Holographic planes vs the real thing?

[samncheese]

This has been a healthy discussion and I thank you all on the topic, but I will state simply not all the numbers add up here.

1 aircraft penatrating a building wing tips and all? I live in Seattle and have watched boeing do speed test on the tail of aircraft and watch them rip off due to high speed, and the impact on a building would send at least parts of it to the street, and the wing tips are thinner and and more prone to damage. A fuel truck on the ground so much as touches the wing and it does 10's of thousands of $$ of damage.

2 If the aircraft and people are gone they are gone, but if it was a show then the aircraft that the paperwork says was distroyed wasn't distroyed and there is proof somewhere on this planet.

3 If the aircraft were distroyed like the gov says John Lear is a liar. If the aircraft and people were not distroyed and John lear is telling the truth then there is proof somewhere to back it up. The implications are huge. Not even our gov. can keep a secret this big and get it right. It would take the co-operation of hundreds if not thousands of people to pull this off, and somebody would talk.

[Callidon]

Oh of course sam, if they did the big bad then somewhere out there is a peice of paper waiting to prove it.

As for the aircraft penetrating the building, the outer walls were not as of the same solid construction of most skyscrapers of the era, the buildings strength came from the rigid central core construction, so it's entirely feasable for the whole aircraft to penetrate it.

[samncheese]

What I am saying is you can't have it both ways...either some terrrorist crashed planes into the buildings...or...there is a trail to follow proving they didn't.

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by wags

...

The documentary’s I’ve seen on telly, re the construction of the towers, have shown how the steel beams ‘failed’ due to the impact of the aircraft and subsequent explosion. My main interest here is: the buildings were constructed with steel beams in a recognised / accepted / proven engineering manner, which had never failed prior to 9 /11, so they say, a very strong and stable construction.

...

The construction of the facade was a lattice/jigsaw of hollow steel section and it had lateral strength only, the concrete & steel core was the main load bearing structure. The outer facade was made of 1/4 inch steel plate welded in box sections, glass and plaster and there is no actual concrete in the construction. So, they aren't actually steel beams as such, it's just an illusion.



The facade is designed for lateral strength, so an object, such as a plane at ninety degrees flying into it is hitting at it's weakest design point, particularly if it was in the middle of the adjacent floors. I guess a different story if it had directly hit the plane of the floor.



The plane was flying at around 500 mph (805 kph) and it's mass and velocity carried enough kinetic energy to sheer the latticework of the skin. Once inside and between the floors the fuel onboard ignited and produced an explosion whilst sandwiched between them, so contained and deflected the blast back upon itself further disintegrating the pieces that initially survived sheering/shredding through the facade.

Originally Posted by samncheese

This has been a healthy discussion and I thank you all on the topic, but I will state simply not all the numbers add up here.

1 aircraft penatrating a building wing tips and all? I live in Seattle and have watched boeing do speed test on the tail of aircraft and watch them rip off due to high speed, and the impact on a building would send at least parts of it to the street, and the wing tips are thinner and and more prone to damage. A fuel truck on the ground so much as touches the wing and it does 10's of thousands of $$ of damage.

Yes, but it depends on the angle and the velocity, the point of impact was roughly ninety degrees with enough kinetic energy to offset most of the deflection and there is a greater area of glass compared to the area of steel section. However, there was plane debris scattered in the area and on to the tops of surrounding buildings.

I would not equate a dollar value to damages by a truck to a plane. It would not be the correct comparison because we are talking about quality standards and damages to control surfaces which affect the flight worthiness of the plane. It's like when you have a car accident and it no longer meets roadworthy standards and you get the bill from an accredited repairer.

Originally Posted by samncheese

2 If the aircraft and people are gone they are gone, but if it was a show then the aircraft that the paperwork says was distroyed wasn't distroyed and there is proof somewhere on this planet.

Sure.

Originally Posted by samncheese

3 If the aircraft were distroyed like the gov says John Lear is a liar. If the aircraft and people were not distroyed and John lear is telling the truth then there is proof somewhere to back it up. The implications are huge. Not even our gov. can keep a secret this big and get it right. It would take the co-operation of hundreds if not thousands of people to pull this off, and somebody would talk.

I wouldn't think that that would mean that he was a liar, but that he has some information that suggests something else, none of this is on a personal level, we are comparing evidence. I assume it was his opinion. It'd be great if he released what he did know so that it could be reviewed amongst the other evidence.

[samncheese]

Dataeast I like the way you think. I have never heard anyone state that aircraft parts hit the roofs of other buildings... I would love a link to where you got that info...

Thanks
Be at peace

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by samncheese

Dataeast I like the way you think. I have never heard anyone state that aircraft parts hit the roofs of other buildings... I would love a link to where you got that info...

