Why there were no planes at the WTC, page 12

Why is that? There are plenty of serious articles/books written long after the event being covered.

That may be but there is plenty of lack of evidence in that hole in Shanksville Pa. which precludes any aircraft crashing into it. Most people want to buy into the 'crashed into a hole at 500 mph and was obliterated. Can't happen. There are too many huge parts that have to be accounted four. 2 massive engines obliterated. I think not. An entire empennage including vertical and horizontal tail sections. Not a chance. I never saw one piece of indentifyable part of an airplane come out of that hole in Shanksville.

I need to express my disagreement here. I firmly believe a large passenger airline struck the Pentagon. I tend to think the manner in which it was flown/controlled is very different than "the official story", but a large airliner it was.

With all due respect SO you do not know what you are talking about. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

As we all know, the debris was in the buildings. We have no reports of seeing office furniture in the wreckage of the WTC (in fact, we have reports of rescue workers being amazed they didn't find any desks or chairs)... does that mean the offices didn't have desks?

No it doesn't. And by the same token it doesn't prove a Boeing 767 was in there either.

I'm sorry, John, I greatly respect your life achievements, many of your "alternative theories", and the url www.abovetopsecret.com...]Lunar Mine Photos[/url] you brought to our members here. But I feel this hologram theory of yours is among the extreme theories that harm efforts at serious 9/11 conspiracy speculation and research.

If this is a cause for concern I suggest you ban me or put a limitation on my comments. For instance you could say, "John its OK to talk about open pits mines on the moon but we don't want you to comment on 911 holograms. Its too wild an idea.

These types of wild no-evidence theories make it easy for mainstream press and politicians to wave off conspiracy theorists with a quick condescending swipe of the hand and barb, "see how crazy they are". We see similar wild ideas all over the Internet that take conspiracy theory speculation to new irresponsible levels.

See above.

If we're going to engage in an analysis of the events of 9/11 with an eye toward proving conspiracy speculation, we need to do so with a degree of responsibility. Disregarding mountains of physical and eyewitness evidence to support a poorly conceived idea only results in presenting a setback to other more determined efforts.

I agree and I think you should take the lead by saying, "I'm going to look again at the Boeing 757/Pentagon evidence and see if there is something I missed. If John Lear isn't buying into it, why not?

One of the most popular reoccurring 9/11 conspiracy themes here on ATS is the idea that some government disinformation group is covertly seeding the Internet with extreme theories in an effort to discredit all 9/11 conspiracy research. Dylan Avery took mention of the "pods on the plane" out of the Loose Change revision because of this.

Too bad. I kinda liked the pod idea myself.

The conspirators I'm sure are chuckling over time spent arguing about holograms.

Maybe. Maybe not. What do you care what the conspirators do or say?

The evidence is all we have.

Yes, and we should consider all of it. Not just what sounds 'reasonable'.

Critical thinking is what we should be doing.

SO, if you feel that I am a threat to the legitimate inquiry and research into 911 in proposing that they used holograms then I suggest you make a list of all theories about 911 that is forbidden for me to discuss so I am clear what I can talk about and what I can't. Otherwise I'll assume that I am free to post as I have been doing.
Thanks for your understanding and consideration.