It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Exactly, what's the point? Why go through all this effort to fake an airplane and then demolish the buildings? Why is it even an issue?


Sorry, I didn't read the entire thread before responding to this question.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with you that the hologram theory is a disinfo effort. BUT, I do see the reason why it rose to the acclaim that it has.

You ask why?
The reason why the hologram theory has been picked up by many people is because many of the engineers that built the WTCs stand by their statements and designs that the building's outer shell of steel columns could repel, or in the very least, diminish the impact of an airplane nearly that size. Some will argue that they were design to withstand the impact of smaller jet. Yes, that is true, but the physics remain the same. The way the columns were designed to be so far apart, it should have broke the plane into multiple pieces upon impact and some of the airplane's componets, such as wings should not have "sliced through the building like butter". This was structural steel vs. aluminum alloys. Physcially speaking, the plane shouldn't have been able to do what it did to that building. This is why the hologram theory has come to the mainstream.

As for the holograms being project and the sounds of the airplane ... thise could have been accomplished if it were a flying drone that actually hit the building. The flash of light just before impact could have signaled the fireworks and other smoke and mirrors upon impact.

I understand the theory behind it all ... I just don't buy into it. Too much room for failure, or something going wrong to reveal the entire plan. This theory of holographic progecting drones does however lend credit to what little wreckage was seen in Shanksville and at the Pentagon.




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

. I just don't buy into it. Too much room for failure, or something going wrong to reveal the entire plan.


Exactly, it would have to be the most Cartoon Evil Genius plan I have ever heard. There are SOOO many ways a terrorist attack could have been done with no room for CT, they would NEVER choose this way, its pure fantasy.

Which leads us to say if Mr.Lear says this is what it is and it is OBVIOUSLY not, how can we take anything he says for real. Granted it's just his opinion, but because of his status on ATS, people tend to take his word as bond and in this case it is certainly not the case.

Look at the wreckage photos I posted earlier in this thread. There is overwhelming prove planes hit the towers, OVERWHEMLING, there is NO shred of proof a hologram hit the tower or projected or what ever they needed to do to make it look, feel, impact like a real plane. IMHO it would be much easier to crash a real plane.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

The reason why the hologram theory has been picked up by many people is because many of the engineers that built the WTCs stand by their statements and designs that the building's outer shell of steel columns could repel, or in the very least, diminish the impact of an airplane nearly that size. Some will argue that they were design to withstand the impact of smaller jet. Yes, that is true, but the physics remain the same. The way the columns were designed to be so far apart, it should have broke the plane into multiple pieces upon impact and some of the airplane's componets, such as wings should not have "sliced through the building like butter". This was structural steel vs. aluminum alloys. Physcially speaking, the plane shouldn't have been able to do what it did to that building. This is why the hologram theory has come to the mainstream.


And yet the daft, ludicrous, fantastical theory that the towers might not have been built according to intended specification and/or had an unforeseen design flaw is completely ignored .....

I wonder why? Who's disinforming who?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
So far we have the following facts:

A very advanced pilot would have been needed, possibly taken a few times to hit, especially at "reported" speed.

A hologram was NOT used.

True 767 wreckage was found (unlike in the pentagons case)
___

So, I go back to my original saying it was a UAV. Or the real plane with real people, but the autopilot was switched on remotely with a pre-conceived flight path, communications cut. (they did try to hail the plane but got no response, this supports comm being cut). Using computer controlled flight path would take out the human error element, and a direct hit could be guaranteed the first time.

I have seen 500mph in person by witnessing rocket car in desert go up to 700. The planes speed was no where near that, it is visually noticeable.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by 1337cshacker]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Is the theory viable because real planes would have disintegrated upon impact with the outer steel structure? And not as we have seen from the footage fly in as if in a cut out cartoon? They needed the planes in to count for the collapse...

It really isn´t that hard, and no holograms are needed. Just a few simple overlays and CGI into the main broadcast streams. They had 17 seconds for the overlays. Very convenient blackouts here and there. And some slipups which gave the overlays away.

Very few real people saw the first plane hit. Scores of others saw the second one hit... Or did they? Why does the story of a missile for the second hit not go away?

No Holograms to display in the real world, just overlays in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Just a few simple overlays and CGI into the main broadcast streams.


But there is also amateur footage showing the planes, and in fact there isn't any original footage that doesn't show the planes (at least as long as the angle doesn't obscure them). There were also hundreds, if not thousands of eyewitnesses in New York.

What if the bolts between the perimeter columns were compromised by incendiaries placed inside the bolt-access holes before impact?

