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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
As far as I know the No Plane'rs contention is 'now i made be wrong here', and I don't wanna put words in anyones mouth, but from the research I've done, here is what i believe thier theory is;

The only shots non eyewitnesses saw ON 9/11 were those on the television, namely the now famous "nose-out clip", and many other clips of the television logo and banner covering the second planes approach.

This was a CGI plane, covering a cruise missile or what have you. No holograms used.

(The first impact was never show on TV on 9/11, although Bush says otherwise)

Now to the eye witnesses, I believe the No plane folks believe there were large commercial aircraft flying past the Towers as the missles or what have you hit. Remember the large plane seen circling over manhatten(vey small and hard to see in the NY clips, same as the pentagon but much easier to see.

Now anyone who knows anything about eyewitness testimony, especially during times of stress, stickups, murders, ect. There have been studies, and eyewitness idetification is pretty sketchy at best, I'll leave it at that.

The media interviewed supposedly interviewed only thier people, and even some of them didn see a plane. There are also a couple strange characters who had some pretty solid info in interviews just after the collapse, like that one guy in the Harley shirt, talking about why the buildings collapse, was like he was reading from a script.

Many people said they saw no planes hit the buildings, but they were pushed aside, and only those who fell for the fly by (thats how you get the jet sound), missle hit, as being a real plane crashing into a building were interviewed. Again, most if not all had affiliations to the media, the couple that weren't could have easily been stooges. A good illusionist always has stooges and plants in the audience.

BUT only until Sept 12 did we see for the first time the first strike and other clear shots of the second impact, most all of which have problems accordinding to the no plane folks. I agree that the Micheal Hezzerkani(sp?) footage looks very suspect, and at first someone else was credited for that piece of film, but now it's said to be his, but he can't say where he shot it from, because the angles and such don't line up.

The planes melting into the buildings is what bothers me. I mean slowed down the plane is in to the Tower almos all the way to it's tail section before we see any damage to the building.

Again I've read alot of the No planers stuff, and I don't think they say it was holograms. They claim tv fakery with CGI, and false/planted, or just plain confused witnenesses.

**But here's the sad thing. EVEN if it was no planes(I haven't really made up my mind one way or another), it IS makeing alot of people stay away from the 9/11 truth movement. If they would just keep that stuff under thier hats, and go with the CD/prior knowledge which can be better proven and won't scare people away from the movement thinking we're a bunch of nutters, we'd get alot more done, and get the true criminals even if for LIHOP.

I mean they nailed Capone on Tax Evasion. Sometimes you gotta go in through the back door and do things you don't want to just to see justice dealt. Sheesh for all we know they have disinfo guys planted in the movement.

I wish the LIHOP and MIHOP supporters, and the Planes and No planes people would come together, and figure out what is the best way to bring these criminals to justice. Because in the end that is what we ALL want yes?, and after they're rotting in thiers cells we can comtinue the argument. They have us divided right how, and isn't that the NWO's mantra? divide and conquer

I say we get the people we can get in any way with concrete evidence that is out there to prior knowledge. Sheesh arrest Gulliani for destroying a crime scene. Anything, any arrests made will be a step in the right direction

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Nola213]




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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 !


Dear the ‘D’ man:

There were no Spandrel beams — only Spandrel plates. And I’m pretty sure they were 3/8” thick, even on the upper floors. But that’s not critical here, since quarter inch gauge plates would have been plenty heavy to keep the planes from entering. And the quarter inch thick steel perimeter columns (box beams) were 14” wide spaced 1 meter (40”) apart, just as you mentioned, CENTER TO CENTER. This left no more than 26” of open (window) space between the columns, laterally. And vertically the distance between Spandrel plates was only 7’08”.

