The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Originally posted by myowncrusade




Let's just go a little crazy here and imagine a 767 crashed into one of the Towers.

What would you expect to see?

Would the plane bounce off? Or would it rip the tower in two? Or would it make a plane shaped hole? Or something else?

What do you think would happen if a 767 hit a large building like one of the WTC towers?


If a Boeing 767 hit the WTD for real it would impact and start to compress as it hit the steel box columns on the perimeter of the building. The momentum and energy would take it as far as the core (60 feet from the windows) where it would be slowed even more. The explosion from the fuel in the wings would cause much more damage to the point of entry. When the airplane hit the core it would be drastically slowed but pieces and parts would continue on through the building. When the bulk of the compressed aircraft hit the core of the building it would be broken up into smaller pieces. The empennage (aft fuselage, vertical and horizontal stabilizer would separate instantly from the fuselage when whatever was left after passing through the steel box columns hit the core and crash into the entry side of the building at least 10 stories above the point of entry than fall in pieces to the ground.

There is no possiblilty that a Boeing 767 could enter completely intact into the building. The World Trade Center was designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707 with an equal amount of fuel as the Boeing 767 and weighing about the same. The building design was for a Boeing 707 at max takeoff gross of 336,000 pounds with 4 engines not 2, those engines weighing at least as much as the CF-6. The Boeing 767 has a higher max take off weight but was not at that weight at the time of the crash. It don’t know what its exact figures were.

Whatever they were it was not sufficient enough to enter the building completely and cause it to collapse.


What blew the girders, windows and structure inwards if it wasn't a plane? Directed energy beam in the shape of a plane? Thermite and some cleverly placed ropes?


Clever demolition management. Remember these perps were trying very hard to convince people that an airplane actually crashed into the WTC.




posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Morning John, youre in fine fettle I see?

You posted:

"Next year, if the NPRM is made law, each airline in the United States will have to submit 30 items of personal information for of the passengers it intends to carry, 72 hours in advance for approval to depart on the flight:
Full name
Date of birth
Gender
Redress number or known traveler number
Passport information:
Passport number
Country of issuance
Expiration date
-----------------------------------
Gender
Full name
Itinerary information
Departure airport code
Airport operator
Departure date
Departure time
Arrival date
Scheduled arrival time
Arrival airport code
Flight number
Operating carrier(if available) For non- traveling individuals the itinerary information is the airport code for the sterile area to which the non-traveling individual seeks access.
Reservation Control Number
Record Sequence Number
Record Type
Passenger Update Indicator
Traveler Reference Number "


Firstly I have separated your list above as you have mistakenly joined 2 lists of requirements together.
The first part of the list is what you actually give the travel agent when buying your International ticket. The second part of that list is the information which is generated byt the reservation sytems computer after you have reserved and paid for your International ticket. It is generated by the reservation computer and not given by the purchaser of the ticket.
Sorry to have to debunk your conspiracy theory.


Sorry to have to tell you and all the other people who dont travel Internationally, that all those details are already required for any International flight. You give those details when you reserve and buy your ticket.

Most of those are internal details are used to track your luggage, and the others are simply used to go on your ticket, to avoid cross border ticket reselling and fraud. I dont know why you picked on this to bolster your ideas about a 11/9 conspiracy, but it does go to show your knowledge is a little out of date.
Those details have been needed for International travel since the 80's. I know for a Fact that they are required for, Thai International, China Airlines, BA, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Cathay Pacific, Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, Virgin, United Airlines and many others.

BTW your idea about the Hologram is still wrong. A Hologram projector of the size required simply doesnt exist, but dont let the facts get in the way of a good yarn, eh?


[edit on 29/9/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Dear John,
I cannot begin to express how overjoyed I am with your opening comments about "sweating bullets". I'm truly happier than a baby in a barrel full of ti**ies because of it.


