New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside.' Video: Russia Today

Originally posted by president
-A jet cannot take out a steel core just by impact. Why not?

A jet airliner is composed of very thin sheets of aluminum, carbon-fiber and titanium. These thin sheets will always give-in to heavy guage steel in a collision due to the difference in density and mass. The speed of the impact is immaterial, common sense really!

Originally posted by president
-jet fuel could not get hot enough to deform the core?
The fire in that building looked pretty damned hot to me. Why don't you tell me how hot fire HAS to be to affect steel then.
and then see how hot jet engines burn.

I do not know at what temperature steel deforms but according to many impartial experts(non-governmental) jet fuel cannot burn at such extreme temperatures.

Originally posted by president
-If the weak side was not in the middle, where was the weak side?

-Oh, and those top thirty stories were attached to a building until the building got knocked out from underneath it. How long did you expect it to hang over that burning jet?

Your still assuming two jet airliners crashed into each respective tower.

That would be a very sane assumption since everyone THINKS they saw what they saw, but my friend, looks can be deceiving. As I told you already, the building COULD NOT fall straight down.

You want my honest opinion? A sophisticated hologram was used in conjunction with perfectly timed explosives. I know all this is extremely hard to digest but the evidence leads me to this conclusion. The USA government allegedly has the technology to pull-off such wonders but don't ask me for "proof" because I don't have access to such data.

It all comes down to syncronising the fake impact with an explosive detonation at that exact point. Then the fires burn LOCALLY, supossedly weakening the structure, and finally we get the MAIN KABOOM where the rest of the explosives bring down each tower.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The speed of the impact is immaterial, common sense really!

Better look further into the factors involved in kinetic energy before repeating a rashly incorrect statement like that one. Hint - 'kinetic' means 'motion' or 'caused by motion'

I do not know at what temperature steel deforms but according to many impartial experts(non-governmental) jet fuel cannot burn at such extreme temperatures.

Jet fuel (kerosene) is an accelerant IE spreads fire quickly but is easily capable of burning alone at temperatures high enough to weaken structural steel. I've annealed and tempered tool & mild steel using nothing more than a kerosene torch. That's a temperature in the vicinity of 1000C which is bright red heat.

Your still assuming two jet airliners crashed into each respective tower.

You then went on to try & resuscitate the 'hologram theory'
Trust me - it's beyond life support and should be allowed to rest in peace.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The speed of the impact is immaterial, common sense really!

Better look further into the factors involved in kinetic energy before repeating a rashly incorrect statement like that one. Hint - 'kinetic' means 'motion' or 'caused by motion'

An aluminum airplane travelling at MACH 10(or even light speed) could NEVER take out a building steel's core. Nada, No Way, Never!!!

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I do not know at what temperature steel deforms but according to many impartial experts(non-governmental) jet fuel cannot burn at such extreme temperatures.

Jet fuel (kerosene) is an accelerant IE spreads fire quickly but is easily capable of burning alone at temperatures high enough to weaken structural steel. I've annealed and tempered tool & mild steel using nothing more than a kerosene torch. That's a temperature in the vicinity of 1000C which is bright red heat.

Even if jet fuel could burn hot enough to deform steel, this effect would be VERY LOCAL, meaning only those 30 affected stories COULD disintegrate and FALL-OFF the towers.

No way would A LOCAL FAILURE cause a systemic collapse of the 70 beneath stories. Granted metal is a good heat conductor but we are talking about A 1000 FOOT STRUCTURE so that is impossible. The heat would NEVER distribute itself equally enough to allow for a systemic collapse downward.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Your still assuming two jet airliners crashed into each respective tower.

You then went on to try & resuscitate the 'hologram theory'

Trust me - it's beyond life support and should be allowed to rest in peace.

The hologram theory, as ridiculous as it may sound to someone with no tech knowledge, is 1000 times more likely than the BS STORY the government is pushing down our throats.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

An aluminum airplane travelling at MACH 10(or even light speed) could NEVER take out a building steel's core. Nada, No Way, Never!!!

I suggest you study the physics some more, run the numbers and see how bad that statement is for yourself. The key thing to remember is that the plane had a mass of around 100 tonnes. Not suggesting the core was instantaneously destroyed but it did take significant damage in arresting 100 tonnes moving at 500mph.

Even if jet fuel could burn hot enough to deform steel, this effect would be VERY LOCAL, meaning only those 30 affected stories COULD disintegrate and FALL-OFF the towers.

Absolutely. There could only be heat effects in areas where there were large intense fires and that's a very small area compared to the entire building so heat was only a factor in initiating the collapse but the bulk of the building came down stone cold once enough mass was in motion (kinetic energy again).

I'll leave the hologram theory alone - it was sleeping peacefully and only ever had limited appeal even at its peak.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

An aluminum airplane travelling at MACH 10(or even light speed) could NEVER take out a building steel's core. Nada, No Way, Never!!!

