Pure illusion and the wtc

On closer observation the wingspan of the plane is wider than the wall and the wingtips are cut off, so to speak, flying past the outer edge of the wall.

Originally posted by Argus
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 !

Yeah, well Argus. The proposition would be that the holographic projection came not from the missile itself but from an outside source or sources, as explained in this military theory manual
www.au.af.mil...

What evidence is there for airborne projectors that day?. Well I believe eleven aerial anomalies have been identified from film footage, and if we are talking about self-cloaking projectors, these may be a few of them

www.orbwar.com...

Also interesting are the photo sequence and film of an apparent plane entering the building, and an apparent missile head protruding from the other side of the building a split second before the fireball
The photo sequence is here

nineeleven2001.t35.com...

The video here - also note the lability of the wing integrity here - hence the bird reference in the link

www.gallerize.com...

You may also like to view the port wing image flashing on and off in this video-loop

www.gallerize.com...

The size and angles of gashes to the North and South towers are also of interest, I agree, in not corresponding to the precise size of the supposed planes hitting them
Speaking of angle, the fact that the 'plane' hitting WTC2 cut through six floors, that is horizontal girders in the mesh as well as uprights, also adds to the mystery of its smooth entry pattern


[edit on 11-5-2005 by dh]

Originally posted by dh
The size and angles of gashes to the North and South towers are also of interest, I agree, in not corresponding to the precise size of the supposed planes hitting them

Do you have proof of this, or is this another one of those things that you read somewhere and now accept and an established fact?

Speaking of angle, the fact that the 'plane' hitting WTC2 cut through six floors, that is horizontal girders in the mesh as well as uprights, also adds to the mystery of its smooth entry pattern.

Are you talking about the 3/8" thick spandrel panels?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by dh
The size and angles of gashes to the North and South towers are also of interest, I agree, in not corresponding to the precise size of the supposed planes hitting them

Do you have proof of this, or is this another one of those things that you read somewhere and now accept and an established fact?

Speaking of angle, the fact that the 'plane' hitting WTC2 cut through six floors, that is horizontal girders in the mesh as well as uprights, also adds to the mystery of its smooth entry pattern.

Are you talking about the 3/8" thick spandrel panels?

No I think I'm talking of girders, Howard
Unlike you I'm not out to prove the Government's case

dh, will you please stop quoting entire posts just to get away from making a one line response. Thanks

Anyway, the flat, steel panels on the exterior of the building are called spandrel panels.

The floor trusses are just that, trusses.

The uprights are called columns.

In the core area there were some horizontal beams.

According to this glossary, the term girder is defined as "A main horizontal, primary structural member spanning between two main supports which carries other members or vertical loads."

That definition would be consistent with the function of the core area beams, or the floor trusses. In the WTC tower design, the spandrel panels did not carry vertical loads.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
dh, will you please stop quoting entire posts just to get away from making a one line response. Thanks

Anyway, the flat, steel panels on the exterior of the building are called spandrel panels.

The floor trusses are just that, trusses.

The uprights are called columns.

In the core area there were some horizontal beams.

According to this glossary, the term girder is defined as "A main horizontal, primary structural member spanning between two main supports which carries other members or vertical loads."

That definition would be consistent with the function of the core area beams, or the floor trusses. In the WTC tower design, the spandrel panels did not carry vertical loads.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

I'd always try to chop the post reply, but not with you
What the hell does it matter if the cross sections are spandrels or whatever you're trying to say
Your function is to get in on the scary stuff
I know your game

Well as I noted above, these spandrell panels are only 3/8" thick. As you can see in the above photograph, the bolts tore out of them prety easily. So the question is back to you:

What's your point?

Originally posted by dh

Yeah, well Argus. The proposition would be that the holographic projection came not from the missile itself but from an outside source or sources, as explained in this military theory manual
www.au.af.mil...

What evidence is there for airborne projectors that day?. Well I believe eleven aerial anomalies have been identified from film footage, and if we are talking about self-cloaking projectors, these may be a few of them

www.orbwar.com...

I see, I apologise for my misconception. So you are suggesting that a missile cruised in at 500 / 600 mph and its physical visual properties were 'cloaked' by a hologramatic projection broadcast by anomalous airborne objects. Firstly, I am very very skeptical about these 'Orbs' you have linked us to, I see some really blurry blobs which could be secret military craft or they could be birds, but hey, whetever you want to see, you will see I guess.

Also interesting are the photo sequence and film of an apparent plane entering the building, and an apparent missile head protruding from the other side of the building a split second before the fireball
The photo sequence is here

nineeleven2001.t35.com...