Originally posted by johnlear
Reply to Response To The John Lear Hologram Challenge

The Challenge: What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buildings?

The response: Was Wile E. Coyote here?


I was hoping you could explain, or rather demonstrate, to me what did the damage. I guess you don't plan to do that, so I'll entertain your conclusion that a plane could not have done it, for now.


trying to get that Boeing 767 to fit into that little crack allegedly made by a 150 ton airliner. Some of us had a good laugh over that one.


What? I thought we were all talking about 2 ton pickup trucks not being able to batter their way into the buildings? Since you don't have proof of DEW/TNT weapons making the penetrations, do you have proof that the planes were "only" 150 tons? Hmm, you might get me on that one, how about do you have some sort of scientific structural mathematical calculations that so much weight and perhaps the planes density couldn't penetrate interlocking steel sections?


The cartoon cutouts in the side of the World Trade Center towers were probably made by demolition experts to simulate an airplane crashing into it.

I'm glad to see you not talking in absolutes, even if for this one time only.



The fact is that it is totally impossible for an airplane the size of a Boeing 767 to crash into a building ‘like gliding through butter’.

I'm hoping to eventually see your proof of such an absolutist claim, but allow me to interject at this point...

They really didn't "glide thru like butter". For the most part, they battering rammed their way thru pushing the prefabbed steel assemblies in with them. There are some spots that did 'slice', on one of the buildings:

There's an interesting difference between oru other example:

As you can see the one that was more horizontally 'leveled' (sorry if I don't speak pilot) was the one which 'sliced' towards the ends of the wings. The other one was more vertically positioned during the final impact. That one didn't 'slice'. This makes sense because at that angle it would seem to require much more force as now it's trying to cut thru the structural integrity with the floor slab interconnections etc. Where there were no floors it was able to slice much further outwards towards the wing tips.
Or you could sinply declare that our Hollywood's special effects messiah's went out of their way to work that into their plans. That is, rather than have each plane hit the same way to make the same 'easy' effect, they intentionally tilted the 2nd one much further and then had to engineer their imaginary explosives whatever to account for the damage you'd expect when the wings collided perpendicularly with the floors. I'd say that observation alone make your belief even more outlandish.
...
Thanks for reminding everyone of some of the dimensions involved. I'm not sure what your point is but I'm sure you'll so eloquently find use for them at some pont.
...
But now I'm not sure why you're tossing that defendeantsred herring wrench into the 'engine intake'? Perhaps you forgot to throw in the conclusion paragraph that was supposed to go with that little exhibit?


Here is the first photo, the one containing the lady standing near the edge:

O, please, don't limit yourself to the images I found to post in. They were just the first images I found to convey an perspective. My main PC is down and I'm very limited in anything I can do or access to my raw 911 data with the machine I have to work with over here.

I didn't place the plane overlay there, but there's a good chance that NIST did on that one.


The placement or the size of the engine has no relevance in my Reply.

I hope not, because if the original was right and yours was wrong then there's much higher odds that the engine was indeed almost perfectly lined up for our Hollywood scifi thriller aftermath. But more importantly, the wings in 'my' image line perfectly up with the indents, while yours are an absolute contradiction.


The span or length of a Boeing 767 wing is approximately 156 feet. Since each column is 39 inches on center we have approximately 11.5 ft of the left outer wing panel that did not fall to the ground or penetrate the building. We will refer to the missing outer wing panel as the Stealth Left Outer Wing Panel (SLOWP, pronounced slo-wop).


Since no part of the left hand horizontal stabilizer was found on the ground and since it could not possibly have entered the building we will refer to it as the Stealth Left Hand Horizontal Stabilizer (SLRHHS, pronounced slersh).


