The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 16
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Nope, it doesn’t make him an expert on holography. But it does make him an eight-hundred pound of a gorilla authority on no-plane theories.

No it doesnt. His past makes him knowledgeable on flying aircrat thats all.
His past gives him no insight into no-plane theories, as his consistant mistakes on the matter show.



However you don’t give him respect there either. When you should. Holograms or not, John Lear reinforces empirically with his aviation insights what no-planers theorize — that there were no passenger jet crashes on 9-11.


I dont give him any respect for posting argumentative nonsense speculation and something he know nothing about. Neither would I give anyone any respect fro coming up with crackpot ideas simply because they misunderstand what went on.


I’m wildly guessing here, but for John Lear — being a very technical person — maybe holograms are his way of explaining all the eyewitness accounts.


'Maybe' ??well were making progress here as you are showing some doubt. But "Maybe" (your word, not mine) alien steel and concrete eating 'Annunaki' burrowed their way from Dulce after landing via the secret space station and weakened the structure so much that it collapsed when someone on the 3rd floor farted?. You see thats just as plausible a theory as the Hologram one as so many people, including John Lear, believe in all the things above.

"Maybe" didnt happen though in either case. It was simply a group of Terrorists, and despite what people have said Occams Razor is valid in this case.


When it is possible that this quest of his for a scientific solution to the 9-11 live observations underestimates the innate propensity of human nature to see things as they ain’t — or flat out lie.

He has shown no 'quest' for a scientific solution. He has come up with an idea without any evidence or proof that such holgram machines existand bluntly refuses to answer how they could throw a 350 degree hologram over such a wide area. Therefore my scenario above carries just as much weight and probablility as John lears does.
]




posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
holograms...controlled demolition...rabid pixies?.....i can't actually say how it happened or who made it happen
but the one thing i do know is:there is something so obvious in all of this smelly fish business we are all missing,so to speak....the non ability to see the forest for the trees
as i saw the events of that day unfold and i heard the terrorists this...osama that...the if you are not with us -you are against us homeland security rantings
weapons of mass destruction we still haven't found
my gut told me the events of that particular day were a marker of how little as a society we have learned
man's ability to inflict fear and harm on their fellow man has no bounds or limits....if there is a dollar to be made or some power to be grasped or poppies to be milked....
we were taken to the cleaners on this one...and now we are left to pay the flipping bill.
we need to get a grip of our minds emotions and lives....take back what we have so eagerly just thrown away-not only talk to each other...but also listen and learn from each other- in the hope a crime such as this will never be carried out and laid down at the feet of humanity..a ceaseless string of bloody pearls sustaining greedy swine...



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton It was simply a group of Terrorists, and despite what people have said Occams Razor is valid in this case.


Well maybe it was a ‘group of terrorists’ that took down the twin towers. Provided that they had access to devices (nukes) that released the necessary 14.4 million kWh of energy (12,248 tons of TNT) — twice! — needed to pulverize each tower. Lasers and ‘energy beams’ (whatever nebulous thing they may be) are theoretically unrealistic since they would have required at least three times more energy than that to produce.

And I like Occams’s razor too. What’s simpler than having no planes, no holograms, no nothing on 9-11 except for buildings blowing up?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Hello, new guy here...

It's been very entertaining reading all of this for the last hour+

Looks like my understanding of Physics and Science is still sound (whew!). Mr. Lear's assertions just cannot hold up since there is never any evidence offered, sounds like pure conjecture.

BTW I am type-rated in the B757, B767, B737 and DC-9/MD-80. I have 23,000+ hours, 18,000f in transport-category jets, both left-seat and right-seat. So I'll go out on a limb and declare that I have some experience with airplanes.

Airplanes were deliberately flown into the buildings by Muslim extremists as part of their continuing 'struggle', whatever and howver twisted that sounds to reasonable people. Were the Towers pre-rigged with bombs? I seriously doubt it, but that's not part of my contribution to this discussion.

