Why planes were not used.

It is somewhat of a dilemma, the holographic plane discussion. While disappearing wings are suspect and could lead one to odd thinking such as holographic plane attacks, the images posted by talisman do demand a response...were explosives really able to produce so precise a shape in the tower? If so, then I know even less about detonation technique than I thought, which is no miracle, as I virtually know nothing about it.

I am intrigued, however, by the whole hologram concept because I've learned in life that whatever it is I think I do know about a given subject, usually much more remains to be learned about that subject. I am a very experienced graphic artist, yet holographic image production is something I probably could not satisfactorily answer two in-depth questions about...I've never dealt with that kind of production. And I accept that low-quality Web video may produce artifacts, such as missing parts. . .

Yet, to decide that a hologram was or was not used is uninformed, premature and therefore pure speculation on my part, at best. But when known laws of physics are brought into question, then it doesn't seem to be a crime to ask a few questions, pose a few theories and discuss options. Disappearing wings, planes in front of structures when they should be behind them, that sort of thing will generally cause the inquisitive mind to pursue answers. Again, not a crime.

I am somewhat curious as to why people come to ATS espousing MSM's point-of-view, when the purpose of ATS seems to be to provide an alternative, news-behind-the-news angle, and this by some of the most incredible minds I've ever encountered collected anywhere. In other words, why can we not consider the use of holographic technology by the matrix to deceive and destroy its citizens? Somebody is flying around ships the size of Dallas in the heavens, so is it really a stretch to suspect that holographic projection technology (complete with equally-impressive audio) is available? Is the trackrecord of the powers-that-be so pure that it's blasphemy to even dare question the momumental inconsistencies of the official account of that horrible day? I think I would be chewed up and spat out were I to come on ATS and post a thread on a given subject, justifying it with the types of explanations the Official Story expects us to accept.

So, if not to collectively contemplate the unlikely, what then is the purpose of ATS?

How did the weaker wings slice through all those steel girders and concrete floor slabs? How did the left horizontal stabilizer seen going through the WTC in the videos, yet you clearly see the steel girders where the L.H.S. would have hit are still intact?

By sheer kinetic energy. Yes, aircraft wings are much thinner than the exterior , but when you have that kind of velocity, and remember that kinetic energy is 1/2 M V ^2, so since the velocity is a squared function the KE goes up rapidly with speed.

Birds are softer than airplanes, but birds can cause a lot of structural damage to planes depending on where they hit, just by sheer speed of impact.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by firepilot]

Originally posted by Killtown

Oh, and care to answer my question of what that object is seen exiting the South Tower?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

Here ya go (look at the Diagram)

Sorry, Try again.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Mikey84]

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Mikey84]

Could there have been an orchestra of technologies deployed simultaneously? I remember hearing about how "complex" and "coordinated" the "terrorists" were in their plot, which I didn't think was so monumental of a coordination feat. Yes, of course to hijack several planes would require a helluva plan and quick thinking/action. It just seemed that the news reports were over-dramatizing how much money, time and planning would have been required to pull it off.

Maybe the extreme complexity was on the part of whomever truly perpetrated 911, and what all was truly needed to fool the world into war.

In other words, if there was holographic involvement, it was not likely exclusive. Clearly, explosives would be needed, and if "they" are indeed in possession of cloaking technology (like flying saucers use so often in web ufo clips), perhaps a high-speed cloaked detonation device was included to further accentuate physical damage and subsequent believability.

The very event itself (911) screams "impossible" coming from the mindset of the America and World most of us knew and loved prior to Fall 2001. Must the "how's" follow our traditional lines of thinking?

They followed the same plan of action as they did in the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing and the first WTC bombing. They used real bombs, just as they used real planes.

If I were planning the attack I would have whomever recommended the hologram idea flown to South America and dropped in the jungle.

It would just be too risky. What if one of the holographic projectors just suddenly failed, or flickered, or what if the weather conditions were not right. It'd just be simpler to used a real plane with some sort of laser (flash before impact – on both buildings) that would weaken the steel for penetration.

It's definitely feasible for a 767 to penetrate the building given the proper conditions. Wonder why the NIST wouldn't release the computer recreation of the building collapse? Maybe because they could even get the planes inside the buildings without altering the buildings structure, or entrance condidtions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess no one wants to answer my question on how a hologram can be heard as the 2nd plane is approaching. You can hear the sound of the engines roaring as the plane is approaching at 500mph. Can someone please explain to me how a hologram can produce noise?

There was NO HOLOGRAM. I was there, i heard and saw a plane hit the building!!!!!!

Paeiza, where the hell were u on 9/11????

you were probably watching it on TV in another country.

Get over yourself and realize that real people were there and real people saw these events. Not all of us watched it on TV or watched in on Youtube.

And 3 close people to me died in those buildings, i heard the cellphone messages they left. They saw planes hit the buildings, they heard explosions in the buildings. They heard huge jetliners fly and crash into the buildings.

Who the hell came up with this freaking hologram theory anyway??

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by talisman
So the hologram made the wing marks in the WTC as well? That is some hologram....

How did the weaker wings slice through all those steel girders and concrete floor slabs?