So let’s do a little math here, since ya’ll love numbers:
In any 120 ft2 (10ftx12ft) section of the WTC twin tower outer walls, 43 ft2 were solid steel spandrel plates, 42 ft2 were rock-solid perimeter column box beams, leaving only 35 ft2 of open space for the ‘planes’ to enter. In percentages, 71 % of the twin tower walls were SOLID STEEL, min. quarter inch thick, and only 29% were open spaces (windows). This means 71% of the Boeings should have dropped down on the streets of New York City. Did any of this happen? Was anyone filming plane wreckage during the 90 minutes prior to the first collapse? This is what’s grist to the mills of us no-planers.

Holograms are a polite way out for those who insist they “saw” planes, without having to call anyone “liars” or delusional. And I agree 100% with John Lear that our military has been researching/developing hologram technology, the very day since they were discovered in the mid 1950’s or so. Surely our Generals want holograms as a tool really, really badly. They must get a wood just thinking about its possible applications. But their use wouldn’t have been mandatory for 9-11 to succeed. A few cheesy videos obviously were more than enough to do the trick!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

The green Hornet rules!!

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
So when a 300,000 lb aircraft hits a building going 500 mph there is no
effect????? The building doesn't move?



) Aircraft impact, often described as sounding like a dull thud or a "whump," with a moderate vibration of the building. The aircraft, traveling at very high speeds, cut through the building exteriors easily. The buildings began to sway appreciably after they had absorbed and decelerated the majority of the aircraft mass.


4) Swaying back and forth of the building, strong enough to make people lose their balance, lasting 10 seconds or so. Many people thought the building would collapse at this point. The building movement caused further damage to walls, floors, and ceilings. Some people described the building "torquing" (twisting).






Just three floors below the impact zone, not a thing budged in Steve McIntyre's office. Not the slate paperweight shaped like a sailing ship. Not the family snapshots propped up on a bookcase. Mr. McIntyre found himself in front of a computer that was still on.

Then came the whiplash.

A powerful shock wave quickly radiated up and down from the impact zone. The wave bounced from the top to the bottom of the tower, three or four seconds one way and then back, rocking the building like a huge boat in a storm.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Oh I’m sure the building would have moved, had there been an aircraft!

Us no-planers are saying none of this ‘movement’ shows up on any of the videos. Guess the CGI artists couldn’t/forgot to include that in their snippets. Well it’s not as if they had George Lucases working on this either!

And the report from Steve McIntyre’s office, well that sounds a lot like “Towers of Terror” talk. Perhaps the same ghost-writer composed that scenario as well. Sure seems familiar.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
The perimeter columns may have been bolted AND then welded together.


Can you provide any evidence of this from the debris pile? I've seen plenty of photos showing the ends of the perimeter columns, where the bolts failed, usually just showing a smooth plate with 4 holes in it.


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.


They can be cut too, and look like they were, but I'm not sure how. I think we could all agree it was either charges or torsion, so they're provided for either way because they definitely did fail en masse during the collapses no matter what did it.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
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.


John,

I have a video of a blind man, a surviver from the North tower. He spoke at my agency at the 2006 anniversory of 9/11. He stated that when the plane hit the building moved several feet, but thats normal becasue the builidngs were designed to move to absorb high winds.

Just like most of the reports suggest the buildings did withstand the impacts of the planes and would have kept standing.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Holograms have come a long way. Here is one of Kate Moss from a recent fashion show.



If you put a big one of those suspended to a silent black helicopter in the night sky, factor in the "where 30 years behind the military" then im pretty sure that you'd have a fairly convincing spectacle.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by blahdiblah]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Do you think an observer, filming, would catch the sway? I mean, to get close enough to see it, there's no reference around except sky, and to get back far enough so there were other building for reference, you probably wouldn't pick it up.

And, enough with the CGI already. Sheesh!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
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!

No sir
What matters is mass and momentum. If you cannot see that then all of your arguments are flawed. You cant compare the mass of a bullet travelling at 500MPH and the mass of an airplane travelling at 500Mph
Do you understand Newtons Law? if not look at it and stop the ridiculous infantile suggestions as they do you no credit



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
To add my two cents I do not think holograms are involved at all. Why mess with all the fancey gadgetry when TV photoshopping is so much easier and cheaper. Not to mention reliable in somuch as a hologram might flutter where a fake TV image can be counted on (Sorda).

