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.

 

Why it necessarily was holograms that hit the WTC

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I take it you already know that NO 767 jet ever hit the WTC. This is proven by the LIVE TV footage, just listen to Ace Baker or watch September Clues ON THAT POINT. (my blog has the links, see below)

If you believe that a Boeing 767 hit the tower, look again :

u2r2h.blogspot.com...

If you still believe hollow aluminium planes butter into buildings THEN DO NOT READ ON.



OK, so you are a noplaner.

Do you really think that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have authorized the massaker in the USA with the threat that some idiot camera would show an explosion WITHOUT PLANE (or a missile)???

Nah, that's crazy. They could not hope to control all footage.


OK, so NOW YOU BELIEVE IN HOLOGRAMS!!!

it is 100% logical!


Are Holograms possile?

Sure! Someone left us THE PERFECT HINT on Wikipedia!

Please read this again. Someone left us a hint:


There exist also holographic materials which don't need the developing process...
(you MUST READ THIS)



LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF A HOLOGRAM:
The "plane" looses wings and is distorted:
Ho--lo--gram


Hey, I don't blame you for your scepticism... it *IS* difficult to swallow. Hey, but that was the idea!!


Please leave comments on my blog!!




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Lets ask another one:

1- Do you believe ALL FOOTAGE that shows an airplane hitting tower WAS FAKED??

2- What do you think is the likelihood of uncensored footage to have made it into the public -- given that the second hit was under the eyes of potentially thousands of video-camera owners?

3- Given the likelihood is LOW BUT NOT ZERO, and given you insist that NO 767 hit the tower what do you think the risk was to the perps of the # hitting the fan


You see what I am driving at, huh?

You know what I think. I think it is IMPOSSIBLE that the perps would have risked it.

HENCE... the logical conclusion (people, get this into your heads!) is:

Ho--lo--gram


Why? because THERE WERE films, photos and eyewitnesses and they were NOT ALL FAKED

in fact there were some that were faked by the perps, wanting us to believe there were 767s.

Can you not see that Noplaners are dangerous... they contain the seed for holograms... or to put it as I do:

If you are a noplaners, you MUST be a hologrammer

If you do not agree, come forward, it shall be possible to make you understand.

Here, I quote in full:



Dynamic holography

There exist also holographic materials which don't need the developing process and can record a hologram in a very short time. This allows to use holography to perform some simple operations in an all-optical way. Examples of applications of such real-time holograms include phase-conjugate mirrors ("time-reversal" of light), optical cache memories, image processing (pattern recognition of time-varying images), and optical computing.



The amount of processed information can be very high (terabit/s), since the operation is performed in parallel on a whole image. This compensates the fact that the recording time, which is in the order of a µs, is still very long compared to the processing time of an electronic computer. The optical processing performed by a dynamic hologram is also much less flexible than electronic processing. On one side one has to perform the operation always on the whole image, and on the other side the operation a hologram can perform is basically either a multiplication or a phase conjugation. But remember that in optics, addition and Fourier transform are already easily performed in linear materials, the second simply by a lens. This enables some applications like a device that compares images in an optical way.[7]



The search for novel nonlinear optical materials for dynamic holography is an active area of research. The most common materials are photorefractive crystals, but also in semiconductors or semiconductor heterostructures (such as quantum wells), atomic vapors and gases, plasmas and even liquids it was possible to generate holograms.



So the technology is NOT IMPOSSIBLE. The military value (fool the enemy!) is enourmous. It is a technology MADE FOR UNDERCOVER and PSYOP bloodbaths.

please DEAL WITH IT!! don't let it simmer... cook it up!

Ho--lo--gram are as worthy of investigation as CGI-inserts are!



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
www.wnd.com...

I personally found the above holography use rather frightening, considering the context of the article.

Personally detailing the holography, that illusion appears the orbs could actually start turning. The reason? The depth of solid areas of the hologram on driver's licenses. That is how sophisticated holography has beecome to create illusion, anywhere people choose to create illusion, not physical reality.

