hologram theory (pod=projector)

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I agree with you if you are saying that the main thrust of the 911 truth movement should be toward seeking satisfaction in the courts or the political arena.

Just the fact that people have time to go into things like holograms (whatever their merit or lack of merit) does indicate that we are bogged down elsewhere.

When I look at the political scene in America, I'm reminded of that old Greek statue, the Laocoon, I believe, that depicts the man struggling in the grip of several snakes.

People who are new to these forums should search for topics through the archives. Most sides of the 911 subject are voluminously covered already. But people who are new want to chat themselves and get their own threads going. Inevitably topics are covered all over again. It's just the nature of these forums.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Very true. This forum is host to tons of material on this subject thats been covered over and over. The answers may already lie within.

I guess we can't help moving on to a new horse once one's been beating to death 10 times over. Oh well.

Sorry folks, as someone who was at the base of those buildings that day (outside, not inside) I saw the 2nd plane. I heard the first impact and looked up immediately. Could not tell from my vantage point what happened. I, along withothers began to walk away from the building a little while later. Eventually we heard what we thought was a loud engine roar. When we looked up between buildings we were able to see the approaching plane. IT WAS A PLANE. Sorry guys/gals no one can tell me different. I saw what I saw.

I have already been lectured by John Lear that I did not see what I saw, intead I saw what they wanted me to see. He politely told me I was fooled by a Psy Ops program. Psy Ops my ass. it was a damn plane.

Why do people still insist on a hologram theory.
Go to the hologram theory is dead thread and answer my logical questions that Mr Lear obviously cant.
Not surprising really seeing as he doesnt even know that holograth isnt a word and yet insists on using it.

And as for the absurd idea that a 747 would crumple into the side of the building and make a dent and then crumble to the floor.
The building was designed for a 707 to perferate the building like punching a pencil through a piece of paper, we have all seen the video of the engineer/designer whoever he was saying this. Now if a 707 can punch a hole in the building and have the building absorb the plane then why would a much faster, heavier, larger plane just bounce off it?
The twin towers werent nuclear bunkers with 50 foot thick walls. they was just glass and steel.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Show me the math equations that say it can. You name your speed for a piece of aluminum and give me (or qualified engineers in these forums) the calculations that make your point. It's an interesting challenge. How fast would a piece of aluminum have to be going to pass through a steel i-beam?

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. . . How's that?

2PacSade-

Originally posted by eagle32
The twin towers werent nuclear bunkers with 50 foot thick walls. they was just glass and steel.

And the planes were just thin aluminum and graphite composites.

Ah pretending that because they are made of aluminum that somehow they should just bounce off the sides. Interesting. Let's ignore the sheer velocity and the mass of these planes...

reply to post by 2PacSade

You are not really addressing the issue raised in the snippet you quoted from my earlier post.

reply to post by snoopy

Let's pretend we're on a blanket at the beach watching the clouds float by.



[edit on 18-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by snoopy
Ah pretending that because they are made of aluminum that somehow they should just bounce off the sides. Interesting. Let's ignore the sheer velocity and the mass of these planes...

So then your saying that the steel beams would not have shredded the aluminum. I guess you have not seen the purdue animation.

I have a new challenge for all the "real" engineers in the forum (oh, and the actual real engineers can participate too, if they want). How many tons of marshmellows would it take to crush a steel i-beam? Solve that one and you will understand the difficulties of the problem that some people can't seem to grasp.


[edit on 19-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

Doesnt anyone find it odd how slow motion video of the impact effectively shows every stage of the crash itself frame by frame (if you find the right video and there are a ton out there) and how you do not see any damage at all not even a shattered peice of glass or falling debris until the plane is pretty much half way in. Even then you dont see any real damage it just looks like smoke. Also, when both engines hit there should have been an explosion immedietly and not delayed to a point that the plane glided entirely through the building and to the other side, with the nose still intact BTW, and THEN explode. Hologram or not, that in itself should tell you that the video was tampered with and many people could have been mistaken.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I have a new challenge for all the "real" engineers in the forum (oh, and the actual real engineers can participate too, if they want). How many tons of marshmellows would it take to crush a steel i-beam? Solve that one and you will understand the difficulties of the problem that some people can't seem to grasp.

I never claimed to be an engineer at any time if you're sarcasm is directed towards me. ( But I actually do have a BET EE FYI. . . )

What I posted is factual information. It doesn't take an engineering degree to be understood. Truth is truth no matter what kind of training an individual has had previous.

Here's what you fail to grasp. . .

The "tons" of marshmellows can be produced by a single marshmellow if it has enough velocity. That's it in a nutshell. Here's another example. . .

