It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who currently believes in hologram theory at the WTC?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Sorry for starting another hologram theory thread, however this one is meant to put an end to some of the previous ones and possible future ones, so I hope it is allowed to stay.

It looks like there have been lot of anti and pro-hologram theory threads started recently. With so much attention being focused with both pro and anti threads, I think both are misguided for two simple reasons:

1) As far as I can tell, very few of the very few no-plane/TV fakery theorists at the time held the hologram theory as one of their top theories when this theory was in vogue.

2) As far as I can tell, hardly any of the very few of the previous believers believes it anymore.


If my observation of the above two points are correct, practically no no-plane/TV fakery theorists believe in the hologram theory, so I'm puzzled why the hologram is getting so much attention lately. Is it because those against the no-plane theories are using it as a strawman argument in an attempt to smear the theory? Perhaps.

What I would like to know is who that believes in the no-plane/TV fakery theories currently holds the hologram theory at the WTC as one of their top theories in regards to how their no-plane/TV fakery theory could have been pulled off?

If only a handful of no-plane/TV fakery theorists still believe in the hologram theory as one of their top theories, I think people trying to debunk the hologram theory is, in a sense, like trying to debunk those very, very few people who still believe that the earth is flat.




posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Not I said the little red hen.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Antsi,

I think you’ve got this one wrong. People are griping as much about the hologram theory as they are the no-plane one. They view both as one and the same. There’s nary a no-planer to be found here on ATS or anywhere else.

Personally, in my heart of hearts I believe people are flat-out lying about having seen planes on 9-11. But I do view holograms as entirely possible.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 

Greetings back Wizard,

I hope you didn't take this thread as an assault on hologram theory believers. It is not. I'm am trying to show people who are trying to debunk it that they are essentially wasting their time because few believe this theory and that their criticisms of the no-plane theory are flawed because they are misrepresenting what most no-planers believe whether unintentional, or on purpose.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Huge groups of people are lying? Why?



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mentalempire
 

Please don't derail this thread.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by antsi
 


Trying to meaningfully debate an issue that YOU started is NOT thread derailment.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mentalempire
 

I asked "Who currently believes in hologram theory at the WTC?" Where have you answered that in my thread?



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by antsi
I'm am trying to show people... that their criticisms of the no-plane theory are flawed because they are misrepresenting what most no-planers believe whether unintentional, or on purpose.


People trying to debunk the hologram theory are going to try twice as hard to discredit the no-plane suggestion. People will hate no-planers twice as much as they do hologram proponents.

The hologram theory is a ‘lighter’ version of the no-planes supposition. It’s less cynical. It allows people to keep their beliefs in the goodness of mankind by enabling the possibility of truthfulness in the eyewitness claims.

Embracing the no-plane notion is more hardcore. So expect more protest, not less, if this is your position.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 

I don't consider myself a no-planer. I do now believe in TV fakery and now researcher the feasibility of no-planes although I believe "no-planes" is kind of narrow-sounding label for a broader theory.

Not to get too sidetracked, I'd like to know who many no-planers currently believe in the hologram theory and it's not to knock them, it's more to knock the debunkers if my observations are correct.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well there you have it. It’s a lonely world out there in no-planer land. Here on ATS there may be only two, me myself and I plus John Lear. It’s gonna be slim pickings getting people to post on this thread.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Well there you have it. It’s a lonely world out there in no-planer land. Here on ATS there may be only two, me myself and I plus John Lear.

Do you two believe in the hologram theory at the WTC?

If you two are, you are the only two I know who do. Not knocking you guys, just knocking all the threads trying to debunk two people.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by antsi
 


John Lear may be the only person who fully believes holograms were used. I, The Wizard think they’re technically possible but deep down within myself still feel no one really ‘saw’ planes — real or projected — on 9-11.

The use of holograms was also suggested in 2002 by the best investigative reporter of all times, Sherman Skolnick.

However, I’ll admit I may very well be wrong about assuming all 9-11 eyewitnesses were hired actors or had an agenda. Certainly our military has intensely researched and developed the necessary technology to project phony images. How do I know this? I don’t, I’m logically assuming. But someone like John Lear does know, because he has the personal contacts to inform him.

We may be the only two no-planers on ATS. I was kind of hoping you’d join us, antsi. C’mon, leave the ‘dark side’… Think about it, take your time. You know you want to.


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antsi
 



I don't believe it on the simple fact that it would be far easier for any groups out there to open the door and let someone attack us then to plan out the attack and execute it themselves. You gotta remember this crap has been going on worldwide for a while now and America has been a little too much (to use slang) all up in the Middle East's koolaid.

The simplest plan would seem to be the most effective at not getting caught.


[edit on 12-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 

Then all these hologram debunking threads for one hologram believer?

I think some kind of missile struck there and that's what people saw and that's why the faked at least some of the videos.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by antsi
 


I’m not sure I understand that either.

Of course OT-ers will fight the hologram/no real planes idea — tooth and nail. Because our entire war on terror, the driving force behind our political policies — foreign and domestic — hinges upon the premise of fanatical Muslim hijackers wielding boxcutter knives.

But why average conspiracy theorists reject the no-planes reality is a mindboggling mystery. While they understand that the WTC complex was blown up, it doesn’t matter with what, they then stop short of questioning the rest of the original 9-11 ‘story’.

Maybe it’s because people believe what they see with their eyes. We can WATCH the buildings being exploded. And we can WATCH how planes fly into WTC1 and 2. And whilst critically thinking people don’t always trust what they’re told, they will entertain what they can view. Therefore controlled demolition theories are more acceptable because regardless of what everyone is being told about fire-related collapses, astute observers can SEE THAT IT ISN’T TRUE (the official 9-11 version of events).

But this mechanism, this reliance on our own two eyes fails when we examine the planes/no planes hypothesis. People can see planes in the videos. And that’s why they will insist that they were reality. No one can detect any aircraft parts or credible crash sites either. But this is irrelevant. Seeing nothing (no realistic wreckage) is trumped by seeing something (videos of twin tower impacts, or images of planted parts).

This is why the hologram idea and no planes concept will never spread beyond the intellectual elite. There are no positive visuals to promote them.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/12/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Nice ego stroking there budro. And the complex didn't explode, the buildings collapsed and the story of why does sound plausable.
And read what I said above don't feel like repeating myself.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Nice ego stroking there budro. And the complex didn't explode, the buildings collapsed and the story of why does sound plausable.
And read what I said above don't feel like repeating myself.


I will admit I’m a conceited S.O.B. at times. I spiked my above comments on purpose to agitate a little. Sometimes ya gotta shake things up!

Oh, I did read your previous post. It’s not half-bad. But where did ‘the terrorists’ get the nukes from? They were necessary to product the observed effects at the WTC’s on 9-11. Also, how did they plant all the auxiliary charges? I guess if you believe in ‘let it happen on purpose’ we gave em’ access. And we also handed them over four antimatter-triggered hydrogen bombs. After training them properly how to place them of course.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Your operating off the assumption your theory is correct which is a position you do not share with me.
I have heard no compelling evidence on charges (yea the domino theory that is accepted sounds about right to me).
And now your telling me nuclear weapons? COME ON!
Take a step away from the table and look at yourself please.



[edit on 12-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I don't believe in the theory at all. It's a bit of a joke. It makes the whole 911 conspiracy theory look like a silly joke made up by 12-year-olds. There are a bunch of real, very, very plausible theories that should be talked about.







 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join