I suggest you study the physics some more, run the numbers and see how bad that statement is for yourself. The key thing to remember is that the plane had a mass of around 100 tonnes. Not suggesting the core was instantaneously destroyed but it did take significant damage in arresting 100 tonnes moving at 500mph.

I am no expert in physics but it seems quite clear to me that MATERIAL DENSITY is very important in determining penetration and/or damage.

For example, it is common knowledge a regular bullet cannot penetrate normal body armour, unless the bullets are steal plated. Similarily a heat tank round cannot penetrate depleted uranium tank armour, especially if the tank armour is tilted.

Material density is paramount in determining how much damage a projectile will produce. If the projectile is substantially less dense than the target's material density, the damge will be low even at very high impact speeds.

Conclusion: AN ALUMINUM AIRCRAFT travelling at mach 1 has a zero chance of destroying THE STEEL CORE, regardless of its weight/mass.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The hologram theory, as ridiculous as it may sound to someone with no tech knowledge, is 1000 times more likely than the BS STORY the government is pushing down our throats.

Oh! I have tons of tech knowledge, and would love to hear your super duper detailed explanation of the following questions which pertain to this amazingly technical "hologram theory".

Please explain in technical detail how a hologram could possibly reproduce the sound of 2 roaring jet engines complete with Doppler effect in an urban setting that is convincing enough to fool people on the ground to be able to home in on this "hologram".

Let's remember that the John Lear explanation of "someone hung a couple of speakers out some windows" is not an acceptable one.

Since you claim the hologram was used with a "well timed explosion" please give us the super-duper technical details about how the plane shaped hole appeared in the building (2nd impact) BEFORE the explosion actually occurred. And in doing so, please explain how explosives could even cause a plane shaped hole across several floors of the building. Lastly, I'm sure most of us would love to hear the technology behind this explosive that actually was able to break the steal beams not outwards, no, but from the outside into the building!

Oh, this is going to be so exciting!

Now, I'm sure I'm not alone here with also wanting to gain insight from your mass amounts of tech knowledge on how a hologram could actually produce airplane seats, a jet engine and landing gear assemblies that rained down on the streets of Manhattan.

Man, I'm all giddy waiting to finally know the answers from someone so knowledgeable! So many people have tried to explain this theory here, but have failed miserably to provide such awesome technical details that you must possess!

Finally, since you claim this theory is a whopping 1000 times more likely than something so simple as 2 hijacked airliners actually flying into the buildings (I know, I know, it just sounds so impossible, right?) , I have no doubt that you surely MUST have some really amazing evidence that proves this 1000 times more than the current "BS STORY", and you should have no problem sharing that with all the less technical people here.

I excitedly await your detailed technical response!!!

reply to post by Soloist


A sophisticated hologram is a projection of light and sound upon a given target. I don't have to understand all the details to understand the basic theory, besides the details(assuming they exist) would be HIGHLY CLASSIFIED!

The transmission could be made via different methods and via various sources which I cannot dwelve on because I do not know the details. It seems satellites, planes, uavs and ufos are all decent candidates. Think of a hologram as a sophisticated film projector to get an idea.

Lastly, I am not stating the hologram theory was definitely used, all I am saying is it seems more likely than what the government is saying. You call me crazy for giving ideas but I and many other people already TORE APART the NIST report with the many holes it had. The primary hole is that tall buildings DO NOT FALL STRAIGHT DOWN unless they are made to fall that way. Gravity is not the only factor in determining how a building falls because there are LATERAL FORCES exerted as well. If planes did in fact crash into the twin towers then the damage would be restricted locally causing A PARTIAL COLLAPSE, aka toppling over effect. Of course that never happened so the conclusion is: EXPLOSIVES ULTIMATELY BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS, regardless of what transpired before. This is my punch line!

I have seen pictures of a modified Boeing 767 flying into the towers WITH SOMETHING hanging on its belly. Could *THAT SOMETHING* have been a mini-nuclear device? I don't know, but anything is possible! Anything other than Al-Queda, which no one can prove was responsible for 9-11 or even that they exist as stated by mainstream media and the government.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A sophisticated hologram is a projection of light and sound upon a given target. I don't have to understand all the details to understand the basic theory...

Sooooo, what's the "basic theory" of how a hologram "projects" sound then?

Think of a hologram as a sophisticated film projector to get an idea.

Hmm, for someone putting down anothers lack of "tech knowledge" I'm getting the feeling you might not have a good grasp on this.

Lastly, I am not stating the hologram theory was definitely used...

So, the "1000 times more likely" was an exaggeration then. Say it ain't so!

EXPLOSIVES ULTIMATELY BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS, regardless of what transpired before. This is my punch line!