Something to consider, even if holograms were involved, I want you to think about high speed photography. Ever seen a photo of a formula one raceing car or something else traveling really fast? Either the object is a blur or the object is clear and the back round is a blur. Many still photos of 911 planes are available.... All of them have clear views of both plane and backround despite the alleged plane traveling at 500 MPH. THe lack of blur is kinda incriminating IMO....

IF your unfamiler with high speed motion photography I'd suggest yahoo or google images of Formula one raceing cars in motion.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Oh yes sir, all that does matter is PSI.

Two similarly shaped objects, of the same shape and density, traveling at the same speeds, will have the EXACT SAME TYPE — not size — of effect on whatever they bump into. The nine millimeter bullet and the Boeing 767 roughly have similar shapes. Alright the plane has longer proportions, but it’s also a lot less dense than the projectile.

The difference is, if the bullet can penetrate something it will leave a small hole, whereas the jet airliner would leave a very large opening under the same conditions. Vice versa, the same holds true also, if the bullet cannot puncture a substance, than neither can the passenger plane. Yes, the aircraft’s huge mass will give it a tendency to plow obstacles aside, but that’s NOT what we observed at the WTC’s. The perimeter columns were not pushed/bent, they were neatly severed.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by zysin5
One of my main questions with the whole hologram deal is about the sounds the planes made..


One of my personal issues with the hologram idea. You'ld have to match everthing up maybe not perfectly but damn close.

And IIB brings up the point of the holes in the sides of the buildings and the way the steel was bent inward. How do holograms account for that?


explosive charges meant to blow inwards. our swat teams have explosives that blown up a door only in one direction..that techknowlogy is old...why shouldn't the gov who develops all our tech have even greater explosives that could also do this?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213**But here's the sad thing. EVEN if it was no planes(I haven't really made up my mind one way or another), it IS makeing alot of people stay away from the 9/11 truth movement. If they would just keep that stuff under thier hats, and go with the CD/prior knowledge which can be better proven and won't scare people away from the movement thinking we're a bunch of nutters, we'd get alot more done, and get the true criminals even if for LIHOP.



I personaly have a very big issue with this. It took many individuals and organization to preptrate this atrocity. The MSM is one of those organizations and they need to be held responsible along with everyone else..

And personal I don't buy a missle, or a space beam or anything else...I buy the controled demolition theory but heres how it ties into TV fakery. If all the trouble as been gone through to rig controled demolition why would you risk prematurely igniteing your demo charges or even worse Risk dislodgeing them from thier spots so that they explode in the street or something failing to bring down the building? Its too risky IMO. Why not just use whatever normal explosives one must use and fake the planes and the people. Damage control becomes alot more manageable this way.

No everyone must be brought to justice and this includes the Media and that is why I will stick to my no plane guns and do my best to share the truth of it with all. No comprimise no surrender.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Did anyone here on ats actually see the planes hit the towers? Does anyone know anyone who did? And I dont mean just reading eye witness accounts, I mean actually talking to the people that saw it happen?

If they were holograms or missiles, then there must be a couple of hundred people from the planes alive somewhere and in hiding, so where are they?

What about all the families of the dead? Has their backgrounds been checked? Has it been proved without doubt that their loved ones died on the planes that day?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


i love how ur so sure about sumthing with out having an ounce of evidence to support anything ur claiming. stop inventing BS!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

John Lear happens to be a nice person and technically a very knowledgeable one. My guess is he’s put forth the hologram theory to reconcile the fact that there were no planes with the purported eyewitnesses.

He’s offering a technical solution — his uncommon insights allow this — to what people have claimed they saw. His only possible deficiency may be that he’s not cynical enough to consider the possibility that people could be delusional or outright lying about what they observed. All the so-called bystanders are far too defensive and short with their descriptions of their recollections — something’s just not right there.