Thanks
Be at peace

Here's the overall WTC area:


A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:


The link with more debris images:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

Ground Zero:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/grou...lssortingopera

The main page "Links for 9/11 Research":
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

[feeler]

Originally Posted by dataeast

Here's the overall WTC area:


A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:


The link with more debris images:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

Ground Zero:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/grou...lssortingopera

The main page "Links for 9/11 Research":
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

"A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:"

Only at WTC 1, but not at WTC 2, how convenient.

When/if a reinvestigation takes place, this piece of a plane should be examined to see if the part number on it is consistent with the alleged hijacked jetliner.



-feeler

[samncheese]

thank you for putting this information up, a picture is worth a thousand words. So what does all this say about John Lear? His holograms seem to have wheels.

The truth is always provable and silly lies need to be dispelled. WE SHOULD POINT AND SHOUT AT A LIAR AND LET THE WORLD KNOW.

Be at Peace

[Magamud]

Holographic jets. How do we explain that some tv broadcasts did not have a jet going into the buildings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DrbqB9CVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s

How do we explain that nose pointing out of the building?

How do we explain the plane just getting engulfed by the buildings?

[samncheese]

That is the back side of the building, plane approching from other side and hiden by the building

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by samncheese

thank you for putting this information up...

You're welcome. John is entitled to his opinion, just make sure that you verify what is being said at all times, even what I say.

Originally Posted by Magamud

Holographic jets. How do we explain that some tv broadcasts did not have a jet going into the buildings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DrbqB9CVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s

A news broadcast has a studio director who coordinates the main feed of a news article. There is the news presenter who generally sits in a sound studio with a chroma key screen, either composited by a video graphics artist or a physical one, it can be a matte painted card or piece of a prop. In the directors suite, there are several banks of video players (SP Beta or DV) with editors who are directed by the studio director. When a graphic is needed or footage is required, the studio director prepares then directs the appropriate operator to cue the piece of footage or sound.

This is a stressful position to fill as it requires timing to coordinate a cohesive piece particularly if it entails a series of different sources of information. The equipment consists of several video mixer desks connected to linear tape machines (last I recall) with the appropriate footage for the piece. On this occasion, it appears that the footage was not cued to the right position when requested. It was a mistake by whomever was cueing the tape.

Remember that youtube video is a 15fps and at poor quality compared to broadcast quality footage (NTSC 30 fps, PAL 25 fps), so you can't actually compare anything with any accuracy. So the dropping of frames contributes to the goof up as well.

Originally Posted by Magamud

How do we explain that nose pointing out of the building?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test

It's the power of suggestion when a label is associated with an object and stated as fact when it is a subjective interpretation--not fact. View the same incident from other angles to corroborate this. From what I see it is consistent with a blast plume dispersing material from the exit point.

See this as well:
http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...LNsNTDCg&hl=en

Originally Posted by Magamud

How do we explain the plane just getting engulfed by the buildings?

Re-read my other posts on this thread. Go to this link too because from a distance there is no definition of the amount of material that was jettisoned from the buildings. There is plenty of evidence here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

[Magamud]

Woh bro, were you the one who thought of swamp gas illusion for UFO's. Umm nevermind

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by Magamud

Woh bro, were you the one who thought of swamp gas illusion for UFO's. Umm nevermind

So, how does one produce a hologram in the open air on a sparkling clear sunny day, that produces a radar return?



EDIT:

I gather you never actually visited or viewed anything that was posted. Very telling.

[Magamud]

Ya im a retard and please disregard everything I have suggested. Wild fantasy really. You will need scientific proof of such things. This place is a tyrants technocratic wet dream. A tyrant could always keep you in the dark by hording scientific knowledge. Keeping one step ahead of you.

Good luck

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by feeler

"A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:"

Only at WTC 1, but not at WTC 2, how convenient.

...

Ah... nevermind.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by dataeast

Here's the overall WTC area:


A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:


The link with more debris images:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

Ground Zero:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/grou...lssortingopera

The main page "Links for 9/11 Research":
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

From the same disinfo site [wtc7lies] dataeast provided: In Figure 7-69, why was the person's right foot photo-shopped out?

Look at the missing right foot of the person in white shirt, black pants, carrying a black hand bag.

____________________________________________|
____________________________________________V




Note: dataeast, I will not retract my prior description of you [i.e. a "shill"].


-feeler

[Magamud]

Nice one Feeler. The way Dataeast was responding was like some coverup agent trying to stop people from investigating. Weird. Man I just dont get it sometimes, with all the NWO deceit you would think people could synthesize the huge amounts of information and at least be able to speculate the possiblity/probability of Sci Fi holograms. Thinking on it has allowed me to see the incredible deception media can do and understand deeper the power of this MATRIX.

A weird perception to point. The more I come to see the planes as holograms the easier it was to see that they actually were. Another metaphor is with the towers falling. The more I got into the demolition perspective the clearer it was to actually see it was demolition, to the point of DUH! Im breaking my goddamn brain washing. Free your mind and your ass will follow eh?

