Zebra Imaging, Inplane phototonics, Operation Gelatin

reply to post by _BoneZ_


How about going back to grade school, where they taught Newton's law's of physics?

Explain how aluminum can penetrate steel ??

Then, shame yourself, sit in the cornet and admit to yourself the world knows your a con artist.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Explain how aluminum can penetrate steel ??

The planes didn't penetrate the steel columns and the columns didn't fail. The connectors connecting the columns together are what failed. I explain this in detail in my posts below:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read both of those posts from top to bottom. Lots of good info there that tears any no-plane "theory" to shreds.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
the world knows your a con artist.

The only con-artists I'm familiar with are the no-plane disinfo artists.


P.S. - I noticed you couldn't debunk the information I presented in my last post and instead commenced to do the usual disinfo-artist tactic of attacking. Why isn't that surprising?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I read your professional con-artistry long ago.

The main thing is that you are a professional con artist, whereas many others out there are amateurs. Congratulations!

You are obviously paid to do what you do. You have each area "conned" out, and everything you say and do is to twist reality to appear the way you desire. Not a single thing in your professional post makes any sense, and the reason very few people debate you is because you waste their time. Like arguing with a 2 year old. What's the point?

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I read your professional con-artistry long ago.

Considering that some of it is recent, what you're telling us is that you didn't really read it and that you don't care to, no matter how wrong you really are, you just don't want to be proven wrong and have everything you believe in turned upside down.


The rest of your post deals with childish attacks because you can't debunk anything I've presented. So, you can continue to make yourself look like a fool, or you can present some real evidence. I think it will be the former because you have no evidence to present, let alone anything to counter my psots.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I read your professional con-artistry long ago.

Considering that some of it is recent, what you're telling us is that you didn't really read it and that you don't care to, no matter how wrong you really are, you just don't want to be proven wrong and have everything you believe in turned upside down.


The rest of your post deals with childish attacks because you can't debunk anything I've presented. So, you can continue to make yourself look like a fool, or you can present some real evidence. I think it will be the former because you have no evidence to present, let alone anything to counter my psots.

Your a time waster! Your material is suited for amateur researchers, and is not well prepared or thought out, and it does nothing to retort september clues or anything the film addresses. I read your material already, like said. It proves nothing.

Okay, I'll bite.


Numerous witnesses from within the towers spoke of them shaking or swaying after the strike from whatever the airbourne thing was that struck them. The videos are too poor quality to be sure of either what hit the towers or whether they shook or swayed afterwards.

However, let's assume the towers did shake and/or sway - so what? Do we not have numerous accounts of an explosion in the basement just prior to the plane strike (Rodriguez et al)? Does this not suggest that any such shaking or swaying might have been caused by the basement explosion/s, not the 'plane' strike?

Holograms obviously cannot cause a building to shake by flying into it, but a missile 'cloaked' as a hologram certainly could. Likewise, the South Tower plane could not have been flying at 520-540 mph at that altitude as the air is too dense for the engines to push the plane through. And regardless of what speed it was going at, air turbulence can be enough to break apart a plane, but hitting a steel structured building is not?

Consider the theory of relativity, which applied to 9/11 crashes says that a plane hitting a stationary building at 500mph is the equivalent of a building moving at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. If you hit a large orange with a baseball bat, what happens? The orange penetrates the baseball bat? Or the orange smashes apart and the baseball bet gets a bit juicy but is unharmed?

Instead we see a plane fly into a building with no sign of collision, no deceleration, no breaking apart of the plane, no damage to the building visible until after the fireball, and somehow the nose of the plane apparently penetrated not just one but two sets of exterior columns without suffering any damage. It is an unrealistic collision, for what reason I do not know. Maybe the WTC towers were holograms and the planes were real, but I doubt it.

Your a time waster! Your material is suited for amateur researchers, and is not well prepared or thought out, and it does nothing to retort september clues or anything the film addresses. I read your material already, like said. It proves nothing.

