Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hologram Theory is dead

page: 61
16
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
In all fairness I guess you could say this looks like is a hologram





posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by moonking
 


Moonking, interesting find.

Guessing that's UA175 based on the angle of bank. (For non-pilots, obviously an airplane is turned by changing the angle of bank, thus the lift 'vector' now has not only a vertical but also a horizontal component. Not going to go on, anyone can research the 'Four Forces' that apply to an airplane in flight).

Assuming the bottom of the picture is parallel to the horizon it would appear to be an angle of bank of at least 45 degrees...15 degrees more than a professional pilot on a commercial airline flight will use. (25 degrees is the standard, up to 30 degrees is available to the autopilot. Of course, when hand flown, no limits).

As part of Private, Commercial and even Airline Pilot training we practice 'steep turns', as they're called. It's about knowing the fine points of control, and being able to demonstrate an ability to maintain control.

Some non-pilots have suppossed the G-forces would be too high for either the pilot or the airplane...a sustained 60 degree bank turn will exert 2Gs force on the occupants. 45 degrees is, then, obviously less. Well within human and airframe tolerances.

(Yes, a 'steep' bank combined with an added up elevator input will result in higher G forces...but for a limited time, and IF this was a real airplane flown into the WTC by an Arab Terrorist and IF he just corrected AT THE LAST FEW SECONDS and pulled a few extra Gs for those few seconds...as he saw he was going to miss and corrected...then the videos and pics I've seen seem very plausible, from what I know about B767s).

What I hoped to convey here is, I truly believe (cannot understand) that a person could commit suicide and fly an airplane into a building. I just cannot understand the suicide part...but unless the people who blow themselves up in Israel and Iraq are not real, then maybe the ideology they subscribe to can, indeed, twist their minds to such an extent.....

Finally...I was not in NYC that day, as I've mentioned on other threads here. I was at home, in Arlington, Virginia...just a few miles from the Pentagon. I felt my house shake a little, this was after the impact, when the upper floors of the section affected collapsed.

Yes, I brought up the Pentagon, not to unravel the thread, just to clarify (testify?).

NOW....the 'Hologram' representing UA175 (second airplane into WTC) had to be 'banked' at about 45 degrees, and seemed to not hit right in the center, but slightly off...but bad enough, as we know. 'AA11' had a "better" hit, as in (I'm sorry if any loved ones are reading this...) it seemed that AA11 struck straight in, or so. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but PLEASE stop cutting and pasting....that tends to skew context, in my opinion. Continuing, AA11 hit first, slightly higher floor than UA175...yet the second Tower hit collapsed first.

Anyone want to field this? Is it fact, or did I get anything here wrong?

Very last aside, here....One of the producers/creators of the TV show 'Frasier', and his wife, were on AA11, out of Boston. Where are they now? Seth McFarlane (sp?) who is the main creative force behind the animated TV show 'Family Guy' was booked on AA11....and missed the flight because he was hung over and over-slept the morning of 9/11. I'm not making this stuff up....you can research it.

Just my two thousand cents....

Thanks.

[edited the word 'they'...spelled with an 'a' by accident...]

[edit on 5-12-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Seth McFarlane (sp?) who is the main creative force behind the animated TV show 'Family Guy' was booked on AA11....and missed the flight because he was hung over and over-slept the morning of 9/11. I'm not making this stuff up....you can research it.



given that every interview ive ever seen with him he either had a drink in his hand or was obviously drunk, thats not much of a stretch though...

and if it was an inside job would they warn/save a guy who's shows critical of the administration?

just my off topic thoughts



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles.....

That's just part of my point, thanks for noticing...

I do not care to attempt to refute/tear down/take apart anyone else's opinions here on ATS. I just think it is a Forum to express one's opinions, and let others chime in with their [valued] opinions. Then, we discuss...

Love it!!

Unlike someplace....maybe in the Land of Oz, there is a 'forum' going by the moniker of 'YouTube'.....

There are some good posts there ---- but I've taken some time to peruse the realm, and in my humble opinion, it tends to be, mostly, populated by adolescents (not that there's anything wrong with that....).

Or, perhaps...some think they are comedians....just trying to make fun of, or....'punk' someone.