[samncheese]

Let me make one thing clear, there has been a lot of hoaxes on both side of any of these issues. To find the truth we all need to look at the evidence with the best analisis that we can give it and let the truth lead us, no mattter were it leads us.

Planes/no planes there is still some very odd things that look like an inside job, at the WTO.

Be at peace

[feeler]

Originally Posted by samncheese

Let me make one thing clear, there has been a lot of hoaxes on both side of any of these issues.

Make yourself clear. What hoaxes have you been exposed to on both sides? Provide two lists, one for each side please.



-feeler

[samncheese]

There are more people putting up on the internet fake photos of aliens than alpha-bet agencies taking them out of photo's. The fact that you can't tell which way a little old lady is facing shows how important it is to really Think about what is being said and then testing the science behind it. Your supposition dosen't hold up, and it has no validity to your claim. For all anyone knows the photo is from a plane crash somewhere else.

You are hell bent on it being holograms, there for any evidence to the contrary is false, this is not science or seeking the truth, it is a witch hunt. Feeler I implore you to just seek truth and let it guide your path. I have stated that something is not right with the WTC collaps, but logic says the true answers haven't been disclosed yet.

Be at peace

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by feeler

From the same disinfo site [wtc7lies] dataeast provided: In Figure 7-69, why was the person's right foot photo-shopped out?

Look at the missing right foot of the person in white shirt, black pants, carrying a black hand bag.

____________________________________________|
____________________________________________V

The woman has her back to us, why would you expect to see her foot when it has been foreshortened?

I would not place any faith on your perceptual abilities if you cannot discern the front or backside of a person.

Might you be the misdirection artist?

Originally Posted by feeler

Note: dataeast, I will not retract my prior description of you [i.e. a "shill"].


-feeler

That's a compliment coming from you and of course it's innuendo, unless you regard anyone else who challenges your arguments as a shill. I would not even credit you with misdirection in the above case because I sincerely think that you believe your own BS. Instead of trying to assassinate my character which works against you btw, why don't you come up with another line of tact, like say a worthy argument?

Getting emotional isn't any way to form an objective viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Magamud

Nice one Feeler. The way Dataeast was responding was like some coverup agent trying to stop people from investigating. Weird. Man I just dont get it sometimes, with all the NWO deceit you would think people could synthesize the huge amounts of information and at least be able to speculate the possiblity/probability of Sci Fi holograms. Thinking on it has allowed me to see the incredible deception media can do and understand deeper the power of this MATRIX.

...

Be careful in whom you believe, verify everything.

Originally Posted by feeler

Make yourself clear. What hoaxes have you been exposed to on both sides? Provide two lists, one for each side please.



-feeler

You haven't provided any conclusive information as to holographic planes, nor have you demonstrated that your perceptual abilities are on par with even the casual observer.

Why don't you work on some basic social skills if you want to continue fighting for justice?

[feeler]

Originally Posted by samncheese

The fact that you can't tell which way a little old lady is facing shows how important it is to really Think about what is being said and then testing the science behind it.

Did I ever state the person was facing the camera? Quote please. Hint: Why did I even bother to use the term "right" in "missing right foot" in my questioning?

Do not avoid my prior point: "...your not being able to tell the right leg of the person, through photoshopping, has been shortened, rounded, and blurred at the end." -feeler

[samncheese]

Sorry, it looks like an old person standing on old stubby legs to me, shadows and all. I didn't claim to have any answers, in fact I claimed to not have enouph. You can print this picture everywhere it still does not address the issue, it does point out that something is wrong. Which I think was my point from the beginning. Do I think the answer lies in the fussy end of some womans leg? well that will have to be argued by someone a whole lot smarter than I.

You claim to see it, ok. What sort of camera was used?
What lens?
What light setting?
What film/ digital/chemical?

I do know a little about photography and what you call photo shop mistakes can be reproduced by many tricks of light/ angle of veiw/ and combinations there in. Without the original pic in hand for study you are standing on a limb that all you can do is point to and say " this looks wrong to me, what do all of you think?"

Where is the original? Can it be found for comparison? yes some times I am stubborn on insiting that real hard evidence be found.

I will tell you what else bothers me about that pic, the person who took it made sure he owns it " Charles Marsh" If that pic has been doctored then it leads straight back to him. Who is he and does he stand by the photo here on the net?

[feeler]

Originally Posted by samncheese

Do I think the answer lies in the fussy end of some womans leg? well that will have to be argued by someone a whole lot smarter than I.

I hear the same message from the shills again and again: "DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES! LET SOMEONE SMARTER DO IT FOR YOU!"

Originally Posted by samncheese

You claim to see it, ok. What sort of camera was used?
What lens?
What light setting?
What film/ digital/chemical?

If so much "relevant" information of the photo is missing/unknown to the public, why is this photo being used as evidence to convince the public that real planes were used to bury themselves into the towers? -feeler

Photo: MISSING FOOT

[samncheese]

Feeler that is a good question...Why this pic?