Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[Thunder]

"Your sense impression has epistemological value. Thank you for posting.

While sight and hearing are our primary sense organs that allow us to make claims about what we think we know, the sense of smell (weak though it may be in comparison, say, with our canine companions) can impart important information."

am I the only one who finds this posting style to be kinda frightening?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

If Truthers have 'proof' of a conspiracy, why haven't they taken this to the courts?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

"Your sense impression has epistemological value. Thank you for posting.

While sight and hearing are our primary sense organs that allow us to make claims about what we think we know, the sense of smell (weak though it may be in comparison, say, with our canine companions) can impart important information."

am I the only one who finds this posting style to be kinda frightening?

Reminds me of Hannibal Lecter

 

[dafydd]

deleted

 

[jammonius]

Holograms are not "projected" at all, in the same sense that movies or slides are projected onto a screen. They are not projected onto anything; the light is instead projected toward the viewer's eye. Viewing a hologram is more like viewing a printed picture on paper.

And just like no part of a printed image appears beyond the edges of the paper, no part of a hologram appears beyond the edges of the holographic medium.

If you're not looking directly at the holographic medium, you cannot see any image at all, any more than you can see a printed photograph when you're not looking toward it.

Holograms do not work like R2D2 projecting a holographic recording of Princess Leia onto the floor a meter away. That's science fiction, and only works in a galaxy far far away.

The holographic game board on the Millennium Falcon (in the "let the Wookie win" scene) is a little bit more plausible. But it would still only work when you were looking down at the board (assuming it's the surface of the board that's generating the holographic images of the game pieces). From sideways angles, the tops of the holographic images would be cut off anywhere some part of the board is not directly behind them.

The Star Trek holodeck is actually a bit more plausible in that regard, since at least the surfaces on which the holograms are supposedly being generated fully surround the viewer. (Of course, having fist fights with holographically rendered people wouldn't work so well, but punching empty air wouldn't look as good on TV.)

You know those novelty hologram jewelry and sunglasses that were slightly popular a few years ago? They would show things like a three dimensional life size human eye inside a 1" diameter round pendant. It would be cool, wouldn't it, if you could have one where the holographic image is bigger than the piece of jewelry. Like, a finger ring but when you look directly at it you see a fist-sized Buddha statue (or a life-size human skull, or a gigantic 10,000-karat cut diamond, depending on your style preferences) floating above your hand.

Well, you can't buy one of those. Not for any amount of money. Because no one knows any way to make one.

You can't even buy a good looking simulated light saber. That should be the easiest possible thing to make with a "projected" hologram. All you're asking for is a blurred bar of monochromatic light, right next to a big handle that you can put your projection mechanism inside. (Never mind that it would just pass through other similar light sabers. Getting it to just look like the ones in the movies would be a coup for any Star Wars fan -- including the many who work at the MIT Media Lab and in military R&D.)

No such luck. You're stuck with a plastic tube with lights inside, like everyone else currently living in this galaxy.

(Actually, you could make a simulated light saber using a real hologram, with severe limitations. The hologram would have to be on a disk mounted above the handle like the guard of a sword hilt. It would only look right when the "blade" was more or less pointed directly at you. The bigger the disk, the more leeway in the viewing angle, but it would not be visible at all from side-on, and of course the big extra disk sticking out would only look slightly less dorky than the plastic tubes.)

So, what limitations does the reality of what a hologram actually is and how it actually works impose on our holographic airplane over Manhattan?

Well, it means that the physical medium containing the holographic image has to be at least as big as the footprint of the real airplane it depicts, and it has to be in the air where the image of the airplane appears. That means it must either move in the airplane's path at the airplane's speed, or it must be even bigger so as to extend along the airplane's path.

In the former case, it needs propulsion and lift, such as by mounting it on an even bigger airplane. Another possibility is swinging it on cables from a large dirigible higher up. The cables and dirigible must themselves be rendered invisible, of course.

Since the framework supporting the hologram -- think of a horizontal billboard larger than half a football field -- would probably be comparable to the mass of an actual jetliner, it would still crash into the tower and do a lot of damage due to its speed. This rules out the swung-from-a-dirigible possibility because if you were swinging something that large, heavy, and expensive, you might as well swing an actual airplane, doing away with the need for the hologram. And if it's an actual airplane, you might as well just fly it, doing away with the need for the invisible dirigible and cables.

So that leaves us with a hologram of an airplane, attached to an even larger airplane, crashing into a WTC tower. But again, if you're crashing a larger airplane into the tower, you don't need the hologram.

Of course, if you're using a motion hologram, you no longer need to propel it along the airplane's course. Instead, all you have to do is suspend a motion holographic image generating surface 40 meters wide and a mile or so long in mid-air over Manhattan at 1000 feet in broad daylight. Now you need a whole fleet of those invisible dirigibles, just to start.

Sorry. A hologram will not work. Think of something else more plausible. I suggest an airplane, but don't let me stifle your creativity.

Respectfully,
Myriad

An existing thread on military PSYOP use of holograms and voice morphing might be worth rekindling for advancing the subject of holograms.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6110905&postcount=50

 

[jammonius]

3:54 to 3:58 - does it for me - plane all the way.

