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.

 

The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton

Originally posted by RTrev

whoops, my apologies.. I've read the entire thread now and understand your thesis about the holographic projections.

Seems plausible to me. We *know* things didn't happen as the official story indicates.. so I'm willing to entertain any alternatives that have some basis in the facts as we think we understand them.


But the Holographic theory has absolutely no basis in fact. It is entirely theoretical. As was mentioned it would need to be a 360 degree hologram and be vieweble in the correct context both inside and outside of the projection. It simply doesnt exist.


I honestly don't know much about holograms or how they work. But if it were possible to project something like this "optical illusion", it would clear up some mysteries.. like John's point about how the plane got into the building without severing those columns.

It's always been a mystery to me that wreckage and body parts weren't found, either at the towers or the pentagon. I know of only one other case like this; Egypt Air Flight 990. Even planes shot down with multiple missiles don't just disappear along with all of the passengers.

Even if my own pet theory of the planes being military refueling tankers were true, there is still the problem of how the plane entered the building and where the debris is. This is what attracts me to John's theory. The idea that there simply weren't any planes in the first place seems the least inconsistent with the evidence I'm aware of.

If the question of whether the technology really exists to create such an optical effect is the stumbling block, I'd suggest that there's probably no way to know what the billions of dollars being poured into "black" projects have managed to produce.

This idea of John's seems to explain a lot of things that never made sense before, and only posits one assumption which is difficult to chase down.. do they have the technology to do this holographic number? I would have to say that yeah, they probably do.

Regards,
Bob




posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RTrev
It's always been a mystery to me that wreckage and body parts weren't found, either at the towers or the pentagon.


Where have you been Bob?


W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied — including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine — as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.
Source


How did you miss the photos of still-smoking chunks of aircraft laying on New York streets?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by RTrev
It's always been a mystery to me that wreckage and body parts weren't found, either at the towers or the pentagon.


Where have you been Bob?

(snip included info)

How did you miss the photos of still-smoking chunks of aircraft laying on New York streets?



Okay, I admit.. those pictures have flabbered my gast. I never saw those before. I never heard anyone speak of them. Guess I have more studying to do before saying any more.

Thanks for the heads up.

Regards,
Bob



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Untill reading this thread ; I had never heard of " hologram theory " .

There is enough to create a doubt imho .

If those pillars were not cut off on the impact and the parts of plane has folded in ontoself or fell on the ground ; shouldn't " that " be clearly visible on the video of plane " melting " into the building ?

Also , this act of folding onto itself or falling out of the building scenario makes me asks ; what then cut/destroyed those pillars on the inside ?

In either case , whether there was a boeing or not ; some pillars on the inside had been destroyed while the ones impacted on the outside not .

How is this possible ?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
In either case , whether there was a boeing or not ; some pillars on the inside had been destroyed while the ones impacted on the outside not .


The wings are "swept back" a bit. Meaning the wings are closer to the nose, nearer the fuselage. When the most forward portion of the wings made initial contact into the structure, they began to tear away from the main airframe. As a result, the wingtips had much less energy to impart to the structure, as they did not share the energy released from the mass of the aircraft as a whole. By the time the wing tips actually struck the building, they had much less velocity and force to transfer. In fact, the wings quite possibly "folded" back a good bit, further reducing damage to the structure further out from the fuselage.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny


The wings are "swept back" a bit. Meaning the wings are closer to the nose, nearer the fuselage. When the most forward portion of the wings made initial contact into the structure, they began to tear away from the main airframe. As a result, the wingtips had much less energy to impart to the structure, as they did not share the energy released from the mass of the aircraft as a whole. By the time the wing tips actually struck the building, they had much less velocity and force to transfer. In fact, the wings quite possibly "folded" back a good bit, further reducing damage to the structure further out from the fuselage.


I see your point but when one watches the video of it , one sees no wing movement .

One can always argue that the whole thing is just too fast to see ; personally I have no idea .