AGAIN, The wing's SKIN is typically made of .025 inch thick 6061-T6 aluminum however, that's only the skin, the spars (or beams of the wings) are not that weak. Here is a typical Boeing 767 spar in construction, a 767 would have 3 of these in each wing:

Now, imagine getting slapped by that massive beam at 500 MPH ..... the WTC exterior columns were no match!
But some people still hold in belief that a 300,000 pound Boeing traveling at 500 MPH with a momentum of 3 billion joules would just bounce off like a rubber ball.

But keep imagining that a 300,000 pound airplane at 500 MPH should have bounced off like a rubber ball. But hey, here' what a simple Canadian goose can do when it impacts a carbon fiber nose cone:
Now, imagine that Canadian goose was 300,000 pounds instead of 5 pounds and imagine if it was traveling at 500 MPH.

Originally posted by hikixWho the hell came up with this freaking hologram theory anyway??

Rosalie Grabble a.k.a. the WebFairy. But she also claims, and I am not kidding, she also claims that their could have been some flying pigs involved.

A real waste of time if you ask me, no wonder people think we are thin foil conspiracy kooks, they see this ridiculous hologram theory all mixed in with the forums and they roll their eyes.

Should toss this thread out and discuss the hologram plane theory that somebody put up long time ago thats in hundreds of pages already on the same subject.

Originally posted by talisman
1) I said I saw the aftermath of someone who's body went through steel.

2) IF you hold to the hologram theory, then perhaps the WTC was the hologram? I mean anyone can say anything.

1) Um yeah, I heard that. Didn't you hear where I said I didn't say nothing would penetrate?

2) Who said I subscribe to the hologram theory?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

Originally posted by firepilot

How did the weaker wings slice through all those steel girders and concrete floor slabs? How did the left horizontal stabilizer seen going through the WTC in the videos, yet you clearly see the steel girders where the L.H.S. would have hit are still intact?

By sheer kinetic energy. Yes, aircraft wings are much thinner than the exterior , but when you have that kind of velocity, and remember that kinetic energy is 1/2 M V ^2, so since the velocity is a squared function the KE goes up rapidly with speed.

Birds are softer than airplanes, but birds can cause a lot of structural damage to planes depending on where they hit, just by sheer speed of impact.

So fast planes can penetrate steel, but fast planes get penetrated by birds?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

Originally posted by Mikey84

Originally posted by Killtown

Oh, and care to answer my question of what that object is seen exiting the South Tower?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

Here ya go (look at the Diagram)

Sorry, Try again.

911research.wtc7.net...

Ok again, what do you think is seen exiting the South Tower in that video? A drawing can be made to show anything.

Originally posted by hikix
There was NO HOLOGRAM. I was there, i heard and saw a plane hit the building!!!!!!

What kind of plane did you see before you were told and shown what you saw on TV?

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by hikix
There was NO HOLOGRAM. I was there, i heard and saw a plane hit the building!!!!!!

What kind of plane did you see before you were told and shown what you saw on TV?

It looked like a 757 to me, i wasnt expecting it and didnt see it clearly. But it was a large plane, i couldnt decifer whether there were windows on it, etc. If it was a hologram, then it fooled me.

While I agree with the poster that stated that ATS is partly about the off the wall theories, what bothers most of us who post here is that theories such as the hologram one completely discredit the really BIG PROBLEMS with the official stories - whenever CT is mentioned in mainstream media, the most off the wall theories are the ones they bring up, not the solid and well researched data - the off the wall stuff is what stops the fight for truth being considered seriously by many people.

The projection keyboard posted by someone is interesting. Especially the key point - works with any FLAT OPAQUE surface..

As in, a reflecting surface. The laser light hits the keyboard, and travels back to the sensor - the blank spaces in the pattern received back indicate which keys have been pressed. I'd venture to guess it doesn't work all that well at speed, or for people who 'home row' type.

There is no reflecting surface on 9/11 that would work for all viewing angles.

None.

Air doesn't reflect light unless there's a pretty large particle density - whether it's water or dust or whatever.. What it does is refract light. As in, bend it - thus why the sky is blue.

Please, someone, explain to me how the planes were faked. As I said before, feel free to put projectors anywhere, to hypothesise any technology you like, as long as it has some basis in fact, and as long as you can make it viewable , solid and properly shaped from every angle.

I have no idea how a hologram plane would work in thin air but the videos are all (and I mean really all) of them to say the least odd.

There is not one good video that does not show anomalies.
I mean why all of them?

The reality is that if holograms were used, people on the ground saw them. Do we have any proof that a hologram can be produced to that extent?? i sincerely doubt it. So, the hologram theory as of now is just a hardcore conspiracy theory with that holds no weight.

Well some kind of images in thin air were already created:

www.aist.go.jp...

Originally posted by hikix

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by hikix
There was NO HOLOGRAM. I was there, i heard and saw a plane hit the building!!!!!!

What kind of plane did you see before you were told and shown what you saw on TV?

It looked like a 757 to me, i wasnt expecting it and didnt see it clearly. But it was a large plane, i couldnt decifer whether there were windows on it, etc. If it was a hologram, then it fooled me.

Well even though i'm not a big hologram supporter, that's what they are supposed to do.

And actually saw it strike the South Tower, or saw a plane, saw an explosion and assumed the plane you saw caused it?