September Clues has numerous problems. For one thing it posits this theory about a CGI plane/shifting helicopter position to explain the 'nose in, nose out' phenomenon, ignoring the fact that the nose out can be seen on videos from the opposite side of the building. I quite liked Continuous Pieces as far as the no-plane films go.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Your material is suited for amateur researchers, and is not well prepared or thought out, and it does nothing to retort september clues or anything the film addresses.

In other words, you can't debunk it, so you're just going to ignore it. Got it.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I read your material already, like said. It proves nothing.

You couldn't possibly have read it. It took you 6 minutes to respond and who knows how long of that was before you even saw my post. Matter of fact, both of your last posts were within 6 and 7 minutes of mine, like you're sitting there refreshing the thread every few minutes because you gotta hurry and respond, GOTTA HURRY UP AND RESPOND!!!!

So, no you didn't refresh this thread, read my threads and then respond in only 6 minutes. Disinfo artists don't care about real evidence. They make up their own evidence.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
The videos are too poor quality to be sure of either what hit the towers or whether they shook or swayed afterwards.

One video does show the sway and I posted about that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Does this not suggest that any such shaking or swaying might have been caused by the basement explosion/s, not the 'plane' strike?

The sway would have only been caused by horizontal forces, i.e. winds or planes. The only way the towers could have swayed from explosions in the basement is if the explosions took out many support columns, at which point any sway from support columns being taken out in the basement would have caused the building to topple over anyway.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Holograms obviously cannot cause a building to shake by flying into it, but a missile 'cloaked' as a hologram certainly could.

No, a missile wouldn't. Missiles don't come anywhere near weighing 300,000 pounds to cause any building to sway. Missiles also don't travel as slow as planes. Missiles also don't have 160-foot wingspans.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Likewise, the South Tower plane could not have been flying at 520-540 mph at that altitude as the air is too dense for the engines to push the plane through.

False. The air is too dense for the engines to push the plane to 500mph if the plane is already at sea level. A plane doesn't need it's engines to reach 500mph when descending from a higher altitude. A plane can glide without engines from a higher altitude to sea level at 500mph. Once at sea level, even with engines at full power, the speed would bleed off.

Since the plane was coming down from altitude just seconds before impact, it could have and would have been travelling circa 500mph if the pilot so desired.

Instead of copy/pasting this disinfo from the no-plane disinfo artist handbook, you could go spend $20 or $30 for a Microsoft flight simulator and test it out yourself. Really only takes a few minutes. Why people won't test things out themselves instead of just taking someone else's disinfo as fact is beyond me.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
And regardless of what speed it was going at, air turbulence can be enough to break apart a plane

Every plane deals with air turbulence every time it flies. If what you say is true, we would hear about plane crashes every day from air turbulence. But since it's not true, I'll just assume you took your continued false claims from the disinfo artist handbook and didn't do any actual research of your own.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Consider the theory of relativity, which applied to 9/11 crashes says that a plane hitting a stationary building at 500mph is the equivalent of a building moving at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane.

Yeah, don't forget the Empire State building crash where the plane was only doing around 175mph and caused the same kind of damage:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
If you hit a large orange with a baseball bat, what happens?

No wonders no-planers can't understand the physics of what happened with analogies like this. A wooden or aluminum baseball bat hitting a fruit doesn't come close to comparing an aluminum plane hitting a steel structure or vice versa.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Instead we see a plane fly into a building with no sign of collision, no deceleration, no breaking apart of the plane, no damage to the building visible until after the fireball

The planes didn't penetrate the steel columns and the columns didn't fail. The connectors connecting the columns together are what failed. I explain this in detail in my posts below:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
and somehow the nose of the plane apparently penetrated not just one but two sets of exterior columns without suffering any damage.

I really don't understand where you no-planers come from. Some alternate reality or alternate universe? Nowhere on either tower did either nose come through the other side:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]


I love how the no-planers come on these forums and type all these words without providing a single piece of evidence or proof of any of their claims, expecting everyone to take them at their word only.

You'd think they would at least mix real truths with their disinfo to try to make their claims believable. Sad, so sad.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
One video does show the sway and I posted about that here

Hardly conclusive, but I'm not disputing that the towers shook on impact.