...back to the thread.....I've had my say....

[edit for spelling]

[second edit...Brad Pitt on TV has a fake British accent...while being interviewed by Larry King.... Oy, Vey!]



[edit on 6-12-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(Yes, a 'steep' bank combined with an added up elevator input will result in higher G forces...but for a limited time, and IF this was a real airplane flown into the WTC by an Arab Terrorist and IF he just corrected AT THE LAST FEW SECONDS and pulled a few extra Gs for those few seconds...as he saw he was going to miss and corrected...then the videos and pics I've seen seem very plausible, from what I know about B767s).

You put that very well and is exactly how it appeared to me in the video, I’m not a pilot but am a R/C hobbyist
I wasn’t sure if that’s why some were saying that a 767 couldn’t have matched up with the impact hole, because of the dihedral angles left by the impact were different than on a 767
Anyway here’s a better pic of the flexing wings under stress, also notice the shadow, seems indicative a real plane




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by moonking
 


Hello moonking,

I have built and flown R/C since my teens...and that's about four decades now. PLUS, I began flying airplanes when I was 14, so both 'hobbies' co-incided.

That one frame grab shows tells me a lot...it is UA175, without a doubt because...it shows the paint scheme favored at one time during the time of 2001. (Dark blue on the belly, the opposite of USAIR's dark blue on top...same CEO jumped from USAIR to United, this is his idea of how to paint airplanes...)

But I strayed from my point...that frame shows, and it is painful to see, the airplane in a steeper than normal bank, and at about 10 to 15 degrees nose down. That is an unusual attitude for a jet...but here we had a Kamikaze evangelical extremist who didn't care about his or anyone else's life.

A hologram? Timed perfectly with explosives? A hologram that looks EXACTLY like a United Airlines Boeing 767 as painted on that day...and then they had to hide the airplane, all of its paper trail...maintenance records, pilots' logbooks, dispatch records, all that relate to THAT airframe since it was delivered from the factory in Seattle...and this was perfectly pulled off...but then they 'planted' the wrong smoking engine core at the scene?

BTW...look at the wings. At that angle of bank, and considering that there might have been some back pressure on the control wheel being exerted, the G force would have been, likely, more than 1, but less than 3. Well within airframe and human tolerance...but more specifically, the wings will flex in these flight conditions, and they will not match up with a 'schematic' drawing of the airplane when parked on the ground.

Regards.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Dont parts of the plane disappear for a split second in the video? hologram or not....what does that say about the video?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Dont parts of the plane disappear for a split second in the video? hologram or not....what does that say about the video?


It says that the video is compressed to 1/100 of it's original size. I know you won't believe that explanation, but it's the god's honest truth.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by InnocentBystander
 


What does that mean? Im not speaking from any expertise...only common sense, but why does the compression of the video file cause concrete images to disappear? Nothing happened to any of the buildings....



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GUICE2
 


Either you will postulate an elaborate plan to create, and perfectly time, holograms to match up with 'placed' charges that are, incredibly, perfectly placed to EXACTLY match where the 'holograms' pierce the buildings' outer structure, or you will accept the simple fact that terrorists hijacked airplanes and conducted a suicide mission, and had an agenda, to make a point.

Evangelicals are dangerous, in my opinion...and I don't care who is offended by this statement. ANY religion that claims to be the 'Know all and Be all' is, to me, a false religion.

In point of fact....any 'belief' could be classified as a 'Religion'.

SO....if I think that Science is true, then my 'religion' is ... what?

Definately not a 'Christian Scientist'....there's an oxymoron to beat all oxymorons....

OK...let the pummelling begin....



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


But seriously....its not that simple is it? If it was then there would be no secrets...there would be no information withheld and all of our questions would have answers. There was so much fowl play that morning that the level of confusion accomplished is astronomical! Why prohibit the 911 commission investigations at all? Why classify information and not release it to the public if it was as simple as some people beleive?
We all know that the government has technology that supercedes the rest of the world and that advances exponentially....so with that being said, would it be so hard to fake a plane crashing into a building and then blow it up incognito? I think not....not when you consider that fact about technology.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GUICE2
 


GUICE2,

You said 'but seriously'....

My point is, yes those airplanes could have been flown into buildings. Controversial or not, this is my assertion.

