Why there were no planes at the WTC

When those French documentary makers where there on the streets with
those fireman in NY you could realy hear how loud the plane was when it flew
over them how should they have made that.????? Speakers on the Roofs?!

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Now, the skill that it would take to not only operate a plane, but also a holograpic projection... thats mind boggeling.

Im not saying I agree that a holographic projection was used to project planes hitting the towers.....But I think you are missing the point....operation of a hologram would be almost entirely computer generated.....the plane used to created the hologram would just be flying around.......the skill needed for that is by far less than the skill needed to actually fly the planes into the towers.

Good point.

However, the plane controlling the hologram would still need to be exactly on the planned path to create the explosions at the impact point. That still would require a tremendous amount of skill.

But I concede that I didn't think completly through the operation of a holographic plane.

Originally posted by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO
When those French documentary makers where there on the streets with
those fireman in NY you could realy hear how loud the plane was when it flew
over them how should they have made that.????? Speakers on the Roofs?!

I would assume that if we had 3 dimesional holographic technology that 'sound' would go along with it. Even the unsophisticate is going to want to hear sound with their movies.

Originally posted by Mezzanine
To my knowledge, there were no reports of other planes in Manhatten to project the image of the holographic plane.

No, there was a 3rd jet plane in the area for some time during the impacts, flying around in circles or as if watching the destruction, as well as a good number of helicopters (though they may have showed up later).

But in regards to the physics, there's nothing really to compare to, right? There are videos of planes slamming concrete walls at hundreds of miles per hour, and all that, but a mesh of steel box columns like that, no real precedent as far as I'm aware.

So equally, for both sides, when you say "this should have happened" or "no, it happened like it was supposed to" seems to assume we know what that kind of impact would've looked like. In reality, sometimes things deflect and sometimes things do not; it varies, depending on a number of things.

Just thought I'd add that. I'm not convinced either way just because there's nothing to compare to. The US military obviously has technology like this, by their own admission, but was it used? The real question is this: how would we know? I'm not sure it's something anyone could easily prove or refute without recreating it.

Originally posted by Mezzanine

However, the plane controlling the hologram would still need to be exactly on the planned path to create the explosions at the impact point. That still would require a tremendous amount of skill.

You are trying to evaluate technology 50 years advanced from us with concepts that are familiar to you. The WTC scenario required nothing more difficult than placing a pen on a 3 dimensional screen of the area for a 'start' and one for the 'end' then pressing 'go'. No tremendous skill required for that.

I guess all the footage we've seen of other plane crashes are disinfo, since they should just bounce. Same with bombs being dropped from warplanes, as well as bullets and arrows, right?

Seriously...I hate to be rude, but the whole hologram theory only discredits a serious search for the truth. It's crap.

The "Russian" crash seems to be a fake:
msgboard.snopes.com...

This crash does not show up in airdisaster.com:
www.google.com...

Checking a known crash the deflection is everywhere (Multiple tiny pieces):
en.wikipedia.org...:Bijlmer747crash.jpg

Originally posted by Astygia

I guess all the footage we've seen of other plane crashes are disinfo, since they should just bounce. Same with bombs being dropped from warplanes, as well as bullets and arrows, right?

Seriously...I hate to be rude, but the whole hologram theory only discredits a serious search for the truth. It's crap.

Thanks for your input. Not to be rude but I hear that same statement in regards to UFO's. I also respectfully suggest that there are more descriptive words than 'crap'. The use of the word "crap" suggests that you have a limited vocabulary in trying to describe your point of view. Thanks again for your input on the holographic projector theory.

YES acording to NIST (Review America Rebuilds PBS), the bouncing (Deflection) of tiny pieces is MASSIVE. But we see none in the WTC videos (Even with the "plane" completely inside the building). Please explain...

How many UFOs have been videotaped crashing into the WTC and causing the immediate death of thousands, and the future deaths of thousands more in the ensuing war(s)? No comparison to UFO naysayers.

This hologram theory is based on incredibly advanced technology (the existence and applications of which can only be speculated upon), along with substandard video footage and related anomalies. It is this sort of thing that people use to say grainy pictures of Donald Rumsfeld reveal his true form as a reptoid. This would be funny, until you remember that people died, and the hologram theory erases their existence.

Maybe I hurt your feelings in saying "crap"? Wasn't my intention, but stuff like this only discredits those who would otherwise bring interesting facts to light, by blanketing them in with unlikely scenarios and giving the MSM another excuse to brush it off.

EDIT: And let's take a moment and entertain the thought that it was a hologram. Why are you so interested in disproving all other theories and making it clear that nothing but a hologram hit the towers? Whether some think it's a bomb or a hologram or just plain government ignorance, either way we are united that the administration had a hand in it, yes? So what makes it so important to discredit the work done by truth movement to prove it was a hologram?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Astygia]

Originally posted by brainsucker
YES acording to NIST (Review America Rebuilds PBS), the bouncing (Deflection) of tiny pieces is MASSIVE. But we see none in the WTC videos (Even with the "plane" completely inside the building). Please explain...

I think the deflection is there, but you just don't see it because it's hard to see millions of tiny shards of glass and steel from so far away and with such an inexpensive camera. My thoughts are that if they have the technology to use a holographic image of a plane, then they're already untouchable from our point of view and they wouldn't need to fake a Pearl Harbor. In other words, if they are THAT powerful, then why fake 9/11 to go to war and get more power? Doesn't Iraq seem like small potatoes if you have advanced 3D hologram technology? ... Unless it's to secure Saddam's Stargate...