Hmm. I'm lost here. Where are all of the photos of the ground area around that side of the building... before the collapse? I wasn't aware of there being any proof of such a reality. It would seem, call me crazy, that we'd need something to actually indicate such a reality. Otherwise, I know this might seem outlandish to some, it's rather self-serving and fallacious to declare that nothing was found beneath, for either impact/building. I do however recall several reports form the live news that day talking about metal and debris raining down to beneath. Now if this debris had anything to do with planes perhaps we'll never know, for sure, but I'd like to see photos of the ground with analysis demonstrating that it's the ground facing the impact holes befre we go any further with that sort of language you've expressed there, if that's not too much to ask.

Moving on, that sure is a lot of technical talk. I'm surprised to see a man of your expertise speaking and concluding in absolutes when the photo appears to be of a cocked angle which could seriously alter our perception of what 'was going on there'.

Even more baffling is how in one instance you refer to the plane as a hollow tube, similar to how the 911 Commission referred to the towers, but then on the next page you say this:

If a Boeing 767 hit the WTD for real it would impact and start to compress as it hit the steel box columns on the perimeter of the building.


Could it be, and remember we're talking about extreme 'brickwall' 'god-speed' forces here, that out fabled Boeing 'straw' may have compressed into a higher density as it battering-rammed its way thru the steel sections that were before it?



Take that larger photo for example. I'd like to call your attention to the upper right interior of the hole, and the columns sticking up beneath the engine impact area. You say it's not possible that plane damage did that, but what or how on earth were those appendages pushed inwards like that? Other shots:
[im]image source: www.whatreallyhappened.com...[/im]


We really only have a handful of shaped charge effect possibilities, unless you're holding back on some fundamental explosives secrets, to try to explain the effect.


en.wikipedia.org...

Those really seem ill-equipped to account for the observed bent-inwards damage. Surely you've calculated a mechanism to account for the impressions, to go with the speculative refutation you so kindly provided us with?


And as long as we are looking at this part of the picture please notice the three lines marked as ee. They point to 3 perfectly and squarely cut box columns. Probably cut by thermite.

So could you tell us how long it would take for the thermite to cut thru the steel in question? Also how they got it (or shaped charges) onto the exterior of the building without anybody noticing?

And then there's the South Tower. I'm curous how many gallons of what type of fuel they used to create the fireball we seen? Also how they 'pushed' it out of the opposing side of the building? We all know that explosives usually have the tendency to explode outwards in all directions from their central point. Shaped charge effects become more complcated, especially when trying to project a fireball.

After all that is almost certainly a fuel air bomb type explosion:


And then it's awful strange how the building was damaged to coincide with that same fireball:



I wonder how they managed to 'push' all of that heavy looking debris into the corner where that 'thermite' was pouring out, and so on? Surely you've figured that out already and have been dying to tell us about it.

But you still haven't answered the challenge. It's easy to say x was used, but can't you demonstrate it if so absolute? And where do these DEW's even come into play? What purpose. You said hollywood explosives did it, then why even talk about DEW's? How were they used, or weren't they in the holes? Then for what? First, tho, if no DEW how did explosives do the hole? And how much? Including liquid fuel? And how did they pile it all up in there?

[edit on 29-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The presence of such 'rectangular' holes doesn't mean at all that they were cut by thermite, or by explosives.

A more plausible explanation is that the steel beams were separated at their weakest points.......where they joined each other.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well I dont buy into the holographic plane theory, but I think it's blatantly obvious the official story is a pack of lies. The buildings didn't collapse, they were blown apart floor by floor as most of the concrete was turned to dust. Definitely a demolition job.

I'm curious about the power downs and drills that went on a week before 9-11. Has anyone done any serious research into who was responsible for the power downs and why. As far as I'm aware these drills and power downs hadn't taken place at either of the WTC towers before. Correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
Well I dont buy into the holographic plane theory, but I think it's blatantly obvious the official story is a pack of lies. The buildings didn't collapse, they were blown apart floor by floor as most of the concrete was turned to dust. Definitely a demolition job.

