The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

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


Thermal conduction. The lady is standing towards the outside part where the surrounding air would allow for greater thermal transferrance.

Regardless, still a good picture and a good question.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Are we positive this is a women?

Has this been verified?

It looks like a women,



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Are we positive this is a women?

Has this been verified?

It looks like a women,


Courtesy of "What Really Happened":


"The woman has been tentatively identified by her husband as Edna Cintron, an administrative assistant for Marsh & McLennan."



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Just What Did Hit The WTC?

Okay I have read the whole thing this time
(so I don't repost something as I did in the other thread...)

1st about the military hologram projector... That document about "future plans" contains several items that are already real and I can show that, but not in this thread. I merely state it is very possible that they do indeed have such tech. I will work on my sources and track it down if I can. It fits in with other stealth material we have been looking at...

2nd The EVIDENCE everyone is looking for is recorded on film...

The problem with Youtube is that stuff doesn't always stay put and is hard to find. Also I cannot d/l youtube right now seems firefox addon is not working and kissyoutube is temporarily down so if anyone can snag a copy of these I would really appreciate it...

The following images are taken from screen captures..




























So a simple question... How is this possible?


Video One Showing the above clips in motion



Video Two This one seems cut short but it shows the first plane hitting... look at that closely



Yup this puts me into the "No Plane till planted Parts" category





[edit on 30-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
www.european911citizensjury.com...

I did find this for comparison , workers in relationshp to the beams





posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Flight 93 Impact Crater...





Ummm okay sure... I can see where the airliner hit...


USAF Colonel George Nelson concludes about Flight 93: "With all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not (emphasis added) the Boeing 757 as alleged."


News from the British



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by Stormdancer777




I did find this for comparison , workers in relationshp to the beams



World Trade Center specs are 14 (or 18) inch box columns on 39 inch centers. The 39 inch on centers would have left about 25 inches total for windows then subtract window placement (I forget the name, I think its sash) and that left the space for the narrow windows.

These box columns are placed on much wider space than 39 inches on center.

So something is wrong with this picture.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Yeah I can see where it hit and also see the plane debris from the WTC

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Not a Scratch on the Lawn

And a lot smaller fireball than WTC



AND its missle red not avgas orange


www.mindfully.org...


And THIS is a joke.. surely they could have tossed in some bigger pieces?



If you buy this... then America deserves its government

Hail the Bush Regime


I am going back to the Moon




[edit on 30-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I guess you all have seen just about everything related to this subject, have you seen this?

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
www.purdue.edu...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I guess you all have seen just about everything related to this subject, have you seen this?

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
www.purdue.edu...


THAT is a brilliant site with an incredible video which all of the no planers should watch
It was worth a star too !



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I guess you all have seen just about everything related to this subject, have you seen this?

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
www.purdue.edu...


Ish, i love the avatar. The wording made me laugh hard enough to draw the attention of my employee's.

The site you link to is very interesting. I am still at the point where i either have no real opinion on this, or just don't care that much. To me, it is less a question of if the government WOULD do this, and more a question of if they COULD.

Zorgon has shown me some of his rabbit hole, and i am certain they could. They could fake a superbowl in front of 100k spectators, if they wanted to.

We are in an age where you cannot believe what you see.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chorlton




THAT is a brilliant site with an incredible video which all of the no planers should watch
It was worth a star too !



I thought that the core was poorly represented as 12 foot long strings of pasta. I also thought the engines were unfairly portrayed as 10 foot long 16 inch diameter giant marshmellows.

But heck, its better than Purdues animation of the alleged Pentagon crash. They forgot the engines in that simulation.


Thanks for you esteemed and valuable opinions here, Sir Plane Hugger! They are greatly appreciated.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   


Ish, i love the avatar. The wording made me laugh hard enough to draw the attention of my employee's.


I aim to please



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





They could fake a superbowl in front of 100k spectators, if they wanted to.


OH, cool, could you point me into the directions of these posts?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I guess you all have seen just about everything related to this subject, have you seen this?

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
www.purdue.edu...


THAT is a brilliant site with an incredible video which all of the no planers should watch
It was worth a star too !


Thank you,



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

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?