Okay John.......you originally upset me with your explantion of 30,000 mile long spaceship by telling me to buy a book.

Considering that I was there on 9/11, and watched it unfold from my office window, I can officially call BS.

What the hell Skeptic?!? What is with the blatant trolling that is being allowed by certian individuals?!?

For 6 years (another accouhnt) I've been a member on this site. It used to enjoyable.....I enjoy conspiracies...when there is an actual chance of one.

Planes flew into the towers....NOT HOLOGRAPHICS PLANES REAL PLANES

Numerous camera angles , numerous witnesses plus the missing airplanes and passengers.

It is sad the dis-service some will due to people who were killed in a terrorist plot.

This site is going downhill fast....................I used to think 'Deny Ignorance' was a good motto, obviously some at ATS have forgotten this.

Originally posted by ferretman2
Okay John.......you originally upset me with your explantion of 30,000 mile long spaceship by telling me to buy a book.

Considering that I was there on 9/11, and watched it unfold from my office window, I can officially call BS.

What the hell Skeptic?!?

What is with the blatant trolling that is being allowed by certian individuals?!?

For 6 years (another accouhnt) I've been a member on this site. It used to enjoyable.....I enjoy conspiracies...when there is an actual chance of one.

Planes flew into the towers....NOT HOLOGRAPHICS PLANES REAL PLANES

Numerous camera angles , numerous witnesses plus the missing airplanes and passengers.

It is sad the dis-service some will due to people who were killed in a terrorist plot.

This site is going downhill fast....................I used to think 'Deny Ignorance' was a good motto, obviously some at ATS have forgotten this.

While John Lear does not need me to defend him.....I do not see where he said holographic images of planes where used instead of real planes......I belive the only thing he stated was there is holographic technology far in advanced of what is commonly believed.

Originally posted by brainsucker
YES acording to NIST (Review America Rebuilds PBS), the bouncing (Deflection) of tiny pieces is MASSIVE. But we see none in the WTC videos (Even with the "plane" completely inside the building). Please explain...

take a basic physics class on mechanics please. Once you get to the chapters on momentum and intertia, let us know if you feel the same way.

maybe they used flying orbs with holografic projections, it could carry sound and it would look like a plane and the orb would be small enough to disipate on impact.

I don't know how it was done, it could be holo-tech or could be PLAIN AND SIMPLE
digital dubbing... I am not discarding anything (Aside from the fact that there is no plane).

On the subject of tiny pieces... No; given the NIST simulation the deflection is huge on the other side the "impact" is pristine, I mean nothing bouncing... N O T H I N G.
Please check the impact zone of both wings, the wings simply and plainly dissapear (Behind a digital mask?).

Staying focused on the physics of the event:
NIST shows bouncing of pieces / Video shows no bouncing.

Why do I need to take physics lessons ?
I am only comparing the NIST simulation and the event. No rocket science here.
NIST has powerfull computers, they have done their job and their results don't match the "reality" at all.

What's the point psilogod ? Are you debunking NIST or the video?


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by brainsucker
YES acording to NIST (Review America Rebuilds PBS), the bouncing (Deflection) of tiny pieces is MASSIVE. But we see none in the WTC videos (Even with the "plane" completely inside the building). Please explain...

I think the deflection is there, but you just don't see it because it's hard to see millions of tiny shards of glass and steel from so far away and with such an inexpensive camera. My thoughts are that if they have the technology to use a holographic image of a plane, then they're already untouchable from our point of view and they wouldn't need to fake a Pearl Harbor. In other words, if they are THAT powerful, then why fake 9/11 to go to war and get more power? Doesn't Iraq seem like small potatoes if you have advanced 3D hologram technology? ... Unless it's to secure Saddam's Stargate...

the shadow goverment is nothing with out the people, 9/11 was a collective consciousness ritual which is part of a dark plan that is underway ever since.
they alter peoples perception to render them useless slaves.
With 9/11 they created in our reality the concept of ''terrorists'' and they have been ussing this excuse to violate an extreme amount of human right laws amongst other things.

It's funny that right after 9/11 they did a voting poll asking if america should go to war against ''terorrists'' and of course at that time the votes were in favor of yes.

If you don't want to believe me that the goverment is extremely crooked and using the people as tools and machines for their own agenda that's your choice.



may peace be with us all after all..

By your logic, bullets shouldn't pierce their targets; they should either bounce or explode. Arrows shouldn't pierce their targets; they should bounce or break. High-speed accidents shouldn't result in explosions. Apparendly, footage of such scenes are all incorrect, is that right? The analogies of speedy scenarious are endless by the way.

I'd like to hear your answer to my previous question. Why are you so interested in disproving all other theories and making it clear that nothing but a hologram hit the towers? Whether some think it's a bomb or a hologram or just plain government ignorance, either way we are united that the administration had a hand in it, yes? So what makes it so important to discredit the work done by truth movement to prove it was a hologram?

Originally posted by Astygia

This hologram theory is based on incredibly advanced technology (the existence and applications of which can only be speculated upon), along with substandard video footage and related anomalies.

Are you saying the military paper I posted was fake? This was not a proposal it was a statement of fact. It was operational.

Originally posted by ferretman2

Okay John.......you originally upset me with your explantion of 30,000 mile long spaceship by telling me to buy a book.

Considering that I was there on 9/11, and watched it unfold from my office window, I can officially call BS.

Numerous camera angles , numerous witnesses

Perhaps you don't understand what a hologram is?