I'm curious about the power downs and drills that went on a week before 9-11. Has anyone done any serious research into who was responsible for the power downs and why. As far as I'm aware these drills and power downs hadn't taken place at either of the WTC towers before. Correct me if I'm wrong.



I think you are right, Kindred.


It seems to be quite obvious that something sinister, something secret, was going on before, during and after the 911 attacks.


Things they are not telling us.


But holograms?.............projected across the whole of the New York skyline............from many different angles...........in front of thousands of eyewitnesses.........???



Come on, now.


We are not children!



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss



But you still haven't answered the challenge. It's easy to say x was used, but can't you demonstrate it if so absolute?


Good morning IIB. Yes, I have answered the challenge. It may not be to your complete satisfaction but the facts are that I have shown that there is no possibility that a Boeing 767 crashed into the north tower. There are just too many box columns that weren't severed, or broken or breached in any manner such that the fuselage including a wing and tail of a Boeing 767 could pass through.

I have posted your image of the Flight 11 impact into WTC 1. I also put some yellow lines through the box columns that the wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizer did not breach, penetrate, cut or other ‘glide’ through. Just makes you wonder how in the heck that airplane got into the building?




And where do these DEW's even come into play?


Zorgon is covering the DEW’s in another thread, as soon as he gets the information posted there I will repost that which applies over here. Basically a Directed Energy Weapon was used to annihilate both of the towers. That is why there was essentially nothing left but dust and thousands of evenly and professionally cut, 30 foot columns of steel. It is a very powerful weapon and I will show you the craft, on which, in my opinion, the Directed Energy Weapon was placed.


What purpose. You said hollywood explosives did it, then why even talk about DEW's? How were they used, or weren't they in the holes? Then for what? First, tho, if no DEW how did explosives do the hole? And how much? Including liquid fuel? And how did they pile it all up in there?


Controlled Creative Demolition (CCD) was used to insure that no box column, length of steel, girder or any other piece of steel exceeded 30 feet. This was to insure that all of the pieces would fit easily on Rudy’s trucks to be shipped to China.

The cleanup had to be done very quickly to prevent anyone nosing around, asking too many unauthorized questions or taking any unauthorized pictures.

There were too many things the perps couldn’t account for like where were the airplanes?
Why did almost every piece of steel look like it had been cut?

Of course some of the construction had to be severed with thermite into cross looking sections to insure the collapse straight down. I’ll betcha that when the perps saw this picture they about had a heart attack. But nobody figured out what they were looking at then. See that little piece of fabric in the left side of the cross. I'll give you one guess why it was placed there.




Thanks for your post and keep those helpful images coming!



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Good thread guys v. interesting read and debate, for now I still think real planes were used but most likely remotely/computer guided. What is wrong with that theory in your opinion? I feel its more plausable than hologram planes for numerous reasons. Perhaps i missed your reasonings for why they didn't use real planes and/or why they were not remotely guided.

and also I give in (in response to your last post), why was that fabric placed there on the cross?

Also, with regards to the thermite spill from the corner of the south tower, perhaps the plane was modified into something not unlike an anti tank missile, hence the delay reaction and presence of thermite?

Observe:
uk.youtube.com...

How to cook a tank.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
There were too many things the perps couldn’t account for like where were the airplanes?


John Ive already proved that there was aiplane debris, including landing gear and engines. An engine was also seen flying off and down.

Why do you deny proven factual evidence, and invent totally impossible scenarios?.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chorlton






John Ive already proved that there was aiplane debris, including landing gear and engines. An engine was also seen flying off and down.

Why do you deny proven factual evidence, and invent totally impossible scenarios?.


Thanks for the post Chorlton. What you have shown mbe is alleged debris from the street blocks away. Very easily planted debris. I believe that engine part was identified as a CFM56. The CFM56 is used on a Boeing 737 and does not have enough power for a Boeing 767. A Boeing 767 uses a CF-6 a much larger engine. I could be wrong though.