A .30-06 180 grain full metal jacket shell weighs only a few ounces standing still. If you were to pick it up and lightly toss it at something it would lightly bounce off, and fall to the ground. BUT- If you put it in a shell casing and fired it out of a rifle it would be traveling at @ 2200 fps. The same shell would now hit that same material with 2750 foot pounds of force, and do much more damage. Do you now see the difference?

KE=1/2mv2

The plane hit the building with over 2 BILLION foot pounds of force. Again, this is stuff that doesn't require a degree in engineering to be the truth. Truth is truth. Look it up for yourself.

A marshmellow would go right through you if it were traveling fast enough ipsedixit. I'm not lying. . . Hope this helps.

2PacSade-

Originally posted by 2PacSade
The plane hit the building with over 2 BILLION foot pounds of force. Again, this is stuff that doesn't require a degree in engineering to be the truth. Truth is truth. Look it up for yourself.

You need to Show your formulas to NIST and FEMA, they have degrees and they both state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

reply to post by 2PacSade

Have you read the whole thread? I'm the one who posted the information about the .375 magnum bullet in the first place.

Fundamentally, the plane is softer than the beams of the tower. In addition to that there is a problem of concentrating the mass of the plane on impact so that the physics of that much mass moving at 500 mph. works efficiently to get the plane through the beams. It has to be like a karate chop.

In theory you should be able to shoot a soft boiled egg through a steel i-beam if you shoot it fast enough. That's the whole point of discussing how fast a .375 magnum bullet has to move to get into an automobile engine block. Re-read the post on that. It's a lot faster than 500 mph.

You could put a hundred billion trillion tons of marshmellows on top of a steel i-beam and it will not crush the i-beam because the tensile strength of a marshmellow is less than the tensile strength of steel and there is no way of concentrating the mass of the marshmellows.

Just think of the plane as a billion trillion tons of marshmellows. That's an exaggeration of course, but the analogy, except for engines and landing gear, is accurate. To get the aluminum or plastic nose of that plane into the building it would have to be moving at thousands (with a T!) of miles per hour.

One more thought. When a plane crashes into the ground the fuselage invariably breaks up. You don't see crashed planes sticking out of the ground like knife blades.

I'll give you this, you have put some effort into your posts, but
Dude, don't let the Bush administration's BS baffle your brains.


[edit on 19-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by 2PacSade

First of all let me say that I have been over on the thread The Hologram Theory is Dead doing some reading. (Specifically a post by talisman, see: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

I haven’t really changed my mind about the videos that show Flt. 175 gliding into the WTC without so much as a wrinkle, but in fairness and to be scrupulously honest I have to say that it is possible, even likely that the aluminum used in the airplane was of greater tensile strength than the steel it impacted.

See link (courtesy of talisman) to aircraft aluminum tensile strength specification:
www.novarcproducts.com...

Also see link to WTC steel tensile strength specifications:
wtc.nist.gov...

The aluminum likely had a tensile strength around 83,000 psi while the steel’s tensile strength was mostly 55,000 to 65,000 psi.

That does not mean that I am conceding that the plane would not have broken up on impact with the tower. I am simply acknowledging that the basis for some of the things I have said in an earlier post doesn’t apply. (I apologize if my tone was excessively imbued with the (unfounded) authority of conviction. One order of crow with a side dish of feathers to go, please.)

Despite that, I don’t think I am wrong when I say that the comparative thickness (i-beam vs airplane skin) of the materials involved in the collision plus the effects of the certain presence of torsion on the colliding airplane, would still have caused extensive damage (crumpling, possible loss of wings, breaking of the tail section) as it entered the building.



[edit on 20-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

video.google.com...

From what i see on the Purdue animation the plane was pretty much shredded and did not cause a lot of damage to the beams.

talisman has another link in his post to a scientific paper published by someone out of MIT that concludes that the wing would pass through the beams easily, but unfortunately it is impossible to read anything but an abstract of the paper without paying a download fee ($30.00 or so if memory serves).

In the abstract the speed of the wing on impact is given as about 537 mph. (I had to convert it from meters per second.) There are references to the way that they handled the mass of the airplane that made me wish I could read the actual paper itself.

I apologize to all the MIT-heads out there, but after what MIT did to Pons and Fleischman (according to Eugene Malove (sp?)) and taking into consideration their known connection to the military establishment, I would really like to see the details before I accepted any conclusion they came to. You know, get it checked by more reputable people, etc.

The whole speed of the plane angle has me very curious. The estimates of the plane's speed vary somewhat, but I think that it should be possible to calculate it fairly accurately from the videos. Personally I suspect that the videos will disagree with one another. Checking all that is something I would love to do, if nothing else was going on in my life.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by ipsedixit]