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by michial
...if so how did the pilot or pilots manage to miss hitting either horizontal floor slab flying at that speed in those conditions. Was it happenstance or cruel luck?


There is more open space above a floor then floor thickness. Wouldn't the odds favor missing the floor slab and hitting the office space? If terrorist flown planes did hit the building, I doubt that the 'pilot' was thinking the plane had to not hit a floor. He most likely just wanted to hit the building.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
Maybe because they were criminal investigations


So you are saying because it was a criminal investigation there was no need to present the black boxes as evidence? Those indestructible little recorders that would have answered everyones questions?

Yup that makes a lot of sense... amazing deductive powers



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
When the most forward portion of the wings made initial contact into the structure, they began to tear away from the main airframe.


So you claim yet that's not what I see in the CNN video... I see the plane 'disappear into the building wings still intact and no hole...




Still need an explanation for that



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RTrev
This idea of John's seems to explain a lot of things that never made sense before, and only posits one assumption which is difficult to chase down.. do they have the technology to do this holographic number? I would have to say that yeah, they probably do.


And you would be right


Pentagon Budget Report Shows how much spent and completion deadlines




Bigger version Highlighted test






Bigger version Highlighted test



1998 Completed feasibility studies for advanced camouflage and deception technologies using holography

1999 Develop holographic techniques, materials, and processes. Evaluate DRFM technologies feasibility... and projection technologies

2000 Evaluate holographic techniques, materials, and processes
Develop technologies to support the development of deception modules for radar, acoustic, seismic, and communication band

2001 Demonstrate holographic techniques for improved deception capabilities for combat units.

Yup that be yer tax dollars hard at work... and just in time for a 'trial run'. What a way to Demonstrate the Tech for the troups



Available here..

www.js.pentagon.mil...

or here directly so I don't 'ping' everyone again


www.dtic.mil...

And about those airplane 'parts' Make SURE you check if they are the right part number and find out WHEN they were first 'discovered' And Army logistics truck could have dropped it off in the confusion





[edit on 4-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by MrPenny
When the most forward portion of the wings made initial contact into the structure, they began to tear away from the main airframe.


So you claim yet that's not what I see in the CNN video... I see the plane 'disappear into the building wings still intact and no hole...

Still need an explanation for that


No explanation needed at all. That picture was before the entire plane entered the building. As it entered further the wings probably began to fold then the smaller parts of the wing were 'egg sliced' by the girders.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So you are saying because it was a criminal investigation there was no need to present the black boxes as evidence?


Ladies and Gentleman.....I am proud to present.......zorgon.....

Turning other person's posts into whatever he wants.........

[edit on 4-10-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
or here directly so I don't 'ping' everyone again


I have read the the reference to 'ping' being misused several times. Certificate errors are not pings. Anyway, I was going to post a definition for 'ping' when I ran across a web page for the author of the ping program. Mike worked on military projects but is now deceased due to a car wreck.



The Research Interests of MIKE MUUSS
Sadly, Mike Muuss was killed in an automobile accident on November 20, 2000.
His work lives on in testament to his intellect and indomitable spirit -- Lee A. Butler

Welcome! My research interests are in computer simulation ( geometric modeling, synthetic image generation, ray-tracing, virtual reality ), advanced MIMD processor architectures, high speed digital networks, and operating systems. My passion at the moment is real-time ray-tracing, with 3-D atmosphere, to create a physics-based "virtual reality" simulator.

I'm the architect of BRL-CAD, a substantial third-generation CSG solid modeling system available free of charge, which you probably have never heard of, and the author of ping , ttcp , and assorted other network goodies . Ping is a little thousand-line hack that I wrote which practically everyone seems to know about. *grin* It's included in every copy of UNIX® and Microsoft Windows95® and WindowsNT®, putting it into nearly every computer on the planet.

His web page

Under tech papers is a government only access paper about a project called

Paint the Night and SWISS
Design notes for the world's most exciting simulation. (Government only)

Make a person wonder just a bit...

