Pure illusion and the wtc

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
dh

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
What in the world were you expecting?

The planes would hit the WTC and bounce off with the engineer standing on top saying "AHA see we designed it to withstand this!"

Lab papers are very nice. And still you can't claim something "was designed to" withstand anything. As we can see from this real life occurence it withstood for quite a bit, and then stopped withstanding. So we're both right. Has this dead horse been beaten enough yet?


No, you might expect to see some distortion in the projectile , particularly when the wings and engines hit the steel web, the whole force of impact would impinge on the wing to tail portion of the plane, you might even have expected the ignition of the plane's fuel load to blow back from the impact side of the building, rather than explode out of the opposite side
You certainly dont expect to witness unimpeded access




posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
for any of you wondering, I now people who where there, some inside, some mere blocks away, heck my ex was less than 2 blocks away, my best friend saw the second plane hit while being evacuated after the first impact, they would tell you a thing or two about holographic misiles or whatever else you're trying to say in not so kind words. thousands of peoples saw 2 planes with their own eyes. An old friend from HS who works for merrill lynch was spare because he started going in later a few weeks before 9/11, he was 20 minutes from works when this happend IT was planes and they did do what you saw on camera.


dh

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Yes, sympathy to you and yours
The whole point about holography is that it looks very much like the real thing, a 3D image in perceptual space, observable as such from every angle
Of course, it doesn't distinguish much between plain air and concrete and steel. The frequency of the image is far different from the supposed solidity of our world

[edit on 8-5-2005 by dh]

[edit on 8-5-2005 by dh]


dh

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Source Wikipedea - many conspiracy theorists take note.


The trouble with Occams razor is that the simplest explanation for the dumb person with no thought of his or her own is the one designed for him or her to take, as orchestrated by those in control of him or her
It's a complete scam to the independently minded



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
A few issues with this:

1. "A steel cage round the outside designed to keep 737s out," makes no sense. Take a look at blueprints of sky scrapers. They are designed to withstand pressure from above, yet still have the ability to sway from side to side without compromising structural integrity. They are built kind of like a lego block really. More empty space than plastic. Thick hard inside to take all the force and weight of the building, weak outside full of holes and open space. There is no emphasis on keeping objects from penetrating the wall. As a matter of fact, a certain amount of give has to happen incase there is an impact, otherwise pressure cracks would occur and cause weakness in the structural integrity.

2. You have to take speed into account when talking about time. For one, fire takes some time to erupt. Not to mention that until the plane really gets to the core of the building it's probably still pretty intact. It must pass through the real tough girders to really get ripped to shreds. Also, fuel travels at the same speed as all of the other matter in the plane. As it goes spraying, it must be ignited by something, and that too takes time. This is not the movies where a car instantly erupts because it hits a wall.

3. Hologram, what a croc. For starters, your "evidence" of the plane's shape warping because between two frames the plane appears to distort is totally normal. Two reasons for this. Number one, a video camera is not a film camera. Unlike film that has a shutter that snaps an image and anything moving is blurred, a video camera does not expose file. It digitally recreates an image on a metallic coated strip of video tape. Whenever the word digital is used, that means computer chips and programming. The fact is, the video processor of the camera taking this footage tries to figure out motion blur the best it can. What it stores is a processed image, not a true picture. Any program has flaws, and this is one of those flaws. Video tape anything moving and then look at the images frame by frame, you'll see all sort of anomalies. Two, this same type of distortion can be caused by looking at a PAL image with an NTSC signal or vice versa. The same principle applies. An NTSC image or signal has to be converted to a PAL image or signal. A processor does this to the best of its ability, and there are weird flaws that crop up, usually around moving objects. This could easily be one of those flaws.

4. You want me to believe that there are holographic images of planes; show me other evidence of holograms that can do this. I want to see it. Show it too me. Then, show me a hologram that can carry people along with it, and then erase their physical existence from this earth.

Two planes hit the WTCs. What cause this to happen, what underlying factors there were for this result to occur, and what global influences or agendas hidden from the public there may be, does not change the fact that a plane slammed into the WTC, erupted into flames, and then caused them to collapse.

I'll accept theories that there could have been more done. I'll accept theories that perhaps this was all just a big plot. I'll accept theories that this is a huge ploy by the NWO to lull us into a sense of fear so they can pass all these laws that remove our freedoms. What I won't accept is the arguments that it was something other than planes that hit the WTCs. They were the perfect weapon to use to execute this attack, and nothing can be said against that.

You want to stop this; you want to change stuff, run for office and take back your country instead of obsessing over what may have been. Get into office, do your part, and make a change so that no one ever has a reason to attack us like this again.

-O



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
This topic has been researched and talked about several times now. I just wonder why is it that people keep trying to put doubt on what really happened that horrific day without first going over all the threads in which we have discussed this, and without responding in those threads where much evidence is presented that discredits and puts an end to all these wild theories which have no regard to real physics.