That's easy to do and I've never really looked into it, but some researchers I respect from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice forum apparently had a discussion on it before the original group has disbanded, and had found evidence that charges were set off the instant before the plane hit, around the same time as the "flash" and all of that. Doesn't take any risky CGI forgery of reality to do that.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What if the bolts between the perimeter columns were compromised by incendiaries placed inside the bolt-access holes before impact?


Bsbray11:

The perimeter columns may have been bolted AND then welded together. Most certainly the 52” tall, ten foot wide, 3/8” thick steel spandrel plates — forming a circumference around the entire building — were welded to the columns.

Here’s the most simple analogy I can think of why it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767’s to breech the twin tower walls. And many readers can test this themselves, we being nation of gun-totin’ citizens and whatnot. A nine millimeter bullet — also traveling at 500 mph —will not penetrate quarter inch — let alone 3/8”— thick mild steel from any distance. Why then should an aluminum aircraft traveling at the exact same speed be able to puncture the WTC-tower columns and spandrel plates? If aluminum had better penetrating powers than the alloys used in bullets, why aren’t bullets made of aluminum?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
A nine millimeter bullet — also traveling at 500 mph —will not penetrate quarter inch — let alone 3/8”— thick mild steel from any distance. Why then should an aluminum aircraft traveling at the exact same speed be able to puncture the WTC-tower columns and spandrel plates then? If aluminum had better penetrating powers than the alloys used in bullets, why aren’t bullets made of aluminum then?


Totally misleading analogy

What you miss out it mass+momentum.
Check your most basic science lessons.

Weigh a bullet then weigh an airplane. MASS
The simple mass of an object along with the momentum will do the damage that the airplanes did to the WTC

Also, pretty soon after a bullet leaves the barrel of a gun it begins to slow down.
The engines of the planes that hit the WTC were still propelling them along when they hit.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Dear Chorlton:

I beg to differ. What matters is the PSI (amount of pressure) at point of impact. We’re talking about penetrating forces, not plowing-over powers. A hypothetical aircraft the size of a “death star battleship” made of aluminum and cruising at 500 mph still wouldn’t have sliced through the twin towers, it would have PUSHED them over!

Gosh, how I wish an original WTC tower designer would chime in here. I will bet the family farm that during their design deliberations/strength calculations their concern was the towers toppling over. They would have never computed the scenario of where an exterior object cuts through the columns. Because even if it were possible, it wouldn’t have mattered. Even if a Jack-In-The-Beanstock-Sized-Giant had cut through the entire buildings with a giant blowtorch, they would have still stood. A loosely stacked set of bricks doesn’t fall over into itself either, even when there is no mortar in-between holding them together.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

The reason why the hologram theory has been picked up by many people is because many of the engineers that built the WTCs stand by their statements and designs that the building's outer shell of steel columns could repel, or in the very least, diminish the impact of an airplane nearly that size. Some will argue that they were design to withstand the impact of smaller jet. Yes, that is true, but the physics remain the same. The way the columns were designed to be so far apart, it should have broke the plane into multiple pieces upon impact and some of the airplane's componets, such as wings should not have "sliced through the building like butter". This was structural steel vs. aluminum alloys. Physcially speaking, the plane shouldn't have been able to do what it did to that building. This is why the hologram theory has come to the mainstream.




all i can say is the designers of the titanic said it was unseankable. but where is it now. at the bottom of the ocean last time i checked.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DaleGribble
 


Then obviously the Titanic and it's sister ship the Britannic were both holograms and the iceburg was really a nuclear submarine sent back in time by 1.21 jigawatts of plutonium sold to George Bush by Iranians, with rocket propelled grenades, chasing a Delorian.

That's all I can say.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux

I keep hearing that there was no evidence of a plane at the WTC wreckage. From everything I've seen there is also no evidence of any computers, telephones, office supplies, filing cabinets, desks or anything to indicate that it was in fact an office building. Are we to conclude, based on this, that it was not an office building either?


This had to be said twice, lol.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
International Defense Review - March, 2003


Sceenless holographic projection is being studied as an entertainment technology by a number of companies, and the idea of a mid-air holographic projection was cited in the USAF Air University's Air Force 2025 report, commissioned by then-Chief of Staff Gen. Ron Fogleman in 1995. The report suggested that a hologram could be projected far enough from its source to create a virtual decoy, a visable but non-existent target.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Thank you ULTIMA1, I was about to ask why on earth we have a thread about holographic technology, and spectacularly manage to not actually discuss that technology.

