posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:28 AM
Now I have purposefully stayed away from viewing any videos or analysing any pictures about this terrible event as it seems like some people have
developed a sort of morbid fascination bordering on perversion, kind of like those people that talk about how awful a car wreck is, but cant help but
stare intently next time they see one. However, I have read the posts with interest and a couple of things spring to mind which make me disbelieve
A) If indeed the Aircraft did not exist and we were watching a missile which very cleverly projected a holographic image around itself to make us
'see' the Boeing aircraft, why did it not disappear at impact ? Before you say 'it did, into the building!', let me explain.
The average missile is what, twenty or thirty feet long (please, some aircraft specialist help me here?)? So I take it that to project this Holgraphic
image it would logically be located in the centre of the image it was projecting ?
So, the front part of the Boeing hits the very solid metal and glass wall which should, you state, demolish the front of the aircraft, sending ripples
throughout the structure, wings etc etc etc. but in your opinion, doesnt. Ok, ill give you that for the purpose of my issues with this argument.
The holgramatic image proceeds thru the glass and steel wall showing little or no signs of destruction. So what happens when the actual missile hits ?
Remember, most (If not all) missile warheads, and presumably the hologramatic projection unit, are situated at the front of a missile, to allow for
the propulsion systems at the rear.
So when your missile warhead hits the very solid wall of glass and steel that should, as you argue, destroy or seriously affect any object hitting it
at 500 - 600 mph, how does it continue working ? The missile (and thus the hologram projection unit) have impacted and thus we should now not be able
to see anything due to the cessation of signal from the hologram unit, and yet we see a good fifty or sixty feet of the back end of an aircraft still
plough into the tower ? How is this possible unless the missile is roughly as long as boeing, and has its warhead at the back ?
But dont tell me, I can probably guess the answer, the CIA have designed a cloaking projection unit that could withstand the forces generated in that
kind of impact, they got it off the klingons
B) I watched the whole events of that day live on tv, and one image seems to stick in my mind when I think of your 'Hologram argument'. Remenber
after the first aircraft hit, there were loads of pictures and shots of the first tower, with the impact site clearly showing a wide gash cut almost
all the way across one side of the tower, and banked to one side
Now if it was a missile, cloaked by super technology, how did it make that shape ? Even the highly successful missiles of our age (Tomahawk springs to
mind) only have a small wingspan and those wings are hardly sturdy enough to make a hundred foot gash in the side of a building. I would have expected
a smaller entry impact (as mentioned before) and then the explosion??? But you might say, it was the ejection of the gases and explosive material from
the warhead that made that wide impact site ? No, sorry, if you look at it it clearly shows that the projectile was slightly banked upon impact, any
explosive ejection would surely come out level, guided by the solid concrete floors.
So, I deduce that you are saying that the missile that hit was roughly the length of an aircraft (to cover my first point) and had a really wide
wigspan (to cover my second point) Now what form of missile do we have that conforms to these parameters ? well, take a trip to any major airport,
you'll see loads of them, THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORM OF GUIDED MISSILE IN EXISTENCE IS THE AIRCRAFT !