Edit:

Found a link to PTN

[edit on 10/4/2007 by roadgravel]

[edit on 10/4/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Also , this act of folding onto itself or falling out of the building scenario makes me asks ; what then cut/destroyed those pillars on the inside ?

In either case , whether there was a boeing or not ; some pillars on the inside had been destroyed while the ones impacted on the outside not .

How is this possible ?


All that really needs to be asked is:
What bent those columns INWARDS?

Sorry, but explosives EXPLODE (outwards) not IMPLODE (inwards).There's really no discussion beyond that point. Calculating the forces/physics/structural integrities involved that prevented certain things from being severed really becomes futile and obsolete after that. But once again I challenge those who subscribe to the no planes to go ahead and bust out some mathematical calculations to demonstrate... well... anything related to the hypothesis.

C'mon, John, quit holding out on us... I know you've been hoarding these details to pretend like you're a whooped dog here?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Sorry, but explosives EXPLODE (outwards) not IMPLODE (inwards).There's really no discussion beyond that point.


To be fair, it should be pointed out that explosives direct the greatest amount of force towards the direction presenting the most resistance. Also, directional, shaped charges can be controlled in ways that produce remarkably precise affects.

Now, in the case of the WTC, they would have to figure a way to get the charges planted on the exterior side of the beams. I don't know how that could happen without serious and noticeable disruptions to everyday business.

I am not advocating that explosives were used. Simply pointing out some of the physics of explosives.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
All that really needs to be asked is:
What bent those columns INWARDS?


Charges placed on both sides of the towers walls — OUTSIDE and INSIDE. It would have been more precise to place demolition devices on the exterior of the WTC perimeter walls to accomplish the desired ‘impact profile patterns’.

Sure you want calculations as proof. But let me remind you there are NO math figures — as in NONE — supporting the official ‘story’. Despite this, your position appears to be, as long as there is no absolute empirical data for any version of events — official or conspiracy, you’ll stick with the OCT no matter what.

Some have been complaining here on ATS about too much theorizing bla-blah, and not enough listing of hard evidence and lack of inductive numbers. Well too bad. People have a difficult enough time as it is understanding numerals. The average person hated math in school, so why should they have suddenly developed a love for numbers? Many don’t even seem to grasp the concept of zero, as has been shown many times in this forum. Zero, as in zero NTSB reports for the four 9-11 plane crashes. Zero, as in zero relatives of 9-11 passengers suing the airlines. All recently settled lawsuits came from families of victims who died in the buildings, not in the planes. Yeah, if folks can’t comprehend – 0 – then why would they be convinced by pages of calculus?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. As far as lawsuits, the airlines are under congressional protection from any lawsuits. Families were “compensated” from a government fund. That is why there is 0 NTSB reports, and 0 lawsuits. Takes 30 sec and google to find this stuff out...



[edit on 4-10-2007 by CTS32]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CTS32
 


Dear CTS32:

Ahem. If the airlines are under ‘congressional protection’ then why did five 9-11 families just settle their negligence suit with the airlines?
Sept. 11 families settle negligence suit

Not surprisingly, the attorney for Argenbright Security Inc. (provided screeners at Dulles International Airport) says "None of the defendants believe anybody other than the terrorists are responsible for the 9-11 attacks". He’s a lawyer, and of course he’s trying to cover his (clients’) derriere. Lawyers ALWAYS mince their words. When they say something, they say it for a reason.

So, you’re saying the NTSB has passed the ‘hot potato’ over to the FBI. Fine. And when do they plan to author reports? It’s been six years. What’s the hold-up? Or, perhaps no one thinks reports are really needed, it being so obvious what happened and so forth. We all saw it on TV, right?!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
why did five 9-11 families just settle their negligence suit with the airlines?



Zero, as in zero relatives of 9-11 passengers suing the airlines.


Ahem, which is it gonna' be Wiz?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Mister Wizard says it’s gonna be zero. Zero relatives of 9-11 passengers suing the airlines.
Those five 9-11 families that litigated were related to people who perished as occupants of the targeted buildings, not as passengers of any planes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join