I would like to see any part of the 100 ton airframe remains in the footprint of either collapsed tower. Maybe a 6 ton engine core? There should be three of those. Maybe either of the wing plank center sections; it would be very unlikely that those could burn up? Maybe an oxygen tank or two. I know that those are very hard to melt. How about the horizontal/vertical stabilizer connection, that would be pretty hard to melt? Or hey, how about a landing gear retract cylinder, you talk about a massive piece of equipment? Yeah, any of those would be ok.

Thanks Chorlton for your posts. They are a continued source of delight and fill me enthusiasm in my quest to prove that no Boeing 767 crashed into the World Trade Center.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I speculate that the enormous profit (in the trillions of dollars) derived from the sale of these illegal drugs by elements within our government is used for black projects.


Wel a few people here have taken care of the no planes farce. So I'll just comment on this supposed trillions of dollars profit. How exactly did you get this number Mr Lear, it's is so completely out of the ballpark. Trillions of Dollars, LOL. Maybe a few bilion dollars. This is why I have a hard to time believing what you say, you so obviously strecth the truth or lie, assuming people won't be bothered to follow up.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post Chorlton. What you have shown mbe is alleged debris from the street blocks away. Very easily planted debris.

Well yes very easily planted, if you happen to have a JCB and lorry handy and can stop the traffic whilst you drop it on the pavement, and thats if a NY cop isnt wandering by.
You do come up with some gems John, absobloodylutely classic


I believe that engine part was identified as a CFM56. The CFM56 is used on a Boeing 737 and does not have enough power for a Boeing 767. A Boeing 767 uses a CF-6 a much larger engine. I could be wrong though.


Yes I believe you are



I would like to see any part of the 100 ton airframe remains in the footprint of either collapsed tower. Maybe a 6 ton engine core? There should be three of those.


Id like to see where these Holographic projectors are John


Maybe either of the wing plank center sections; it would be very unlikely that those could burn up? Maybe an oxygen tank or two. I know that those are very hard to melt.

Yes they are hard to melt john and probably exploded (as you well know) when the plane hit or in the heat of the fire



How about the horizontal/vertical stabilizer connection, that would be pretty hard to melt? Or hey, how about a landing gear retract cylinder, you talk about a massive piece of equipment? Yeah, any of those would be ok.

Strange how you wont acccept the evidence that has been presented time and time again yet pick on other little bits that you know were probably buried and destroyed in the collapse, strange eh ?


Thanks Chorlton for your posts. They are a continued source of delight and fill me enthusiasm in my quest to prove that no Boeing 767 crashed into the World Trade Center.



Alas.. a quest doomed to fail.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
On a scale of values of what is important we have at least three scenarios:

1.) The not implausible holographic airliner scenario
2.) The possible swapped airplanes crashing as in Operation Northwoods
3.) The actual flight numbered airliners crashing

The September 11, 2001 events might cast doubt on the hologram scenario given that building seven did not have a crash, given the ease with which the other two planes would have been projected. Building seven nonetheless collapsed without its "holographic projection," and/or alternative scenario. These things might indicate operational failure, but that is not surprising given the very implausible government cover story.

The swapped planes again are consistent with Project Northwoods, emerging with Project Gladio on September 11, 2001.

Now of all these complicated things that seem to "divide and conquer," researchers, there is something even more important than the pretext of 911, and that is subsequent events.

We should be united on the emergent issues and should oppose The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act first, because these bad laws are thousands of times worse than the events of September 11, 2001. Other legislation may as well beg the question of defining how far our nation has strayed from the Constitution.