Silent explosives (see the Naudet footage from the base of the tower)? Are these the same explosives that produced the plane shaped hole? Or different ones?

If that's your punch line, well it just wasn't all that funny. Maybe you should stick to the "tech" side of things and leave the comedy to others.

I have seen pictures of a modified Boeing 767 flying into the towers WITH SOMETHING hanging on its belly.

Like a piercing? I know some chicks like that too.

Could *THAT SOMETHING* have been a mini-nuclear device?

I think some of the piercings made in China may have some radioactive qualities, but then again maybe not.

anything is possible!

Really, now? Do you think it's possible a hijacked plane slammed into each tower, exploded causing massive structural damage, burned for almost an hour until the buildings collapsed starting from -ironically enough, at the very point of impact?

I bet you don't think that's possible.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


>An aluminum airplane travelling at MACH 10(or even light speed) could >NEVER take out a building steel's core. Nada, No Way, Never!!!

A piece of styrofoam took out a wing on the Space Shuttle.

Mass * Inertia = Force of impact. Even Jello at the right speed could go through a steel plate if you could get enough of it going fast enough.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A sophisticated hologram is a projection of light and sound upon a given target. I don't have to understand all the details to understand the basic theory...

Sooooo, what's the "basic theory" of how a hologram "projects" sound then?

And how does a movie projector project a movie. IT PROJECTS, AKA TRANSMITS! Do you want me to explain what the terms *project* and *transmit* mean?

If your that lazy, then I won't bother!

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Think of a hologram as a sophisticated film projector to get an idea.

Hmm, for someone putting down anothers lack of "tech knowledge" I'm getting the feeling you might not have a good grasp on this.

Check out this LRAD and read how it focuses sound energy up to an effective range of 270 meters.



Pretty cool, eh? And this is declassified technology. Just imagine the highely classified version nobody knows about. If they can focus sound energy a long distance, and we already know they can focus graphical images, then we get a............................hologram!

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Lastly, I am not stating the hologram theory was definitely used...

So, the "1000 times more likely" was an exaggeration then. Say it ain't so!

Exaggerating is not allowed? Sue me!

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
EXPLOSIVES ULTIMATELY BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS, regardless of what transpired before. This is my punch line!

Silent explosives (see the Naudet footage from the base of the tower)? Are these the same explosives that produced the plane shaped hole? Or different ones?

Have you heard of shaped charges, you know the type that cuts through steel beams and ultimately brings buildings down? TNT and C4 are not effective with metals.

Originally posted by Soloist
If that's your punch line, well it just wasn't all that funny. Maybe you should stick to the "tech" side of things and leave the comedy to others.

I wasn' trying to be funny.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I have seen pictures of a modified Boeing 767 flying into the towers WITH SOMETHING hanging on its belly.

Like a piercing? I know some chicks like that too.

Do you see it now? Why must I do all the work for someone that is not even interested in learning anything? Don't flatter yourself, I am trying to convince others! Your too far gone in the wrong direction!

reply to post by charlyv


Yeah and I walk through brick walls because I am a Grey Alien from Zeta Reticulae and I have learned to manipulate time/space.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Have you heard of shaped charges,

Shaped charges are not silent, what makes you think that they are silent?

Do you see it now?

Oh, another pod person! All shown to be rubbish here
911review.com...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And how does a movie projector project a movie. IT PROJECTS, AKA TRANSMITS! Do you want me to explain what the terms *project* and *transmit* mean?

But a movie projector does not project sound. This is handled by a separate audio system.

Check out this and read how it focuses sound energy up to an effective range of 270 meters.

An LRAD emitting a loud tone is one thing, my question was how to re-produce the roar of 2 jet engines with Doppler effect in an urban setting. An LRAD cannot accomplish that.

Have you heard of shaped charges, you know the type that cuts through steel beams and ultimately brings buildings down? TNT and C4 are not effective with metals.

So where were these planted? And how did they produce the plane shaped hole BEFORE the explosion? Is there any evidence at all that this is even possible???

I wasn' trying to be funny.

Good, because you weren't funny at all.

Do you see it now?

The wing fairing, yes I see it. Not sure how you would tuck a nuke up there what with the landing gear and all.

Your too far gone in the wrong direction!

I haven't seen you say anything right yet, so I wonder who's the one heading in the wrong direction here?

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And how does a movie projector project a movie. IT PROJECTS, AKA TRANSMITS! Do you want me to explain what the terms *project* and *transmit* mean?

But a movie projector does not project sound. This is handled by a separate audio system.

Point taken! I used the movie projector analogy to give you a rough idea of energy transmission, be it images, sound or both.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Check out this and read how it focuses sound energy up to an effective range of 270 meters.

An LRAD emitting a loud tone is one thing, my question was how to re-produce the roar of 2 jet engines with Doppler effect in an urban setting. An LRAD cannot accomplish that.