The sway would have only been caused by horizontal forces, i.e. winds or planes.

The tower was reported to sway after the 1993 bombing. I believe they brought this point up in 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions. And that was one ungrounded truck bomb.

No, a missile wouldn't. Missiles don't come anywhere near weighing 300,000 pounds to cause any building to sway. Missiles also don't travel as slow as planes. Missiles also don't have 160-foot wingspans.

Visitors to the WTC upper floors spoke of how winds could cause the tower to sway, as your yourself noted. As to 'any' building, I think you're overemphasising. If wind can cause a building to shake, so can a missile.

False. The air is too dense for the engines to push the plane to 500mph if the plane is already at sea level. A plane doesn't need it's engines to reach 500mph when descending from a higher altitude. A plane can glide without engines from a higher altitude to sea level at 500mph. Once at sea level, even with engines at full power, the speed would bleed off.

Indeed, but the plane shown in most of the videos comes in flat, and the ATC data also says this.

Since the plane was coming down from altitude just seconds before impact, it could have and would have been travelling circa 500mph if the pilot so desired.

The plane wasn't doing that, the videos show the seconds prior to the hit and it came in flat and low.

Instead of copy/pasting this disinfo from the no-plane disinfo artist handbook, you could go spend $20 or $30 for a Microsoft flight simulator and test it out yourself. Really only takes a few minutes. Why people won't test things out themselves instead of just taking someone else's disinfo as fact is beyond me.

Or I could download a cracked version of Flight Simulator for free, but either way that's software, not real life.

Every plane deals with air turbulence every time it flies. If what you say is true, we would hear about plane crashes every day from air turbulence.

Let's try again - planes can break apart due to turbulence. This doesn't mean it happens every day, or every time a plane hits turbulence.

Yeah, don't forget the Empire State building crash where the plane was only doing around 175mph and caused the same kind of damage:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

No cartoon plane outline in that picture.

No wonders no-planers can't understand the physics of what happened with analogies like this. A wooden or aluminum baseball bat hitting a fruit doesn't come close to comparing an aluminum plane hitting a steel structure or vice versa.

That's a matter of perspective.

The planes didn't penetrate the steel columns and the columns didn't fail. The connectors connecting the columns together are what failed. I explain this in detail in my posts below:

I really don't understand where you no-planers come from. Some alternate reality or alternate universe? Nowhere on either tower did either nose come through the other side:

The picture you cite shows three angles of the nose coming through the South Tower, yet no damage to the columns. I don't understand your argument at all here. There's a clear nose, but no hole. So how does the nose (assuming it is the solid nose of a plane, not a hologram) get to be outside the building again?

Now, see if you can respond without insults, personal attacks, stereotypes, deliberate misinterpretations (straw men) and self-contradictory arguments.

***ATTENTION***

I'm going to say this one time.

STOP THE NAME CALLING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.

You will be post banned.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Your material is suited for amateur researchers, and is not well prepared or thought out, and it does nothing to retort september clues or anything the film addresses.

In other words, you can't debunk it, so you're just going to ignore it. Got it.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I read your material already, like said. It proves nothing.

You couldn't possibly have read it. It took you 6 minutes to respond and who knows how long of that was before you even saw my post. Matter of fact, both of your last posts were within 6 and 7 minutes of mine, like you're sitting there refreshing the thread every few minutes because you gotta hurry and respond, GOTTA HURRY UP AND RESPOND!!!!

So, no you didn't refresh this thread, read my threads and then respond in only 6 minutes. Disinfo artists don't care about real evidence. They make up their own evidence.

I didn't need to go read it after you posted it, because I already had read it days ago. You think too much of yourself.

Just like Vinceguerra posted.....it has all been posted before. You, Mr. BonZ, skeleton of the NWO framework, are the only one who has not responded to the points.

This thread was about Holograms, not an argument about whether or not there were planes, but you have suceeded in doing what your handlers wanted you to accomplish, and that is to turn it into a devolved bunch of nonesense.