This is the first I've read of this theory, but I feel I need to chime in. The logistics of creating a holographic representation of a plane that appears 100% real is mind boggling right now. And I'm not just saying this from the 'thats crazy sci-fi!' standpoint. I'm saying this from my personal opinion and the fact that I am in the final year of my Masters of Engineering degree in Cybernetics. I am more familiar with Robotics, AI and Virtual Reality than I am Holography, but feel I can comment from atleast a vaguely informed engineering standpoint.

Imagine that you could create a holographic representation of a plane. A representation good enough to fool the eye, one that from all angles appeared to be a soild object. Can you imagien the power requirements for such a device? Did anyone notice a spike in power usage anywhere in NY coinciding with the times eyewitness saw the planes and saw them collide with the buildings? Can you imagine the size of the device in question? It's not going to be small and would probably have to be roof mounted, and undoubtedly would leave evidence atop the building on which it was deployed. Anyone found anything suspicious on top of a NY building?

But then maybe they really did do this with technology decades ahead of 'cutting edge' technologies, maybe it was built into a van and projected the images through the sunroof whilst running off a generator harvesting some form of cold fusion.

My opinion though? Probably not.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J
Thank you ULTIMA1, I was about to ask why on earth we have a thread about holographic technology, and spectacularly manage to not actually discuss that technology.

My opinion though? Probably not.


Well there was a report i have seen about a hologram in either a EC-130 Commando Solo or Compass Call aircraft.

The Commander Solo plane can hack into and override TV and radio stations to send messages.

The Compass Call aircraft is a electronic jammer and decoy aircraft.

As far as the energy weapon i have seen a report of a Russian airborne laser aircraft that was missing for quit a while around 9/11.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'd love to read those reports and accounts. I'd appreciate any links you can send my way. As I said, I am no expert on holography, and if you have any reports that can add to my knowledge, i'd be pleased to read them and prehaps re-evaluate my opinion.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   


I beg to differ. What matters is the PSI (amount of pressure) at point of impact. We’re talking about penetrating forces, not plowing-over powers. A hypothetical aircraft the size of a “death star battleship” made of aluminum and cruising at 500 mph still wouldn’t have sliced through the twin towers, it would have PUSHED them over!


One the Sprandrel beams were 3/8" on the lower floors, narrowing
to 1/4" (6mm) higher up to save weight. The beams were about 40"
(1 meter apart) - some say because the building designer was
afraid of heights and didn't want large windows ! To push over
a building the size of the WTC towers would mean displacing it off
its base for some 200 ft (building 209 ft on each side). The towers
were flexible designed to sway in heavy winds (up to cat 3 hurricane)
several feet. When struck by the plane each building swayed
some 12 feet - the buildings vibrated for about 5 min after impact
like a pendulum as it swayed back and forth.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I know a way we can clear everything up. But, it will never happen.

Build a tower and crash a remote controlled plane into it. If the tower doesn't fall, well, then it proves the demolition ... if it doesn't fall at the same speed, it would prove the demolition. if it doesn't fall pretty much in its footprint, it would prove a demolition ...

the only problem is, how would you guarantee that the whole thing wasn't being manipulated? Maybe they will do this in the far future, or, the truth will have come out because all those involved will have passed away.

If I was someone with the bankroll or Bill Gates, I would have done it already, since it would only make a small dent in his overall wealth.

If anything, if you believe the story, you must then believe that controlled demolition is a hoax, and these people make all their money through deception. Of course, if you ever played jenga or other stacking games, things fall over, not in ... when they lose support ... and metal doesn't evaporate.


The 'proof' of the engine, the problem people have with it, is, it is not the right size for the planes ... and there should be at least 4 engines found, right? But if it is only two ... that couldn't you at least consider the possibility of a drone type plane with a holographic device?

I am not saying I believe the hologram theory ... I do question all the evidence at all four impacts. There is an amazing lack of evidence, whether from various kinds of explosives, energy weapons, whatever.


I think it is best to remember that we at least agree that something doesn't add up. We all need to talk more in a theoretical sense, and less in a factual sense. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, should still be considered and debated, until we do find the TRUTH. Don't get worked up, then disinfo wins, just be peaceful and discuss, or leave it be. No need to argue and get angered, it doesn't solve anything.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Can you imagine the size of the device in question? It's not going to be small and would probably have to be roof mounted, and undoubtedly would leave evidence atop the building on which it was deployed. Anyone found anything suspicious on top of a NY building?



I was talking with a coworker of mine and she suggested maybe it was located in WTC7. Maybe thats why they decided to "pull it".



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by thedman


When struck by the plane each building swayed
some 12 feet - the buildings vibrated for about 5 min after impact
like a pendulum as it swayed back and forth.



Thanks for the post thedman. I've watched all the videos and haven't seen it move one inch. Could you please direct me to a video where I can see it sway 12 feet. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join