Every airliner has a distinct 'in-house' number, in addition the the FAA registered 'N' number. Now, four jets are missing. Either AA and UA were paid off and/or the Gov't stole them, or they were indeed used in horrific terrorist attacks. The CVRs and FDRs were completely destroyed EXCEPT in the case of UA93. All four impacts produced G-forces that were unprecedented in other airline crashes. Three were accompanied by tremendous fires. UA93 impacted into open ground, in a very nearly 'lawn-dart' attitude. Therefore, the CVR and FDR were sufficiently readable to know about the passenger's valiant attempts to take out the bad guys. MAYBE it would have been intercepted by fighters before reaching its target - but with only a 'skin paint' or what's known as a Primary Target on RADAR it would be very difficult to direct the Air Force in time.

Someone else here cited Occam's Razor. I think that still applies.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd

Dear 23432,

Thanks for the link to the Bearden vids. Yes, it's very complicated; "Time Reversed Waves," "Pumped Full Wave Mixing," a new "general solution?" Amazing stuff and frankly way over my head. And that was 20 years ago... What can they do today?

At any rate, did you catch the last sentence? Here it is:

Mr. Bearden:

Using pumped full wave mixing, as much energy as one desires can be placed into the distant hologram.


This raises the interesting speculation that not only could the hologram present a visual image, it could also pack a powerful destructive force.



Hello GreenFloyd
.

I actually think this technology is not that far off from Haarp operational principles .

If all this is true and I doubt it isn't ; imagine what type of technologies & secrets are kept hidden from public .


I once built a s/vtol uav ; using nasa grade aluminium , i.e specially hardened.

It burns easy but it would never cut off a steel beam on impact .


I wonder what happens if one punches a boeing on it's nose ?

Do you think there would be dents , knuckle prints left behind ?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by GreenFloyd


I once built a s/vtol uav ; using nasa grade aluminium , i.e specially hardened.

It burns easy but it would never cut off a steel beam on impact .


I wonder what happens if one punches a boeing on it's nose ?

Do you think there would be dents , knuckle prints left behind ?





Nasa grade aluminum. Thats funny. What grade and temper of Aluminum did you use? I work with the stuff every day, you would be amazed how strong an aluminum structure with .030" walls can be. Add some radiuses to the roots of the walls and it gets even stronger. You'd break your hand if you punched it.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hello, new guy here...

It's been very entertaining reading all of this for the last hour+

Looks like my understanding of Physics and Science is still sound (whew!). Mr. Lear's assertions just cannot hold up since there is never any evidence offered, sounds like pure conjecture.

BTW I am type-rated in the B757, B767, B737 and DC-9/MD-80. I have 23,000+ hours, 18,000f in transport-category jets, both left-seat and right-seat. So I'll go out on a limb and declare that I have some experience with airplanes.

Airplanes were deliberately flown into the buildings by Muslim extremists as part of their continuing 'struggle', whatever and howver twisted that sounds to reasonable people. Were the Towers pre-rigged with bombs? I seriously doubt it, but that's not part of my contribution to this discussion.

Every airliner has a distinct 'in-house' number, in addition the the FAA registered 'N' number. Now, four jets are missing. Either AA and UA were paid off and/or the Gov't stole them, or they were indeed used in horrific terrorist attacks. The CVRs and FDRs were completely destroyed EXCEPT in the case of UA93. All four impacts produced G-forces that were unprecedented in other airline crashes. Three were accompanied by tremendous fires. UA93 impacted into open ground, in a very nearly 'lawn-dart' attitude. Therefore, the CVR and FDR were sufficiently readable to know about the passenger's valiant attempts to take out the bad guys. MAYBE it would have been intercepted by fighters before reaching its target - but with only a 'skin paint' or what's known as a Primary Target on RADAR it would be very difficult to direct the Air Force in time.

Someone else here cited Occam's Razor. I think that still applies.

Thanks.


Type ratings and flight hours from Micrsoft Flight simulator don't count around here.


Just kidding by the way. I'm waiting to see how many will respect your credentials.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




The CVRs and FDRs were completely destroyed EXCEPT in the case of UA93.


Untrue. Flight 77's FDR was found and given to the NTSB and then taken by the FBI who did the data reduction. Both tape and digital (CSV) readouts are available on line just about anywhere. The only ones that weren't found were #175 and #11.


All four impacts produced G-forces that were unprecedented in other airline crashes.


Untrue. Those G-forces were not unprecedented. Thats what the FDR's are designed for. Head on collisions.