I agree with Vinciguerras post. if I had the time to waste to counter your silly arguments, I would, but it has already been beaten to death.

Anyone with common sense, who can think for themselves can clearly see that no planes hit the towers on 911 by watching the videos and comparing them, the different approach angles, the discrepancies in the details, like the missing buildings on 19 Rector street, the bridge that moves backwards, or the now famous "nose out" shown to millions live on TV, which was a CGI film made by professional studios and animators. All of this is discussed on September clues and more, but instead of desling with the details on there, you come up with strawmen on your own that distract the audience and confuse people. You don't make any valid points but jump from one nonesensical argument to another. Your a waste of time, BonZ, skeleton of the NWO framework.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

Maybe people could take notice of the fact that I started this thread, and it had to do with holograms and a company called Zebra Imaging, but BonZ crashed the thread with his plane BS, and I am the one who has my posts censored with "Off Topic" deletes.

Is ATS the 911 Truth authorities?

Also, how come the 911 posts and forum are under close scrutiny but the other forums aren't?

Is this in order to control information posted on ATS? In regards to 911?

Why should any forum be under close scrutiny?

If there are attempts by so called no planers to crash forums then what about the plane BSers that do the same thing?

How come they are allowed to do this?

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
If wind can cause a building to shake, so can a missile.

Negative. Wind causes force across the entire side of a building and from top to bottom. A missile is only a tiny pin-point force on a side. A missile doesn't come close to the force of strong winds on the side of the towers.

I also noticed you ignored my other points about missiles and how they can't travel as slow as planes and don't have 160-foot wingspans.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
the videos show the seconds prior to the hit and it came in flat and low.

That would be a negative again. The plane only leveled out in the last couple seconds just before impact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7357be7bdab.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d92959bf9d.gif[/atsimg]

The plane comes down from a higher altitude in every video, every time.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Or I could download a cracked version of Flight Simulator for free, but either way that's software, not real life.

Not real, but close enough.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
No cartoon plane outline in that picture.

Sure looks like it to me. Big hole in the middle with wing damage on each side. It was a smaller plane going much slower, but still the same concept.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
There's a clear nose, but no hole.

There is no "clear" nose. It's smoke, period. We know it wasn't a real nose because there's no exit hole and we know it wasn't a CGI/hologram nose because the pixels don't come close to matching up. If the nose was a CGI/hologram nose, the pixels would match identically:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1c87a82e29.jpg[/atsimg]

Not to mention that simonshack/socialservice purposely and blatantly falsified video to make you think the noses matched:





Any questions?

Originally posted by videoworldwide
This thread was about Holograms, not an argument about whether or not there were planes

You are truly unbelievable. A blatant, flat-out dishonest statement, right in public for all to see. Your correct, this thread is about holograms in place of planes, which means you're trying to say there were no planes! In otherwords, this thread is exactly about planes or no planes. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
if I had the time to waste to counter your silly arguments, I would

But since you don't have any evidence to counter my arguments, I guess you won't. If you have time to waste to make simple posts on a forum, then you have time to post some of this simple and undeniable evidence you supposedly have. I'm still waiting...

Originally posted by videoworldwide
the now famous "nose out" shown to millions live on TV

There is no "clear" nose. It's smoke, period. We know it wasn't a real nose because there's no exit hole and we know it wasn't a CGI/hologram nose because the pixels don't come close to matching up. If the nose was a CGI/hologram nose, the pixels would match identically:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1c87a82e29.jpg[/atsimg]

Not to mention that simonshack/socialservice purposely and blatantly falsified video to make you think the noses matched:

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Is ATS the 911 Truth authorities?

Considering that "no-plane theories" aren't even 9/11 Truth, I'm not sure why this matters.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Why should any forum be under close scrutiny?

I would reckon because of all the no-planers and debunkers that can only attack instead of debate the evidence. Kinda like how you've attacked me in every single post in this thread. Which really is no surprise to me since that's all the no-planers have been able to do over the past several years when their "theories" get debunked.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
How come they are allowed to do this?