What i believe that is happening is that a certain number of people cannot come to terms to the reality that that horrific day brought to us in plain sight. There are peole that do not want to believe that we were attacked by radical Islamist fanatics who hate everything having to do with the western world.

I have noticed that most of these people that come up with these wild ravings would rather believe that their own governments are the ones behind these attacks rather than believing the evidence and even the word of these terrorists that they are attacking us because they want the west to be destroyed.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I think its more important to realise that the planes that HIT the WTC were NOT the same planes that were hijacked. Those planes were flown over the atlantic and scuttled (the cia planes chased them out there.. was chasing flight 11.. when they were 'told' that 11 had just hit the WTC and to get to NY).

This is fact.. its undesputible IN FACT.. that the CIA was chasing a "flight 11" over the atlantic is in the 9-11 report.

The engine that landed behind the WTC is from a 737 not 767 and we know that now.. so wtf is going on with 9-11 in general then?


The hijackers are alive too.. I mean.. where does it end with the inconsitancies?


Anyways. They were real planes.. just not the ones you were told they were. And the pentagon.. it was hit with something no doubt.. but it wasn't flight 77 either.. oh.. and I believe Babera Olson is still alive actually.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vis Mega
I think its more important to realise that the planes that HIT the WTC were NOT the same planes that were hijacked. Those planes were flown over the atlantic and scuttled (the cia planes chased them out there.. was chasing flight 11.. when they were 'told' that 11 had just hit the WTC and to get to NY).

This is fact.. its undesputible IN FACT.. that the CIA was chasing a "flight 11" over the atlantic is in the 9-11 report.

The engine that landed behind the WTC is from a 737 not 767 and we know that now.. so wtf is going on with 9-11 in general then?


The hijackers are alive too.. I mean.. where does it end with the inconsitancies?


Anyways. They were real planes.. just not the ones you were told they were. And the pentagon.. it was hit with something no doubt.. but it wasn't flight 77 either.. oh.. and I believe Babera Olson is still alive actually.



actually it was the aliens who cause the attack in hopes that over a billion Muslims go to war against over 5 billion non-muslims to total annihilation



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
What in the world were you expecting?

The planes would hit the WTC and bounce off with the engineer standing on top saying "AHA see we designed it to withstand this!"

Lab papers are very nice. And still you can't claim something "was designed to" withstand anything. As we can see from this real life occurence it withstood for quite a bit, and then stopped withstanding. So we're both right. Has this dead horse been beaten enough yet?


Actually they made the towers to withstand a blow from a big plane cause of the B-2 or whatever that hit the Empire State Building a few years before thetowers were built...

I also think that if the lab results arent the same, why do they say "Well this building can withstand "insert issue here" and we know this or sure because we tested in model."

Insert issue here meaning these things.
Fire, hurrican, earthquake, plane, flood, and so on.

Also since it was nice in the lab, that means everything that was tested, is therefor not of good use???

[edit on 5/9/2005 by ThichHeaded]


dh

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
A few issues with this:

..................
Two planes hit the WTCs. What cause this to happen, what underlying factors there were for this result to occur, and what global influences or agendas hidden from the public there may be, does not change the fact that a plane slammed into the WTC, erupted into flames, and then caused them to collapse.

I'll accept theories that there could have been more done. I'll accept theories that perhaps this was all just a big plot. I'll accept theories that this is a huge ploy by the NWO to lull us into a sense of fear so they can pass all these laws that remove our freedoms. What I won't accept is the arguments that it was something other than planes that hit the WTCs. They were the perfect weapon to use to execute this attack, and nothing can be said against that.

You want to stop this; you want to change stuff, run for office and take back your country instead of obsessing over what may have been. Get into office, do your part, and make a change so that no one ever has a reason to attack us like this again.

-O


I absolutely agree with you on all these issues, Big O. Except in terms of how these things are done and the various illusory issues presented to the public it doesn't really matter how these events are contrived

Real planes? - well, to my perception, none of them look like that
It doesn't really matter as to the analysis of the actual events whether they are or not, and it's certainly not an issue over which I'd want to get strung out with the potentially awakening average joe

However, to the fully convinced community of conspiracy realists, there is a pressing need to understand the 'how' of events

For instance, the hologram theory of WTC2 merely emanates from ones visual perception of the scene as filmed from many different angles

However, we have to bear in mind the various misperceptions that are constantly being played into the public arena, - Bali, the Turkey British interest bombings, the tsunami to name three - not to mention the Bluebeam project

This is my reason for searching out possible modi operandi - it's important as to how the cabal(s) operate

And for an interesting step by step analysis see
thewebfairy.com...

At this speed it looks like the plane's fully in before perturbation from the building begins

[edit on 9-5-2005 by dh]

[edit on 9-5-2005 by dh]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Sorry, but I find the holographic theory of 9/11 most preposterous.

Somebody mentioned Occam, and that was my first thought when I saw this thread.

I could equally say that the planes we saw were actually giant living organisms, genetically enigneered and grown in top-secret CIA lab. They would naturally secret large amounts of diesel, which would explain why they disintegrated so easily upon impact, as well as the resulting flames. Hell, we are on the consipracy site, aren't we.