Well I didn't say they used LRAD, did I? LRAD is unclassified so obviously its not the best technology america has to offer.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Have you heard of shaped charges, you know the type that cuts through steel beams and ultimately brings buildings down? TNT and C4 are not effective with metals.

So where were these planted? And how did they produce the plane shaped hole BEFORE the explosion? Is there any evidence at all that this is even possible???

I wasn't talking about the initial explosions, be it an aircraft collision or hollogram. I WAS TALKING about the FINAL EXPLOSION 45 minutes after the initial bang. Stop trying to confuse the issues.

Originally posted by Soloist
I haven't seen you say anything right yet, so I wonder who's the one heading in the wrong direction here?

Rather than argue what I originally said about a plane not being able to bring down a 1000 foot structure, your nit-picking my speculation in an attempt to discredit me, while believing every last detail the government tells you.

Your either naive or dishonest, and I care not which is true!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


right now were not speculating on holographic planes. lets just work with what we got instead of speculating if they had the technology or not.

in the end, the goals the same. to find out who lied, and why. next is how they carried it out.

leave the no plane nonsense out of this.

Originally posted by ugie1028


right now were not speculating on holographic planes.

Why? They are as unbelievable as wiring two 110 story buildings to um.... silently explode and/or paint columns with super secret nano thermite.

lets just work with what we got instead of speculating if they had the technology or not.

You have as much as Mister Hologram here.

in the end, the goals the same. to find out who lied, and why. next is how they carried it out.

Here is a good start for you:

a.Richard Gage

b. He wants your money

c. Truthers are gullible.



[edit on 22-2-2010 by ImAPepper]

reply to post by ugie1028


I will admit I have not spent much time researching 9-11, but if we accept that 9-11 was carried out by rogue agents within the USA government then two options seem possible.

1)Specially modified, remote controlled 767s.

2)A sophisticated hollogram.

Can you think of others? I am all ears and don't mind being proven wrong.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Your wrong because even if those scheduled airliners did in fact crash into the twin towers, NO BUILDING would have totally collapsed ON TO ITSELF without explosives. Even a 10th grader with basic knowledge of physics would understand that, but you don't?

I don't care what impacted the towers! I do care WHY the buildings COLLAPSED 30 to 60 minutes later, especially without tilting over.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Point taken! I used the movie projector analogy to give you a rough idea of energy transmission, be it images, sound or both.

Well, it sure was a bad analogy and offered nothing towards an answer to my original question to you.

Well I didn't say they used LRAD, did I?

So there wasn't any need to bring the LRAD into the subject, once again it offers nothing towards an answer to my question.

I wasn't talking about the initial explosions, be it an aircraft collision or hollogram. I WAS TALKING about the FINAL EXPLOSION 45 minutes after the initial bang.

So, you have ignored my query yet again, and offered no explanation.

Stop trying to confuse the issues.

Boy, for someone who put down a posters lack of "tech knowledge" you sure seem like the one who is confused here. You have not come close to explaining the details of your claim, and have somehow managed to talk about things that are totally unrelated to said claim.

Rather than argue what I originally said about a plane not being able to bring down a 1000 foot structure, your nit-picking my speculation in an attempt to discredit me, while believing every last detail the government tells you.

Well look at that! You speculate about me believing "every last detail the government tells me", when I have made no such claim. It sure seems like you would rather change your tune, since you don't seem able to explain your theory in a satisfactory manner, and start attacking my "beliefs", those of which you know nothing about.

Your either naive or dishonest, and I care not which is true!

Naive would be those who blindly believe in some "hologram theory" which has no basis in reality, naive would be those who claim it is 1000 times more likely than a simple hijack and plane crash. Dishonest would be trying to deflect away from that theory when called on it.

Maybe a but of introspection would help you figure out which of those applies to your posts.

Originally posted by Soloist
An LRAD emitting a loud tone is one thing, my question was how to re-produce the roar of 2 jet engines with Doppler effect in an urban setting. An LRAD cannot accomplish that.

If I had this knowledge it would mean I knew all the details. Unfortunately I don't because(if it exists) it would be classified! Do you want me to raid the pentagon and go to jail just to make you happy?

Originally posted by Soloist
So where were these planted? And how did they produce the plane shaped hole BEFORE the explosion? Is there any evidence at all that this is even possible???

Your correct, the hologram theory is silly. Should we go with a)remote-controlled planes hit towers, then 45 minutes later explosives go off and building collapses OR b)commercial aircraft crash into towers and 45 minutes later explosives go off and building collapses?

Which do you prefer? EITHER WAY EXPLOSIVES WENT OFF, THE GOVERNMENT LIED, 3900 PEOPLE GOT KILLED, AND TWO WARS WERE STARTED ON FALSE PRETENSES!!!

Happy now? I doubt it but who cares......