 'Why does NIST and most other reports then state that the planes did not cause the collapse and the fires di not burn long enough or get hot enough to casue the collapse.'

Answer - They don't, you're either lying or severely misinformed.

edit to add: thanks infinity!

[edit on 29-11-2007 by InnocentBystander]

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Answer - They don't, you're either lying or severely misinformed.

Lets look at the NIST mistakse so far.

1. NIST has been forced to change the final report about plane impacts.

2. NIST did not check for explosives or chemicles in the steel.

3. NIST did not recover any steel from building 7.


Now lets look at the reports that state the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.

www.nistreview.org...

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

911research.wtc7.net...

Section 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.

www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.

Whether or not you believe planes hit the towers or whether it was holographs or not, this piece of evidence can't be ignored, if it is true.

While my knowledge of airplanes is nowhere near comparable to Mr. Lears, I don't believe the above information is true. According to what I've read, Boeing 767s used both Pratt and Whitney and General Electric Engines. Source I'm not sure what sources Mr. Lear is using, but the engine was not a CFM-56, it was a CF-6. Furthermore, in the video of the attacks, you can actually see the engine fly out of the building during the second strike. This engine fell onto Murray St., and debris even injured people as it fell. The evidence supporting this was used in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and diagrams have been posted in this thread showing the path and final location of the engine.

Since people saw and videotaped the engine fall out of the building, and the engine core would be far too heavy to lift with a couple of men (according to Mr. Lear), I find it very unlikely that it was planted without anyone noticing. The hologram theory relies on the super advanced goernment using secret technology to pull off the biggest con in human history, while at the same time being to inept to read an engine's serial number properly. It ignores all of the physical evidence, witness testimony, and video evidence, but then uses this evidence to bolster it's claims. In short, it's rubbish, and it only serves to distract from the real crime: The failure of the government to protect it's people, and the use of tragedy to further it's pre-existing agenda overseas.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
While my knowledge of airplanes is nowhere near comparable to Mr. Lears, I don't believe the above information is true. According to what I've read, Boeing 767s used both Pratt and Whitney and General Electric Engines.

Different airlines use different engines.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Lets look at the NIST mistakse so far.

1. NIST has been forced to change the final report about plane impacts.

By whom? Please cite a source here.

2. NIST did not check for explosives or chemicles in the steel.

They didn't check for thermite, but they did do a full mettalurgy and microanalysis. You can read about it here:

wtc.nist.gov...

3. NIST did not recover any steel from building 7.

Since the topic is about lol-ograms hitting buildings 1 and 2, I'll leave that for another thread.

NIST's mistakes are just that, NIST's mistakes. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't have used their reports as evidence, and you definitely shouldn't have misquoted them.

Now lets look at the reports that state the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.

www.nistreview.org...

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

Go back and read it carefully, IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE PLANES OR FIRES NOT CAUSING THE COLLAPSE. If you read that paragraph again and still come to that conclusion, then I can't help you.

None of the other links you posted have anything to do with the NIST's findings, and none of them say what you claim they do. Can you find one simple quote from the NIST that supports what you're saying?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
While my knowledge of airplanes is nowhere near comparable to Mr. Lears, I don't believe the above information is true. According to what I've read, Boeing 767s used both Pratt and Whitney and General Electric Engines.

Different airlines use different engines.

Maybe, but according to American Airlines website, they use General Electrics.

767-200
Engine Manufacturer
General Electric
Aircraft Manufacturer
Boeing
Seats
219
Engine Manufacturer
General Electric

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
By whom? Please cite a source here.


They didn't check for thermite, but they did do a full mettalurgy and microanalysis. You can read about it here:

1. Letter from NIST dealing with changing the report.
www.911proof.com...

2. Why didn't NIST check for thermit? FEMA did test for thermite.

wtc.nist.gov...

No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed

How many more ways do i have to porve the NIST reports are not correct?


[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Maybe, but according to American Airlines website, they use General Electrics

What about United Airlines?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Letter from NIST dealing with changing the report.
www.911proof.com...

This is getting old. I'm not getting paid as your attorney, so this will be the last time I read and explain your own evidence to you.

This was a request to change multiple sections of the report, and they were denied.

Here are the relevant quotes:

Your letter requests several corrections based upon these assertions....Therefore, your requests for corrections (Items a-e in our letter) are denied.

Your letter also makes three requests for changes to Section 6.14.4 under the objectivity standard to include...Therefore, your requests for corrections (items f-h) are denied.

The final reques for change in your letter is for....On this basis, this request for change is denied.

Once again, you have posted information that is the exact opposite of the truth. Obviously, if you would have read even the first paragraph of the text you posted, you would have known this.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
[Once again, you have posted information that is the exact opposite of the truth. Obviously, if you would have read even the first paragraph of the text you posted, you would have known this.

Its funny and sad that you only pick out the parts that suit you.

Becasue i have read the whole letter something either you did not do or just refusing to post the truth.

Why didn't you read the last page that sites the change?

I will be waiting for your answer.


[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its funny and sad that you only pick out the parts that suit you.

Becasue i have read the whole letter something either you did not do or just refusing to post the truth.

Why didn't you read the last page that sites the change?

I will be waiting for your answer.
[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. As the last few pages have proven, just because you read the entire letter, doesn't mean you understood it. I read the whole thing, even the last page. On top of that, I understand what they are revising, and why it does NOTHING to support your position. You obviously do not.

Because I already promised not to read and explain your evidence to you anymore, I'll ask you: What does the last page's revision mean? Do you even understand what they are talking about? If so, please explain it to me.

Over the last few pages, I've answered your questions, read your links, and corrected the flaws in your research. You have yet to address any of the inconsistancies, or answer any one of my questions. What's worse, you don't actually believe the hologram theory, which is what the thread is about. Becuse of the one-sided nature of this debate, and your failure to grasp the information written in the articles you post, I can't keep going back and forth with you. It's obviously a waste of my time.

By the way, could it have been possible that a missile was fitted with a holographic projector or other camo-scheme to make it take the shape of a plane while in flight? I have no knowledge about holograms at all, so I'm merely asking.

i think they just inserted a plane over a missile maybe , i think this proves my point , or maybe im wrong in my assumption

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Gee, you talk about me.

Either you do not read my post or you just don't want to post the facts that do not agree with you.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, you talk about me.

Either you do not read my post or you just don't want to post the facts that do not agree with you.

So, do you not understand what the last page means, or do you just refuse to explain it to me? I really want to know.

Why do you refuse to answer even one of my questions? What facts disagree with what I said? I have given you specific answers to your questions, and you answer me with one line posts that say absolutely nothing. If you want me to continue talking about this with you, then look over the last few pages and read my questions. Read the information I posted and respond with specifics. Posts like the one you wrote above do nothing but waste time and space.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Why do you refuse to answer even one of my questions?

I guess the same reason you will not admit to the facts and evidence i post.