I like my theory better than holographic missiles.


[edit on 9-5-2005 by Aelita]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
First -
An entire airplane is an airfoil (not just the wings) and would act like a bullet as it entered the building. It would make a small hole and disintegrate after entry. (Set up a wooden crate and fire a bullet through it - You will find a small neat hole upon entry and a much larger messy hole upon exit. Set up multiple walls inside the crate and you will see the holes get progressively larger and messier and you would be surprised how few layers of wood it takes to stop the projectile). Considering the weight of the projectile in this case, I would be surprised if it did not leave a clean hole on entry. I'd never fly again if it did not. Planes would disintegrate in mid air daily.
Second -
I am a CG artist and deal with models and photorealism on a daily basis. The article on the first post does not take into account the reflectivity of the surfaces below the aircraft. With the sun that high in the sky reflected light off concrete surfaces (the large areas of concrete around the WTC's) would be significant to say the least. In CS work we use Global Illumination and other effects to simulate this. The surface of the ground would act very much as a light would in that it would project the ground colors onto the bottom of the plane. Hence the pipe effect. The lack of small detail is due to poor quality of the images and the motion blur. Small details would blend into the image. As to the artifacts - a little spin to exagerate a point maybe??? I see only normal artifacts caused by over compression of the images. Probably done by the author or an innept CG person down the line somewhere. 10 seconds of a full resolution video would take days to download on a normal cable (broadband) connection. We are talking terrabytes at the nearly 6000 .dpi frames it would take to see all the detail in the original. Reminds me of the hundreds of photos of small planes flying away from the viewer that are passed off as UFO's and of course the originals are never available.
Third -
The distortion of the wings is engineered into the aircraft. If it were not the plane would be so brittle that turbulence would tear it appart. Look out the window the next time you fly. You will find that the wings and the tail sections not only move up and down, but twist as well. This is a good and normal thing. It keeps you alive while flying!



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The "sway" you refer to might have had something to do with the extreme height of the building perhaps? As "The Big O" said...Something about stiff structures and intense winds ring a bell?

Additionally, people really need to understand that Lab does not equal reality. It's a really simple formula to comprehend.

"Prepared for blah" sounds nice, and it ends there. It "sounds" nice. Doesn't mean a blasted thing when it comes to reality because frankly I don't care what a scientist's pedigree is, it is simply impossible to anticipate everything particularly things 30 years in the future.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Djarums]


dh

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

"Prepared for blah" sounds nice, and it ends there. It "sounds" nice. Doesn't mean a blasted thing when it comes to reality because frankly I don't care what a scientist's pedigree is, it is simply impossible to anticipate everything particularly things 30 years in the future.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Djarums]

Long term future planning does seem part of the deal



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Source Wikipedea - many conspiracy theorists take note.

And you don't think any perpetrators of a conspiracy would know about Occam's Razor? Seems to me, that would be considered in any good conspiracy, wouldn't it? The more complex the lie, the tougher it is to believe, right? I don't suppose Occam thought about that scenario very thoroughly. We're talking about people in high power, who would have very reputable think tanks at their disposal. If I was to stage a conspiracy, even I would know enough to make it complicated. It's a no brainer.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Moe Foe]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
giant missiles holographically camouflaged to look like planes is patently ridiculous. It smacks of deliberate disinformation


Correct. Disinformation to hide the simple truth: there were NO planes at all. The same trick was used to let people see planes and hide demolitions
www.goldismoney.info...



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This is a topic that comes up frequently on ATS that I simply CANNOT stomach...

Listen to yourselves....Those of you saying "No it couldn't have happened that way....It looks like it was fake....." are loosing touch with reality here.....

Reality will confirm for you that there were witnesses, there were lives lost, and on that day a piece of nearly every American's heart chipped off and broke away....

And you have the audacity to say to us - No...it didn't happen - You don't know what it was you saw....

Your efforts would be better spent analyzing the political atmosphere surrounding the before and after.....That's where the true illusions lie....



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
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 this theory

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 !



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   


You have voted Argus for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.



You said exactly what I wanted to say, I just couldn't get it worded properly...




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dh
you might expect to see some distortion in the projectile , particularly when the wings and engines hit the steel web, the whole force of impact would impinge on the wing to tail portion of the plane, you might even have expected the ignition of the plane's fuel load to blow back from the impact side of the building, rather than explode out of the opposite side
You certainly dont expect to witness unimpeded access


Should the plane have turned to dust like this f4 did when it ran into this concrete wall? If you look closely at the last frame of this movie, you'll see that the wings of the aircraft still penetrated the wall. This is a test wall that represents the concrete barrier around nuclear power plants and the aircraft still had slight penetration.

If you ran this same plane into a skyscraper it wouldn't collapse until it ran into the central structure of the building. Surely you don't expect glass to stop an object moving at 500 mph? Also note that there was no distortion in the portion of the aircraft that has not ran into the wall yet.









new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join