Now then, lets not get too carried away, please ! I take it you are highlighting the first three pictures on the nineeleven2001.t35.com... site ?

Ok, lets look at those in detail shall we ?

1st pic. Pretty self explanatory, An Aircraft (Hologramatic or real) about to hit the tower.

2nd pic. Please dont tell me that you are looking at the bulge that is protruding from the other side of that tower and saying that its a missile warhead !?

Sh*t dude, I mean come on, how big is it ?!


if you are saying that its a solid odject protruding from the tower it must be at least three to four storeys high, and its about a quarter of the width of the tower so I guesstimate (you may differ ?), thus making it about a tad over fifty feet long!
So if that is the missile warhead as you claim, this thing must have been huge. As an example I refer you to the rough dimensions of a tomahawk missile (the most successful sub-sonic cruise missile around). The missile in your theory has to have been built roughly along these lines as it was definitely sub sonic (no sonic booms heard so I believe). Look at the link below for the dimensions. Warhead and guidance take up roughly a third, thus leading to an extrapolated missile length of 120 - 150 feet. Thats one mother of a missile.

www.fas.org...

But, thats a sideline to my major question about this theory of the protruding warhead. Why does the explosion come from the rear ?
Once a missile successfully delivers its payload to a building, the warhead explodes. Now even if your super missile had a delayed fuse to ensure that it penetrated to the core of the building, leading to it coming out the other side due to some miscalculation, why would we not see a spectacular explosion as the warhead detonates ? Remember, that the warhead is, as you say, protruding from the building ! The majnority of the energy expended by this explosion would be dissipated into thin air, with only a small proportion of the destructive force being sent back into the tower

I suppose that we should also ignore the fact that a Holographic Projection is essentially impossible, no matter what they told you at the treckie convention.

Originally posted by Argus

But, thats a sideline to my major question about this theory of the protruding warhead. Why does the explosion come from the rear ?
Once a missile successfully delivers its payload to a building, the warhead explodes. Now even if your super missile had a delayed fuse to ensure that it penetrated to the core of the building, leading to it coming out the other side due to some miscalculation, why would we not see a spectacular explosion as the warhead detonates ? Remember, that the warhead is, as you say, protruding from the building ! The majnority of the energy expended by this explosion would be dissipated into thin air, with only a small proportion of the destructive force being sent back into the tower

Depends what's in the building at the time and how the whole theatre is designed to unfold
I admit this is a side issue, but perhaps the payload is primarily concerned with the fireball, and much of the other explosive material, 'coming from the rear' is already set within the building. Just a hypothesis I admit

[edit on 12-5-2005 by dh]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

The floor trusses are just that, trusses.

The uprights are called columns.

In the core area there were some horizontal beams.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Just in the core area there were horizontal beams? I think not Howard

Originally posted by Argus
Now then, lets not get too carried away, please ! I take it you are highlighting the first three pictures on the nineeleven2001.t35.com... site ?

Ok, lets look at those in detail shall we ?

1st pic. Pretty self explanatory, An Aircraft (Hologramatic or real) about to hit the tower.

2nd pic. Please dont tell me that you are looking at the bulge that is protruding from the other side of that tower and saying that its a missile warhead !?

Sh*t dude, I mean come on, how big is it ?!


if you are saying that its a solid odject protruding from the tower it must be at least three to four storeys high, and its about a quarter of the width of the tower so I guesstimate (you may differ ?), thus making it about a tad over fifty feet long!
So if that is the missile warhead as you claim, this thing must have been huge. As an example I refer you to the rough dimensions of a tomahawk missile (the most successful sub-sonic cruise missile around). The missile in your theory has to have been built roughly along these lines as it was definitely sub sonic (no sonic booms heard so I believe). Look at the link below for the dimensions. Warhead and guidance take up roughly a third, thus leading to an extrapolated missile length of 120 - 150 feet. Thats one mother of a missile.

www.fas.org...

I'm not particularly claiming it to be anything, just another anomalous view of the event in question. Still, it really oughtn't be the nose of the plane, which should have suffered some deterioration by now, particularly since its trajectory will have skimmed it through or by the central core
Are you suggesting a photoshopped image? As far as I can tell, and the Webfairy's stuff is pretty genuine as far as I can tell, this is an image from footage shot at the time with no amendments

Originally posted by dh
I'm not particularly claiming it to be anything, just another anomalous view of the event in question. Still, it really oughtn't be the nose of the plane, which should have suffered some deterioration by now, particularly since its trajectory will have skimmed it through or by the central core
Are you suggesting a photoshopped image? As far as I can tell, and the Webfairy's stuff is pretty genuine as far as I can tell, this is an image from footage shot at the time with no amendments

I agree that the pictures do look real and that any image alteration that has occurred is beyond my limited experience / tech knowlededge to identify. My suggestion is that the prutruding substance is probably most of what is left of the aircraft after passing through 200 feet of office floor space. As I sit here now on the 17th floor of an average office block, I look around me and think, "now what here is strong enough to successfully divert / impede a 170 tonne boeing 767 doing 500 miles per hour"?