Would I do it? NO!!!

Would a suicidist who thought he'd meet 74 (or whatever) virgins in His vision of 'Heaven' do it? Well....haven't one or two already done that...or one or two DOZEN? I've lost count...

NOW, women are being recruited...one must wonder, 'What are they told' about their 'reward' in "Heaven"?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2
reply to post by InnocentBystander
 


What does that mean? Im not speaking from any expertise...only common sense, but why does the compression of the video file cause concrete images to disappear? Nothing happened to any of the buildings....


I would have to know the specific video in question to answer that, and to be fair I'm certainly not an expert either. I do compress videos for the web almost daily, and if you go too far a lot of strange video artifacts ensue.

Raw captures of video are huge. I just checked on in my capture scratch folder - a 22 second clip was about 84mb. The same video after one pass through a low quality compression setting is 112k. That equals TONS of missing information - gone forever. Add to that the object in question is traveling at over 500mph, and the possibility that the video may have been compressed more than once - or with the incorrect codec - and that makes for some significant changes. I've seen compression add artifacts, and lose bits of the video, even change shapes until they are nearly unrecognizable.

That may not be the answer, but it seems likely to me. I do, however, agree with you that many things happened that day that have not been adequately explained, and it does seem like certain things are being hidden from the public.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker



SO....if I think that Science is true, then my 'religion' is ... what?

Definately not a 'Christian Scientist'....there's an oxymoron to beat all oxymorons....

OK...let the pummelling begin....




Thanks for the post weedwhacker. I was raised in Christian Science. Both my grandmother and mother were devout Christian Scientists and both were readers. I wonder if you knew what the "Scientific Statement of Being" was? Or who wrote it? Also, I wondered if you could explain the 'oxymoron' part of your comment to me?

Thanks for you input.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

I was raised in Christian Science. Also, I wondered if you could explain the 'oxymoron' part of your comment to me?

Thanks for you input.


In my opinion, the oxymoron is that it's called Christian Science, but it's tenents are based in miraculous faith healing. Miracle = Scientifically Unexplainable.

Christian Science = Oxymoron



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Didn't mean to hit a nerve there, John Lear.

InnocentBystander jumped in, and kinda said what he thought I meant, and he was correct in that, from what I know (emphasis on what I know) Christian Scientists do not believe in blood transfusions, for instance. If I am incorrect, then I am incorrect.

A scientist can be a Christian (or any other religiion, or even not religious), and a Christian can be a scientist (or a pilot or a truck driver, etc.).

The age-old adage applies...never discuss Politics or Religion in mixed company....oh, except, this is a forum that invites debate. I happen to think that organized religion is not good for our species. But, I believe I have the right to state that opinion.

So...another oxymoron...'military intelligence'. There, said it...it's a joke, right?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GUICE2
 


the reason is, to the best of my understanding, most compression algorithms for video work by taking successive frames of video and saving space by not rerendering things in the frames that dont move. so anything stationary is left alone while the moving parts of the video frame are rerendered in each frame. so in a high compresssion, its not unreasonable to have bits and pieces of a moving object drop out for a frame or two.

find a tape of someone that turned on their vcr on 911 and pull raw footage from it and i bet nothing disappears. or see if cnn or someone will release copies of their raw footage.

using internet videos as proof of things like disapppearing plane parts or "pods" or w/e just isnt the most accurate way to analyze evidence



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I don't have time to wade through all 60 odd pages, but did Mr. Lear ever respond to the opening attack on his Hologram Theory. I scanned about five pages and didn't see one.

While we're at it, John, if the moon has an atmosphere, how come we don't see any weather there? Thanks!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
Got me half tempted to approach the local TV networks for a quality copy of file footage that they showed on 9/11. It looked very 'unfaked' from memory.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


I have seen more than a few photos of what is stated to be the North Tower impact hole. I would hardly consider that hole a "perfect (Boeing 767) cut-out", using any stretch of the imagination.

Someone placed that particular picture in another discussion today. The shape legitimately raises a number of questions, as to what exactly was supposed to have gone through there. It was not the outline, perfect or otherwise, of a Boeing 767 civilian commercial jetliner, that is for certain.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join