Holograms or not, there was no physical evidence of planes crashing on 9-11. Not in theory or in reality.

In case you don’t think people are capable of fibbing — read the now closed ‘Towers of Terror” thread. Whoever wrote that doesn’t have a conscience (I don’t mean the original poster, I’m talking bout the pasted content).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


john lear should not be respected hes not knowledgeable he invenst bs. whats up with all of you guys believing the hologram theory or the other bs out there. why not just accept the fact that your wrong and all you want is attention. and that planes did hit those towers and the pentigon.

John lear seriously present your evidence your proof. or at least a detail explanation. this is a challenge i bet youll never succeed at.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
So let’s do a little math here, since ya’ll love numbers:
In any 120 ft2 (10ftx12ft) section of the WTC twin tower outer walls, 43 ft2 were solid steel spandrel plates, 42 ft2 were rock-solid perimeter column box beams, leaving only 35 ft2 of open space for the ‘planes’ to enter. In percentages, 71 % of the twin tower walls were SOLID STEEL, min. quarter inch thick, and only 29% were open spaces (windows). This means 71% of the Boeings should have dropped down on the streets of New York City. Did any of this happen? Was anyone filming plane wreckage during the 90 minutes prior to the first collapse? This is what’s grist to the mills of us no-planers.


I already posted this in another thread but YES- Why don't we do the math here. . .

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x ( mass ) x ( velocity )2 or K=1/2m(v)2

Let's use a reasonable estimate of 250,000 lbs for the 767, and a velocity of 500 mph, which seems to be a generally accepted value. The resulting kinetic energy exerted on that section of the tower would have been;

2,039,330,539.312 foot pounds

That's 2 billion with a "B"

Now, let's compare that with the WTC tower itself. . .

A widely advertised value for the total weight of one tower is 500,000,000 kilograms, or;

1,102,311,310.924 pounds

That's 1.1 billion with a "B"

The striking force of the incoming aircraft was equivilant to crushing both WTC1 & WTC2 down to the size of the 767.

IMO- It could have been made out of marshmellows & still went through. . .

You also make a statement in another post in this thread which states that a bullet would penetrate much farther that a 767 because it's much more dense. This could not be further from the truth. Mass & velocity are the contributing factors to kinetic energy, not density. . . No offense.


Let me ask you a question;

What do you think pushed all this steel "INWARD"? Even along the leading edge of where the wings hit?



This is proof positive why you didn't see the planes bounce off the sides of the towers upon impact.

2PacSade-



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 



IF you blow that picture up you will see some of the beams bow outward not inward. Why should they bow outward when all the force was forward moving....

Not to mention have you seen all five shots on the various networks of the planes flight approach?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

IF you blow that picture up you will see some of the beams bow outward not inward. Why should they bow outward when all the force was forward moving....

Not to mention have you seen all five shots on the various networks of the planes flight approach?


Yes, you beat me to it. The beams bow out not in.


NIST has several reports that states that the buldings witstood the planes impacts.

Here is one about the buildings estimates were higher then originally thought for withstanding high winds and impacts.

www.nist.gov...

These clarified original design wind load estimates all exceed those established by the New York City building code prior to 1968 (when the WTC towers were designed) and through 2001 (when the towers were destroyed). The values also are higher than those required by other selected building codes of the era, including the relevant national model building code.

Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by 2PacSade
 



IF you blow that picture up you will see some of the beams bow outward not inward. Why should they bow outward when all the force was forward moving....

Not to mention have you seen all five shots on the various networks of the planes flight approach?


Best answer for the first question- Torque. The perimeter columns were connected horizontally by spandrel plates. I'm sure the steel was twisting around the initial places that were breached. Some of the columns & facade may have been twisted outward in the process. Another answer I can give you is whiplash. Some of the steel could have initially been pulled inward, and as portions of the skeleton gave way, the remaining pieces snapped back & outward.

As for your second remark- What about them? You'll have to elaborate on that statement a bit because I don't know what you mean. Thanx-

2PacSade-



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join