The answer, obviously isnt much, 170 tonnes doing that speed doesnt stop in 215 feet, 1 tonne doing that speed doesnt stop in 215 feet ! I agree that there will be some structural degredation of the aircraft, and that a large portion of the fuselage may have hit the central core, but that still leaves a whole load of plane rushing through that office space at unimaginable speed. Plus, lets not forget the debris that would be gathered before it, look at your office / workspace, now imagine a wall of metal , fuel rushing through it at that speed. Desks, computers, filing cabinets, chairs................... all picked up, pushed thru and blown out of the window. Im sorry but when I look at those three pictures, all I see is the inevitable result of the forces involved. This, added to the lack of detonation of the warhead of your missile lead me to the logical conclusion that it was in fact an aircraft and that the projected image / missile is another in the long list of theories.

I dont mean to come across as hyper skeptical, I judge each case as it comes, and am skeptical of every case that is presented (including the official one), but until evidence is presented which is more conclusive than that which exists to support the official case, thats the one I will go with. I respect your views and welcome a healthy debate, Im open to have my opinions challenged and have been known to change my viewpoint when presented with a convincing argument, but this one just hasnt got what that takes.

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark

The floor trusses are just that, trusses.

The uprights are called columns.

In the core area there were some horizontal beams.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Just in the core area there were horizontal beams? I think not Howard

Then you think wrong.

The floor trusses were attached to the perimeter columns at one end, and to the core area beam at the other.



Note the floor trusses are in the white area and the girders are in the core area (blue)

The floor trusses were the horizontal support mechanism in the non-core area.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It smacks of deliberate disinformation - spurious, looney theories designed to discredit any and all serious investigations into the events of that day.

I have to agree here. There are so many crazy theories out there. Many of them are designed to derail any serious investigation; and to make fools of those pushing them.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It smacks of deliberate disinformation - spurious, looney theories designed to discredit any and all serious investigations into the events of that day.

I have to agree here. There are so many crazy theories out there. Many of them are designed to derail any serious investigation; and to make fools of those pushing them.

So it a crazy theory make a fool of someone who pushes it, then why do you keep doing it?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I have to agree here. There are so many crazy theories out there. Many of them are designed to derail any serious investigation; and to make fools of those pushing them.

Originally posted by HowardRoarkSo it a crazy theory make a fool of someone who pushes it, then why do you keep doing it?

What are you talking about?

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

So So So many different theories, suspicions, answers, etc...
can it simply be the plane it is supposed to be? Has anyone ever worked on a 767, I do daily and I worked on n612ua, this aircraft was built solid. The wings are very strong and are capable of withstanding impacts. the spar on an aircraft is amazingly strong (a spar is the main principle structure of a wing). that plane could probably penetrate a 8 foot thick wall, and that building is thought to be able to stop it. I dont think so.... and jet fuel cmon very explosive!!!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It smacks of deliberate disinformation - spurious, looney theories designed to discredit any and all serious investigations into the events of that day.

I have to agree here. There are so many crazy theories out there. Many of them are designed to derail any serious investigation; and to make fools of those pushing them.

Much respect to you East Coast Kid. This is no attempt at hype or disinfo
Just note where the wolves close in on these threads
To the basic thesis - no blatant obviousness - an inside job - the precise details of the modus operandi doesn't matter
On a deeper level, - how repeated images of a deceitful nature are presented, it does. Project Bluebeam is a hugely important notion

Just observe the wing clearly disappear briefly in this video, as the projection suffers a blip from this particular perspective
a911.g.akamai.net...

Just looks like a crappy video to me that either suffered a framented image due to generation loss, or a poor NTSC to PAL conversion, or vice versa.

I can recreate the same "disappearing" images with two vcrs and a few VHS tapes, and some footage of a little league game.

You get me film footage, not video, film, and show me a blip and I might believe you. The fact is, this is video that is digitized, zoomed in on, and transfered from source to source. There are just too many normal reasons why this might happen for it to be a holographic imaging problem, or whatever you think it is.

-O