I could agree with any of those scenarios above, but not with the results which are a self aggrandizement of power, a travesty of human rights around the world, a "war without end," and a less free and open society. Right now it is a "soft dictatorship," but the future depends on us. To me "holographic yes or no," is not as important at all.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by SkipShipman]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by mad scientist


Wel a few people here have taken care of the no planes farce. So I'll just comment on this supposed trillions of dollars profit. How exactly did you get this number Mr Lear, it's is so completely out of the ballpark. Trillions of Dollars, LOL. Maybe a few bilion dollars. This is why I have a hard to time believing what you say, you so obviously strecth the truth or lie, assuming people won't be bothered to follow up.



Thanks for the post mad scientist. No, the 'no planes' issue is still up for debate. Right now the 'no planers' are ahead 14 to 3 at the quarter. The opposing quarterback is out with a severe head injury.

For me to discuss where the trillions of dollars estimate comes from I need to know what percentage of the worlds economy you think the sale of illegal drugs (specifically opium and its derivitaves) occupies. Please include your source.

Thanks for your post and your questions. Oh, by the way, theres 4 minutes left in the quarter.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



OK the World Bank estimates that for 2006 the entire worlds GDP was around $US48 trillion. siteresources.worldbank.org...

There are 10 countries with a GDP over $US1 trillion and 6 over $US2 trillion. So you are saying that Afghanistan's economy is comparable to the GDP of the worlds top 6 wealthiest nations ( in terms of GDP ) ? Bearing in mind that GDP is the total value of G&S produced not a profit figure.

There are many figures about the value of the global illicit drug trade. this page seems to sum them up www.drugwardistortions.org...

As you can see it is nowhere near the trillions of dollars for all drugs let alone opium. TOUCHDOWN.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by mad scientist




As you can see it is nowhere near the trillions of dollars for all drugs let alone opium. TOUCHDOWN.



Thank you for your input and your post mad scientist.

Please let me respectfully decline the chance to debate the percentage of the international drug trafffic numbers with you.

Please know that I truly appreciate your participation and quality posts in this thread.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post Chorlton. What you have shown mbe is alleged debris from the street blocks away. Very easily planted debris.

Well yes very easily planted, if you happen to have a JCB and lorry handy and can stop the traffic whilst you drop it on the pavement, and thats if a NY cop isnt wandering by.




The evidence was planted when the MIB trucks pulled up with flashy things. Case Closed.

Anyways there's nothing that will get John or many of these others to even budge for a second and admit that it might have been a different way. It's like trying to tell a Neocon Religious Righter that Bush wasn't appointed by God Himself, or like telling a Cult of Global Warming member that human CAUSED Global Warming is seriously overhyped and that Gore is a hypocrite who isn't actually the Messiah. I say these things becaus ein each case you're dealing with FAITH, because these things are a religion to these people. I wouldn't go as far as to say that John is the Messiah, a prophet perhaps, or a minister. I think that Nico Haupt character would qualify as the Messiah figure, but correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss



Anyways there's nothing that will get John or many of these others to even budge for a second and admit that it might have been a different way. It's like trying to tell a Neocon Religious Righter that Bush wasn't appointed by God Himself, or like telling a Cult of Global Warming member that human CAUSED Global Warming is seriously overhyped and that Gore is a hypocrite who isn't actually the Messiah.


I know what you mean IIB. Its like us no planers trying to tell you plane huggers that it might have been a different way. It's like trying to tell a Neocon Religious Righter that Bush wasn't appointed by God Himself, or like telling a Cult of Global Warming member that human CAUSED Global Warming is seriously overhyped and that Gore is a hypocrite who isn't actually the Messiah.

A plane hugger is a plane hugger is a plane hugger and nothing is going to change that.

Hey, thanks for the post. You are my favorite plane hugger and always a source of genuine stimulation!



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Hmmm where is the burning jet fuel that melted the girders?

Seems it has already cooled enough to allow the woman to be standing there...

and the building is still standing...

Where are the flames? I see a little smoke above her, but its not melting her... so how can it be hot enough to melt steel?

confused



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I don't understand why there is a women standing there, regardless of what happened.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Stormdancer777]





top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join