Probably because I post links and images in my posts, you know, evidence? And you just post words and more words with no evidence, and alot of attacks mixed in. Big difference there.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You have not debunked anything yet. So start debunking already.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Negative. Wind causes force across the entire side of a building and from top to bottom. A missile is only a tiny pin-point force on a side. A missile doesn't come close to the force of strong winds on the side of the towers.

Can a plane cause force 'across the entire side and from top to bottom'?

No.

"I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." - Frank De Martini, WTC construction manager

I also noticed you ignored my other points about missiles and how they can't travel as slow as planes and don't have 160-foot wingspans.

That's because there are lots of different sorts of missiles. You're treating them as uniform, which is nonsense.

That would be a negative again. The plane only leveled out in the last couple seconds just before impact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7357be7bdab.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d92959bf9d.gif[/atsimg]

The plane comes down from a higher altitude in every video, every time.

Two images. What about the other 50 odd videos? The first one doesn't correspond to the second, as they follow different paths, and in the second one it is unclear if the highlighted object on the right is the thing that hit the tower, or the other visible aircraft.

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Or I could download a cracked version of Flight Simulator for free, but either way that's software, not real life.

Not real, but close enough.

Microsoft can't even make Outlook work properly. I truly doubt they paid that much attention to creating a realistic flight simulator.

But regardless, you're using Virtual Reality to explain Reality, which is nonsense. It's like NIST, using computer models to collapse the WTC because the physical evidence didn't work.

Sure looks like it to me. Big hole in the middle with wing damage on each side. It was a smaller plane going much slower, but still the same concept.

In the image you cite the right hand wing is completed sheared off, not punching through steel and concrete as evident in the WTC pictures.

This is even highlighted in the picture.

There is no "clear" nose. It's smoke, period.

Smoke shaped like the nose of a plane?

We know it wasn't a real nose because there's no exit hole and we know it wasn't a CGI/hologram nose because the pixels don't come close to matching up. If the nose was a CGI/hologram nose, the pixels would match identically:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1c87a82e29.jpg[/atsimg]

Not to mention that simonshack/socialservice purposely and blatantly falsified video to make you think the noses matched:

Any questions?

I have little time for Simon Shack, as mentioned above there are numerous problems with September Clues. But yes, I do have a question - why if it smoke does it only appear in line with where the plane's nose would be, and in the shape of the nose? Smoke doesn't tend to behave like that.

Considering that "no-plane theories" aren't even 9/11 Truth, I'm not sure why this matters.

If in doubt, classify a belief pejoratively. Avoids all that unpleasant stuff of actually having to refute it and explain your reasons...

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

Considering that "no-plane theories" aren't even 9/11 Truth, I'm not sure why this matters.

If in doubt, classify a belief pejoratively. Avoids all that unpleasant stuff of actually having to refute it and explain your reasons...

Bro, my congratulations...
I do not have the patience to deal with these folks you do .....

OMFG.

How about one of you clowns actually doing some real "research" and educating yourselves about how holograms actually work?

There is simply no such thing as a hologram in the sky FFS!

There is so such technology that lets someone "project" an image into the sky above NYC. Let alone something that can be seen from EFFIN' NEW JERSEY!

I suggest that you are willfully keeping yourself ignorant of basic facts about the world all to support your ridiculous fantasy.

Yes, it is true. Your fantasy is ridiculous.

I paraphrase the podcast, "the towers were brought down with laser technology and holograms."

What kind of claim is that? What kind of hologram behaves like that? What does Zebra Imaging do that makes you think they can make airplanes appear in the sky? In just air!

You can't answer any of these questions at all. You can't! Because you are compelled to seek out only non-sense that supports your impossible beliefs. Beliefs that can only live on in the cracks between the facts you understand and the facts that you refuse to become familiar with.

Call up someone at Zebra Imaging and ask them what their holograms are capable of representing. Ask them about how they are made. Ask them about how a hologram must be positioned and lit relative to the intended viewer. Read their patents and try to understand the claims. Read something about light and physics!!

Or stay in the dark and keep typing non-sense. Do you get paid to do this or something?

A