The Hologram Theory is dead

page: 63
16
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thanks for pointing out that Mr. Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty disappear . This proves what?

Well you claimed that the 747 was a hologram. I would assume that if I chose something even larger and more permanent as an example, it would make a bigger impression. He didn't use a hologram for the statue of liberty so why do it for a 747? If you like, I can post how he did the 747 trick??? Just let me know.


I just perused your postings "jf" and there seems to be a pattern, : personal attacks

I have never personally attacked anyone.


, misdirections ,

Never happened. If you think it has, why not ask me about it?


and obfuscations .

Bless you




And oddly, your posts seem to adhere to a schedule.

Hmmmm


No not really. I do work and while at work, I don't post, but I've posted at many different time on many different days in many different threads. Are you going somewhere with this statement?




posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I did not claim anything about holograms. I stated that I don't think "magicians" are making objects that are shown audiences to physically vanish.

By the way, please keep replying to me. The more time you spend attacking me is less time you can spend attacking somebody who does not realize what you are and might get discouraged by your senseless barrage of attacks. Carry on!




posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
reply to post by jfj123
 


I did not claim anything about holograms. I stated that I don't think "magicians" are making objects that are shown audiences to physically vanish.

Well you have made several claims but specifically regarding magicians, for the most part they don't rely on holograms as example, making the statue of liberty disappear. If they really did use holograms, why not cover the statue of liberty with a black hologram to hide it?


By the way, please keep replying to me. The more time you spend attacking me is less time you can spend attacking somebody who does not realize what you are and might get discouraged by your senseless barrage of attacks. Carry on!

I see so because I disagree with your opinion, I am attacking you. That means you are attacking me ! Hypocritical much?

What about my posts are senseless? I am simply asking people to back up what they are claiming? Isn't that the whole point of posting here? To get solid information?



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I just jumped in, to the last page...and I am seeing things about 747s?

I have great respect for many of the posters, on this thread. But, when I see a 747 reference, I have to say 'whoa!!' "Where did THAT come from??!"

So, give me a chance to read some earlier pages, and then I will comment further. Until then, carry on!



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

If only you would apply your ‘strict standards’ of proof to the real planes were used on 9-11 scenario.

Why is it more likely (than advanced hologram technology) to you that four giant passenger planes, some of the biggest ones made — the same type as used on trans-Atlantic flights — purportedly completely vanished on 9-11?

You may think holograms are unrealistic. Well, thus far no one has postulated anything more plausible. The presence of real aircraft does not fit what was observed, there was no wreckage. Holograms just might be the explanation for what some claim they saw.

Planes did not vanish unless near-total destruction qualifies as 'vanishing'.

In the case of the towers, planes were extensively witnessed approaching & impacting and pieces of aircraft fell in the streets and on the surrounding rooftops with pedestrians being injured and buildings damaged. Holograms are not capable of physically exerting a force on solid physical objects (buildings, people).

Were the pieces of recovered wreckage and victims holograms as well?

If one's only ideas of holograms and what they're capable of comes from watching star trek re-runs then maybe it seems plausible but in the cold light of reality it remains science fiction.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
In the case of the towers, planes were extensively witnessed approaching & impacting and pieces of aircraft fell in the streets and on the surrounding rooftops with pedestrians being injured and buildings damaged.


That’s the thing – on 9-11 not a single ‘live’ report was made showing airplane wreckage in the streets around the WTC. This, even though there would have been ninety minutes time to do this (for the North Tower).

All we ever got for the NYC ‘crashes’ – later on – is pictures of a wheel-well (who know from what), a rusty engine core (wrong model) and a big-ass pile of galvalume building sheetmetal with one small section of aircraft window paneling (again, not from a 757 or 767).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



All we ever got for the NYC ‘crashes’ – later on – is pictures of a wheel-well (who know from what), a rusty engine core (wrong model) and a big-ass pile of galvalume building sheetmetal with one small section of aircraft window paneling (again, not from a 757 or 767).


So now you're saying there was debris at the crash sites? Where did you get your information about the above described debris?



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Did they found the FDR's (Flight Data Recorder) from the wreckage?

a) no
b) yes

if a, could be holograms. if b, not likely to be holograms. i assume that most of the plane went inside the building, and got finally disintegrated when the towers collapsed, hence no aircraft scrap were visible in wrecks... i would imagine tho, that FDR's have a change of surviving, or at least pieces of them could've been found? no? after all, atta's passport survived, then the FDR's should've also.



[edit on 9-2-2008 by Geemor]



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Geemor
 


So, are you saying that 1 piece of trash = for sure an airplane?



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Jfj123:

No, there was NO airplane wreckage at the WTC’s. At least not during the ninety minutes (WTC-1) and thirty minutes (WTC-2) between the plane ‘impacts’ and building collapses.