Disclaimer because of past practice by some posters in holography discussions:

That is what I see. I do not have to prove I see what I observe and visually process.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Personally I am far more inclined to believe the impact zones on the towers were sabotaged either weeks, months or years in advance of the event. It makes far more sense than holoplanes! Even if the tech was available it's still easier, cheaper and a more reliable method and if your going to rig the towers with explosives I am sure sabotaging the impact zones wouldn't be too much trouble.

We don't need a hologram theory to explain why the plane melted into the building in that way it did, use some common sense would you! All we are seeing is lack of resistance thus the walls weren't as strong as we thought, most likely because they were sabotaged.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Personally I am far more inclined to believe the impact zones on the towers were sabotaged either weeks, months or years in advance of the event. It makes far more sense than holoplanes! Even if the tech was available it's still easier, cheaper and a more reliable method and if your going to rig the towers with explosives I am sure sabotaging the impact zones wouldn't be too much trouble.


How would that happen without someone noticing before 9/11? There was no place to set any explosives in the exterior walls, without them being noticed by people accessing the buildings. There was no place to put them in those walls the way the twin towers were designed.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
did i say they used explosives? No. I said 'sabotaged' which could mean a wide variety of techniques, not just explosives. In fact that would be my last choice.

So what type of sabotage? Personally I feel that is blatant but here it is:

Fake walls done over long period of time. In light of the cheap synthetic materials used in the 'buildings' at Vegas this would be little surprise to me. One could do this by renting or vacating different office spaces one at a time then 'working' the walls/replacing the materials with a weak synthetic substitute then covering it up/decorating and painting to make it look the same.

Another idea given the tech is available - spraying or painting on some type of corrosive chemical or solvent to weaken corrode the steel around the impact zones to make it extremely thin and weak to allow the plane to enter with ease.

Here is another idea, Loosing up all the joints on the outer framework, sheering bolts etc


I really like the fake wall idea, the construction type sounds heard in the towers in the weeks leading up and the dust appearing may accounted into this idea. Removing steel sections from the walls with powered equipment then either removing it some how or hiding it in between the floors.

All of which I personally feel is far more realistic, far more likely, far more easier and probably a great deal cheaper than 'holoplanes'.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
How then could you guarantee the impact would occur precisely at the weakened area or even guarantee the plane would get there at all?

Think about crosswinds, updraft, downdraft, pilot fumbles, military intervention etc

The entire side of the building would need to be 'sabotaged' which would be an even bigger covert project than holograms which we know are not possible on that scale in that environment.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by u2r2h
 



Why it necessarily was holograms that hit the WTC?


good question and people are figuring it or something like it out...

South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers
www.youtube.com...





pretty good hologram here..
i'm sure governments have better technology
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
i dont understand why you think a jet plane cant penetrate a skyscraper????? hell .. you could do it with water.. and even air.. ... so I dont understand the problem???



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by u2r2h
Why? because THERE WERE films, photos and eyewitnesses and they were NOT ALL FAKED


I, for one, believe all the videos and pictures are fake. It's very simple to insert plane images into videos and pictures, and it's simple to prove all the videos fake.

Eye-witnesses are a little more complicated. So many people saw so many different things on 9/11-it was erratic! Here's a thread covering the witness accounts.


Originally posted by u2r2h

If you are a noplaners, you MUST be a hologrammer

If you do not agree, come forward, it shall be possible to make you understand.


I don't believe real planes were used, and I also don't believe holograms were used. Everyone that is a "noplaner" is not a "hologrammer".

In my opinion, holograms are not fail-safe, and they knew that.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by philjwolf
 


If I may:

It's not so much a problem of penetration, more than it is about violations of the Laws of Motion. A 767 would penetrate the exterior of the WTCs(engines, landing gear), but not like we see in any videos. The entire plane could not be consumed by the building without at least one piece falling away from the impact.