Three were accompanied by tremendous fires.


Untrue. Once the initial fire ran out of jet fuel it was essentially over. It was not a tremendous in either the north tower or the south tower. As a matter of fact the firemen said they'd have knocked down in a short time. The only thing that was smoking at the Pentagon was a 55 gallon drum full of diesel fuel that somebody lit for some reason.


UA93 impacted into open ground, in a very nearly 'lawn-dart' attitude.


Not likely. If Flight 93 impacted the ground anywhere it sure wasn't in Shanksville. The coroner left after 20 minutes of not finding anything and his comment was, "There aren't any dead bodies here".


Therefore, the CVR and FDR were sufficiently readable to know about the passenger's valiant attempts to take out the bad guys.


My opinion is there were no valiant attempts to take out the bad guys. There were no bad guys. There were no passengers. There were no airplanes.


MAYBE it would have been intercepted by fighters before reaching its target - but with only a 'skin paint' or what's known as a Primary Target on RADAR it would be very difficult to direct the Air Force in time.


That is not a true statement. Norad can track anyone, anywhere, anytime (including a bumblebee in a thunderstorm) and they sure as heck don't need a secondary beacon.

Congrats on all the time and type ratings. Are you current and qualified? What equipment? Whose your POI?


Thanks for your post and your input it is welcome and very much appreciated.




[edit on 9-10-2007 by johnlear]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Dear Mr. Lear,

My intent is certainly not to get into a debate with you, or anyone else. I thought this was a forum devoted to clear and cogent discussions, not wild speculations.

So, after a brief check, I descovered that the DFDR was, indeed, able to be read from AA77. Please refer to ATS user 'CatHerder', 11 Sep 2004.

Designed for 'Head-ons'? Two airplanes 'head-on' into each other? Well, there was Tenerife...one was taxiing tho.

BTW, I should have written 'DFDR' as I assume were installed on all four airplanes. The old foil tape FDR is long gone by now. Yup, the 'Orange Boxes' were designed for very high G-force (can you tell us their specs?) but NOT for being crushed by 100-story tall buildings.

The fire - a Trans-Con trip westbound is about 6 hours, off to on. Typical fuel quantity would be 105,000 to 120,000lbs, depending on destination WX requirements. 6.7lbs/gal - about 15,000 gallons on the low side. Nothing else in the buildings was combustible? The plastics and furnishings in a typical jetliner cabin are still a huge concern during in-cabin fires.

RE: UA93. You got me about a coroner saying something like that. Would like to see a police report or some official account of 'his' comment. Only one member of the Coroner's Office at an event like that? Small town, I guess. Since you've verified that AA77's DFDR could be read, then certainly UA93's boxes could be studied, hence the cockpit recordings (all 4 channels) were able to shed light on the happenings.

Finally, NORAD and 'A bumblebee in a thunderstorm'?? John, you're an expert at hyperbole. Didn't NORAD focus on perimeter, not Domestic, airpace before 9/11?

p.s. My POI? I'm retired. 24 years with a major US airline, I'd prefer not to say which. Let's just say the primary POI (is primary the correct term? I tried to avoid the FAA whenever possible) was located in either Texas or NYC. Can't give too much away. Lastly, I've never owned FlightSimulator. Why would I want that when I had the real thing? Was that really a joke, or a cheap shot?

Thanks for reading, and for your support.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Dear John,

Sorry for being long-winded. Having said all the above, I still find your interviews with Art Bell on Coast-to-Coast very intriquing. SO, what I mean to say is I do have an open mind. As I noted, that's what this forum is for.

Cheers



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
OOPs, it wasn't Mr. Lear, someone else was kidding about the MicroSoft computer game. Someone up there asked about punching a Boeing in the nose. I assume he meant the airplane, not one of the family!

The Radome on the front of the fuselage is a honeycomb composite, not aluminum. See, the WX RADAR is in there, the fiberglass-like composite is transparent at RADAR frequencies. Heavy rain can cause a good deal of attenuation, a problem before more modern micro-processor enhancements.

See ya



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   
weedwhacker, welcome aboard.
We at ATS like to see any "second opinions" !

I have a feeling you and John will go along well in a short time.