The images of the three described junk ‘plane parts’ (wheel, engine core, window panel) must have been put into circulation later on. Because NONE of the 9-11 ‘live’ reports filmed these items.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor
Did they found the FDR's (Flight Data Recorder) from the wreckage?

a) no
b) yes

if a, could be holograms. if b, not likely to be holograms. i assume that most of the plane went inside the building, and got finally disintegrated when the towers collapsed, hence no aircraft scrap were visible in wrecks... i would imagine tho, that FDR's have a change of surviving, or at least pieces of them could've been found? no? after all, atta's passport survived, then the FDR's should've also.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by Geemor]


May I respectfully ask what technology you have seen or understand which makes you believe a hologram of this type if possible?
For example
Projecting at a distance, a high def, solid, moving image able to react to and with environmental variable on the fly, in broad daylight with no medium to project the image on.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Check this pic of AA11 landing gear embedded in an outer wall section torn from the exit side of WTC1 and most importantly look in the background at WTC2 still intact.

Do you still believe it's 'planted' evidence?
Looks like the 'planters' were busy with a crane to put that there.

You can check with NYPD for authenticity of this one - but I suppose you think they were 'in on it' too.

wheel in column



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Check this pic of AA11 landing gear embedded in an outer wall section torn from the exit side of WTC1...


Pilgrum:

Thanks for the image link. I feel for you. You’ve got a difficult ‘job’ – in trying to debunk 9-11 truthers.


Had there been real actual plane crashes at the WTC’s, the streets would have been covered with hulking wreckage. The ‘news’ crews would have been filming nothing but that, instead of slowly smoking towers. They didn’t know that the buildings were going to come down – or did they?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
That looks like a 'hulking' piece of wreckage to me and the intact WTC2 gives us a fairly tight timeframe in which the pic was shot don't you think?

Unless they re-erected a tower in order to fake a few pics


There's hordes of other pics but I guess if your mind is made up...

BTW I'm not totally convinced about every aspect reported on the day or 'officially' in later years but I have ZERO doubt about planes striking the towers.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



The picture does NOT show any ' wheel well ' anywhere. It says, in words, that one is in a _ Where are the photos of it? We can compare it if we can see it, but, as luck would have it, all we have is some writing that may in fact be incorrect. WHO wrote that it was a wheel well? Who are they? What is their experience that would let them make a determination that the object, if it even exists, is in fact a wheel well?

Sere? Saying something does NOT prove it. Show us a whell well, not a beam of steel and a few words not attributed to the source of the writing.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Check this pic of AA11 landing gear embedded in an outer wall section torn from the exit side of WTC1...


Pilgrum:

Thanks for the image link. I feel for you. You’ve got a difficult ‘job’ – in trying to debunk 9-11 truthers.


Had there been real actual plane crashes at the WTC’s, the streets would have been covered with hulking wreckage. The ‘news’ crews would have been filming nothing but that, instead of slowly smoking towers. They didn’t know that the buildings were going to come down – or did they?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


One huge flaw is that nobody who believes in the hologram idea has been able to provide any substantive evidence that holograms of the proposed type are even possible. In addition, evidence has been presented to the contrary .



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
That looks like a 'hulking' piece of wreckage to me and the intact WTC2 gives us a fairly tight timeframe in which the pic was shot don't you think?

Unless they re-erected a tower in order to fake a few pics


There's hordes of other pics but I guess if your mind is made up...

BTW I'm not totally convinced about every aspect reported on the day or 'officially' in later years but I have ZERO doubt about planes striking the towers.


I feel the same way you do. Not sure about "the official story" completely but believe real planes hit real buildings.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
reply to post by Pilgrum
The picture does NOT show any ' wheel well ' anywhere. It says, in words, that one is in a _ Where are the photos of it?

It says 'wheel' not 'wheel-well' as far as I can see. Here's a pic of the same panel complete with the wheel stuck in it from another angle:

wheel in wall panel



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
May I respectfully ask what technology you have seen or understand which makes you believe a hologram of this type if possible?


i merely pointed it out as a possibility, not saying that i would consider it as a fact. people in other circumstances have seen things which may or may have not been what they saw; mass hypnotization could be considered, that would also explain why eyewitnesses have seen various stuff.

dont take me wrong. i'm not saying that this happened, but i wouldn't either exclude everything that haven't got clear and specified explanation.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor

Originally posted by jfj123
May I respectfully ask what technology you have seen or understand which makes you believe a hologram of this type if possible?


i merely pointed it out as a possibility, not saying that i would consider it as a fact. people in other circumstances have seen things which may or may have not been what they saw; mass hypnotization could be considered, that would also explain why eyewitnesses have seen various stuff.

dont take me wrong. i'm not saying that this happened, but i wouldn't either exclude everything that haven't got clear and specified explanation.


I appreciate the fact that you are so open minded. I along with a few other individuals have seriously looked into the possibility of a viable holo-projector which could accomplish this. There are some major problems with doing things like this which physics, optics and laser technology simply won't allow. If you'll notice, on the last 63 pages of postings, you won't see any actual evidence posted which support the possibility of holograms being a viable possibility.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by jfj123]





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join