Third Law of Motion says:
"Whenever a particle [A] exerts a force on another particle [B], [B] simultaneously exerts a force on [A] with the same magnitude in the opposite direction.

We see nothing like that in the South Tower "plane" crash videos.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by philjwolf
 


take a 16 pound sledge hammer and swing as hard as u can on a flimsy 1/2 inch thick steel beam. Then take the same sledge hammer go to a junk yard and hit an alluminium plane body part and see what happens.

now take the same sledge hammer and swing it at 4 inch thick steel beam and see what happens . Then do it agin and see the out come. hell swing it at a steel bodied car for that matter . the steel beam will win ever time ill bet a billion dollars the alluminum parts will loose every time .

And thats just from the power of ur swing ull barley have to swing it to destroy the plane parts . hell it takes 4 drops of a 13000 pound beam to chopp up a plane . and all they do is drop it img187.imageshack.us...

and the wtc beams where 60,000 pounds and not to mention the 6 inch concrete with 1 inch rebar in it and the 1 inch alluminum facade.

building wins every time ill put my money on the 500,000 ton building anyday over a 100 ton plane .

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
"13,000-pound metal guillotine blade dropped from about 80 feet "chops a plane like a knife through butter," says Robert Raine, the public affairs officer who gave a tour to this reporter and a photographer. The guillotine was used to cut up hundreds of B-52 bombers. The planes were destroyed as part of a disarmament treaty with the former Soviet Union. The planes were chopped up and the pieces piled in place so Soviet spy satellites could verify their destruction"

this is source for quote www.csmonitor.com...

www.upgradetravelbetter.com...

www.satellite-sightseer.com...

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by philjwolf
 


take a 16 pound sledge hammer and swing as hard as u can on a flimsy 1/2 inch thick steel beam. Then take the same sledge hammer go to a junk yard and hit an alluminium plane body part and see what happens.

now take the same sledge hammer and swing it at 4 inch thick steel beam and see what happens . Then do it agin and see the out come. hell swing it at a steel bodied car for that matter . the steel beam will win ever time ill bet a billion dollars the alluminum parts will loose every time .

And thats just from the power of ur swing ull barley have to swing it to destroy the plane parts . hell it takes 4 drops of a 13000 pound beam to chopp up a plane . and all they do is drop it img187.imageshack.us...

and the wtc beams where 60,000 pounds and not to mention the 6 inch concrete with 1 inch rebar in it and the 1 inch alluminum facade.

building wins every time ill put my money on the 500,000 ton building anyday over a 100 ton plane .

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]


SO if what youre saying is true, wouldnt the aluminum bounce back out of the building trhough the crash entrance?



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Why it necessarily was holograms that hit the WTC



The headline hurts plucky's brain, please refrain/change it.

The hologram theory is full of holes.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


of course it should have cruppled like a tin can or shatterd . and the heavier alluminium parts and landing gear ect ect wouldnt crumple or shatter but would have bounced off or saild threw the building windows but none of it would have cutt 4 inch steel. and thats not a matter of opion its a matter of physics fact. even a lead bullet traveling at 3500 feet per second wouldnt cut threw 4 inch steel like butter like the planes suposedly did ,not one part fell to the ground . if i could swing the building itself at a plane like swinging a bat at a baseball what would happen to the plane? probably a home run.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by jprophet420
 


of course it should have cruppled like a tin can or shatterd . and the heavier alluminium parts and landing gear ect ect wouldnt crumple or shatter but would have bounced off or saild threw the building windows but none of it would have cutt 4 inch steel. and thats not a matter of opion its a matter of physics fact. even a lead bullet traveling at 3500 feet per second wouldnt cut threw 4 inch steel like butter like the planes suposedly did ,not one part fell to the ground . if i could swing the building itself at a plane like swinging a bat at a baseball what would happen to the plane? probably a home run.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]


That's not necessarily true. Then engines and landing gear may have cut through if traveling at 500+mph.