(edited to use the right username)

[edit on 11/10/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The fire - a Trans-Con trip westbound is about 6 hours, off to on. Typical fuel quantity would be 105,000 to 120,000lbs, depending on destination WX requirements. 6.7lbs/gal - about 15,000 gallons on the low side. Nothing else in the buildings was combustible? The plastics and furnishings in a typical jetliner cabin are still a huge concern during in-cabin fires.


Dont forget all the magnesium alloys in the plane plus the aluminium itself which can burn, as will all the furnishings in the building as will all the computers, carpets, plastic wire coverings.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
It is advisable to have a thorough look at the fire reports by NIST.

Then put up a series of photographs and/or videos of both towers burning, and the progression of the fire fronts over the time span from plane impact to collapse for both towers.

Then mark the most vicious floors burning at time of collapse, and both the collapses initiating floor levels.

Then explain it all.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sr71b


Nasa grade aluminum.

yep , that's what the seller told me , I had no idea about it .
I was told that the Nasa had designed a specially hard aluminium which they have used in shuttles.
I was told that a batch of surplus was in store , so I bought some .


Thats funny. What grade and temper of Aluminum did you use?

All I can remember is that it was 0.4 mm in thickness . It required some kind of hot press to shape some parts .


I work with the stuff every day, you would be amazed how strong an aluminum structure with .030" walls can be. Add some radiuses to the roots of the walls and it gets even stronger. You'd break your hand if you punched it.

I do not profess to be an expert on aluminium .

I also understand the argument about structured strength .
.

Why didn't the wing tips leave no marks or dents on the columns ?

If the wingtips have just folded onto themselves ; why is that not visible on the video ?

In any case , does aluminium travelling at 500 m/ph have enough mass to cut thru a steel column ?

Evidently , yes is the answer .

but . . .

aren't the wingtips also travel at the same speed ?






posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Nasa grade aluminum.

Yep , that's what the seller told me , I had no idea about it .
I was told that the Nasa had designed a specially hard aluminium which they have used in shuttles.


Off topic but that Nasa grade aluminum FYI is a Berylium Aluminum alloy..


Beralcast (Be-Al) MMC let NASA drop part weight 22% (3/8 lb) which saves $7,500 to $9,400 in payload costs per satellite.The Be-Al part is three times stiffer than its aluminum predecesso. Secondary operations included black anodizing and alodine coating for flight hardware, and machining.

The Beralcast 363 MMC casting in a sun-sensor bracket for satellites withstands static-load testing in excess of 20 g and random vibration tests of over 17 g rms. The casting also exceeded NASA Grade C X-ray requirements for castings with a Grade B X-ray rating.


Source


Originally posted by sr71b
I work with the stuff every day, you would be amazed how strong an aluminum structure with .030" walls can be.


Kewl! Could you send me a piece? I can put it with my sheets of Titanium in the garage... be nice to compare...



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Do you want to compare al with Ti? I have some aluminum honeycomb you can have, now that is cool stuff.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sr71b
 


i have some aluminum cans, but they buckle under my weight.


Some of the things they are doing with aluminum is ingenius. The ability to use hydro or airforming to create intricately shaped panels has revolutionized the automotive and aviation industry.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
It would seem that this thread has gone stale in my absence. Allow me to spruce it back up with the final blow to the No Planes Religion. Be sure to click that first link which has the video:


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In the first video of interest the cameraman was on W. Broadway, which was right in line with where the the plane debris was ejected from the opposite side of WTC2. At around time 7:00 the impact occurs. You can hear pandemonium and loud noises as if large things are crashing down around him. Then, as he turns back, you can see plane debris that had apparently landed and killed a pedestrian.
911blogger.com...


www.lib.utexas.edu...
As we've all been covering inother recent threads, other large bits of plane debris were found including a 'still smoking' engine that landed on a street corner not too far from our above cameraman.


While I haven't done an advanced analysis on the raw source video presented above, it does seem to debunk the "MIB Flashy Thing" Theory for how they placed the plane debris on the streets, once and for all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 12-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I saw this on the original thread that you have posted it too and I would like to say that you have convinced me that the no plane theory is now a bogus theory.


I think that you put the last nail in the coffin. Good job and keep up the good work.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join