"Melted" the "girders"? You mean that bent those the way they are, or what caused the towers to collapse? I'm still waiting for a solid demonstration on how those were bent IN, by explosives/DEW's...

But I wont get one. It will just be summed up as "x did it", but not clearly demonstrated.

If you were talking about the collapse then, show us how or even why theoretical DEW's did it. Which kind? Where did they affect what? How can you demonstrate it to be self-evident? Forget you're assumptions about planes not hitting, show us how explosives were more plausible. Use images. Explain the forces and physics; the way the DEW's affected what parts of the buildings and evidence of such. Otherwise, stop making fools of yourselves by refraining from speaking in absolutes about your (assuming you're another no planer, which I'm pretty sure you are) baseless theory. It's baseless, that's the fact here, the big gorilla in the room. But feel free to give it some base. John's rejection of the possibility of the plane impacts, based on his "feelings", isn't enough to slant the probability factor towards the No Planes etc.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss




John's rejection of the possibility of the plane impacts, based on his "feelings", isn't enough to slant the probability factor towards the No Planes etc.




Thanks for your post IIB. You have yet to address my 'feelings' and the post has been up for about 44 hours. You can have all the time you want to respond, which, I might add, is more time that you afforded me. But please know that I will not accept tap dancing in lieu of addressing the facts. Remember this is YOUR challenge not mine. I am just responding as challengee.

Thanks for your post, it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I would just like to make a couple points:

1. A boeing 767's wingspan is 156 ft 1 in not the 159 ft mr. lear claims.

2. After printing off a copy of the photo's mr. lear posted, I came up with the following results

a) My calculations based on damaged area assuming that the correct building width of 208 ft.
The damaged area as shown in the picture is 162.8 ft wide which falls within the specs of 156 ft 1 in wingspan

b) Using mr. lears LINES showing the shortened angle line of approx 23 degrees, the damaged area is reduced to 117.57 ft which is actually different then mr. lear's calculations of 121.4 ft.

I arrived at my calculations as follows
Printed off photo keeping aspect ratio.
Measured width of building in inches.
divided 208 ft x 5.75 in. to get a 1" unit of measure which is
1" = approx. 36.174 ft.
Measured the length of damage across the building from wing tip to wing tip which was 4.5"
4.5 x 36.174= 162.8 ft.
So the wingspan damage would have been 162.8 ft across.

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightsider2007
well, it is now quite clear what john lears purpose on this forum is. i had thoughts about this for some time now, but the fact that he is now an advocate for the "no planes" theory just confirms my suspicions.

you see, a community like this has to constantly be stimulated, new ideas have to be introduced, and the more controversial they are, the more people join the discussions and this forum.

so, mr. lear has the leading role in all of this. because of his alleged fame and credibility, he can start notable discussions with just a few posts, and, like always, little to no evidence.

so, please people, dont take everything he says for granted, and its perfectly ok to say that john lear is wrong.

as he is now.



You don't know that for a fact, short of being involved, respectfully.

I do believe a "get back on target" post is needed from a board dev, as no one in their right mind would whip out all their evidence on a forum simply to please a few (nameless) naysayers. For all you know, they could have been holograms. Just because something it outside the bounds of your own personal experience in life doesnt mean its not possible. Take the hydrogen bomb, electricity, and the steam engine for example. Heck, take any space-faring rocket ship today and take it back 100 years to the people who said we would never leave our atmosphere.

Very far from the OT, holograms are something none of us have any knowledge on aside from heresay. If there is physical evidence of the technology being developed, it probably wont be brought out until the time is right. Forcefields are possible in theory, so Holograms most definitely are as well.

I remember what I saw, sitting in my US History class the morning of september 11th. The English teacher in the room next door busted into the room bawling, exclaiming that someone had crashed into the world trade center and her sister was there. Just as we turned onthe television, the second plane hit. All day we watched the events unfold, from the collapse of the towers to the strike on the pentagon. Truth be told, I never concieved the notion of it all until I started reading.

You all do know that Bush being at the school at the time of the attacks was an inside joke, right? Yeah, yeah, sure sure. I saw the picture of Bush sitting in the classroom with the kids, reading a book. I found it tough to make out the book, however, because he was holding it upside down.


-Knight





top topics
 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join