In 1945, a B-25 hit the Empire State building, which is made of limestone.


One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street.


history1900s.about.com...

So while the entire plane could not cut through the exterior, the engines and other stronger parts are probable.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Niobis
 


did u see the videos? the wings and body sliced threw the building like butter, like the building wasnt even there. but for arguments sake lets say the engines did make it threw. the only holes would have been from the engines or landing gear right?? so how did the hole become bigger then the plane its self? the engines would have left two destinct holes .the body would have shatterd and fallen .the engins wouldnt have let the rest of the plane magicly cutt the hole we where shown that they did.

but no matter what speed and 500 miles per hour is not fast enough to send alluminium of any type to cutt threw 4inch thick stell. and certainly not the 6 inch thick core collums, and it just didnt have to go threw 4 inch steel it also had to cutt threw steel beams ,6 inch concrete with steel 1 inch rebar and 1 inch thick alluminum facade all at the same time . imposable at any speed to much mass to cutt threw all at the same time.

what where the planes u talk of made of some new alluminum?/

oh yeah not to mention any part that suposedly cutt threw the building would had to cut threw 4 inch exterier collums ,coverd with 1 inch alluminum facde and 6 inch concrete floor with 1 inch rebar lattace frame and then threw 6 inch thick core beams then threw another side of same floor then the same 4 inch thick beams and alluminum facade on the other side . and that is just to exit the other side . so that is a total of 2 inches of alluminum 20 inches of steel beams , 12 inches of concrete and another 2 inches of rebar. WOW ! thats some thick stuff for anything to pass threw ,and for alluminum plane wings to do it not a chance . only thing that might have a chance is a bunker buster missle.

just not enough energy to do all of that like butter. cant happen

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by Niobis
 


did u see the videos? the wings and body sliced threw the building like butter, like the building wasnt even there.


You're beating a dead horse. If you read my first post in this thread, I said that I believe all the videos to be fake. I've seen the videos you mention where the "planes" seamlessly melts into the building. And again, as I said above, that violates the Third Law of Motion.


Originally posted by plasmacutter
but for arguments sake lets say the engines did make it threw. the only holes would have been from the engines or landing gear right?? so how did the hole become bigger then the plane its self?


We can thank NBC and the Naudet Brothers for showing us how the plane-shaped holes were created with the use of explosives. In the "live" NBC video of the South Tower attack we can clearly see white puffs of smoke around the initial explosion. In the Naudet video of the North Tower attack we can clearly see explosives cutting the holes.

The only reason I mentioned anything about the incident at the Empire State Building in 1945 is because you said:

"and the heavier alluminium parts and landing gear ect ect wouldnt crumple or shatter but would have bounced off".

We can't ignore facts, and a B-25 engine going all the way through the Empire State Building is a fact.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Niobis
 


agreed about the empire state building and b 52 ect ect is fact. but u cant even compare the two bulding desighns for engine trajectory , empire state was typical lattace steel frame with lots of empty space between all beams and such and the ,wtc where much closer and the core was much much denser than anything in the empire state building two totaly differant beam spaceing and thick ness.

But you are one hundred percent correct about the b 52 trying to tackle the empire state building but the state building was not made with an alluminum faced 1 inch thich and its beams whernt 4 inch and 6 inch thick.

but yes it did do damge but most of the b 52 was still hagging out the building wasnt it? we can see most the whole plane in that crash.

www.evesmag.com...

so in comparison there should have been plenty of both WTC planes to be examined shouldnt there be? if we use ur comparison im just asking ?? or no ?? but like as for like senerio should be the same and the b 52 didnt cut threw like butter it looked like it had issues getting threw the weaker built facade and beams . but im just saying .oranges to oranges it is not but gapefruit to oranges maybe but more like lime to orange . but not apples to oranges because it was a plane to building and plane to building compareison.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by plasmacutter]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join