In that one, the soundtrack accurately records the sound of people screaming, but appears not to have any sound consistent with a Boeing 767 @800ft244m@550mph885kph. No sound at all.

Further, the 3:54-3:58 mark shows an image gliding right through a steel, concrete and rebar structure without slowing, without degrading, without spreading any debris whatsoever.

Let me therefore asked you, do you recognize what you find "did it for you" is the functional equivalent of this:

 

[dafydd]

In that one, the soundtrack accurately records the sound of people screaming, but appears not to have any sound consistent with a Boeing 767 @800ft244m@550mph885kph. No sound at all.

Further, the 3:54-3:58 mark shows an image gliding right through a steel, concrete and rebar structure without slowing, without degrading, without spreading any debris whatsoever.

Let me therefore asked you, do you recognize what you find "did it for you" is the functional equivalent of this:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_road-runner-1_460.jpg?t=1278766867[/qimg][qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_road_runner2.jpg?t=1278766840[/qimg]

Argument by cartoon now!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If Truthers have 'proof' of a conspiracy, why haven't they taken this to the courts?

Judy Wood has tried several times and failed.

And when these guys start arguing with Road Runner cartoons it's pretty sad. I could sit all day staring at a brick wall and be more entertained by that than trying to convince a WTC/Pentagon no-plane conspiracist that said planes actually existed. I seriously don't know how you people are keeping your sanity intact with this guy.

 

[LashL]

Several posts have been moved to the DEW thread and several have been moved to AAH. If you really must continue to post in this thread, keep it civil and on-topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Nogbad]

In that one, the soundtrack accurately records the sound of people screaming, but appears not to have any sound consistent with a Boeing 767 @800ft244m@550mph885kph. No sound at all.

Further, the 3:54-3:58 mark shows an image gliding right through a steel, concrete and rebar structure without slowing, without degrading, without spreading any debris whatsoever.

Let me therefore asked you, do you recognize what you find "did it for you" is the functional equivalent of this:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_road-runner-1_460.jpg?t=1278766867[/qimg][qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_road_runner2.jpg?t=1278766840[/qimg]

Amateur videos and long distance sound vs short distance sound pick up are hugely variable. I would be more surprised if it picked up the sound of a jet far away but had no immediate vicinity sound track.

As to the impact, far from being faulty it looked spot on to me. So yes, convinced it was a plane.

 

[dafydd]

Judy Wood has tried several times and failed.

And when these guys start arguing with Road Runner cartoons it's pretty sad. I could sit all day staring at a brick wall and be more entertained by that than trying to convince a WTC/Pentagon no-plane conspiracist that said planes actually existed. I seriously don't know how you people are keeping your sanity intact with this guy.

It's a struggle,but somebody has to do it.

 

[jammonius]

Amateur videos and long distance sound vs short distance sound pick up are hugely variable. I would be more surprised if it picked up the sound of a jet far away but had no immediate vicinity sound track.

As to the impact, far from being faulty it looked spot on to me. So yes, convinced it was a plane.

OK, fair enough. I understand your rationalization and your justification for asserting your belief.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 1/18
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

Well, posters, no one tried to refute the claims that cast doubt on the reliability of Firefighter Casaliggi's claims. So, up until now, Carlitos' post # 1368 contains not one valid, verifiable witness.

Not to despair, though. One valid, verifiable witness has now emerged as shall be discussed below. First however, there are two from FUBAR newspaper sources that have to be discounted. Neither Peter Collins nor Carl Cuneff are reliably sourced witnesses. A review of what they actually said will also reveal anamolies, but it is useless to mention them as those who are bound and determined to support the common storyline of 9/11 have shown a tendency not to be able to identify anamolies, inconsistencies or out and out fabrications when it comes to 9/11, so it's useless to call attention to them, even though they are usually clear, apparent and plain as day.

Now onto Sean Cunniffe. He is a legitimately placed, validly sourced witness. He says he saw a plane and I do not dispute his claim. He is a valid witness. He and some others like him are one reason why I, personally, do not think it appropriate to claim all the videos are fake. There are valid and reliable witnesses who say they saw a plane and Sean Cunniffe is one of them.

That is why I think holograms or some other kind of deception technology has to be factored into the 9/11 equation.

1/18

Peter Collins

Another co-worker, Peter Collins, a vice-president at Rowland Communications, saw the second plane strike the second tower.
"As we're watching the building on fire, I saw this plane sweep over the bay and I knew it was from Newark," Collins said. "It kept climbing, and all of a sudden it just went into the building. There was a spectacular fire and then a few seconds later you heard a pop. It went directly towards it, never deviated."
He said the scene was surreal.
"You're so used to terrorism happening all around you and you become numb to it," Collins said. "You see the spectacular happening right in front of you and you're just like 'whoa.' "
http://www.esubjects.com/curric/gene...l_HardNews.pdf

Carl Cunneff

Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then we heard a loud roar and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. We heard the engines speed up as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball.
http://web.archive.org/web/200109142...4592-3,00.html

EMT SEAN CUNNIFFE
We were lined up on West Street, west side, right by the pedestrian bridge, between six and one, over here somewhere. I don't remember the supervisor's name, but they had us line up, put our stretchers and equipment on it. We were just waiting for further instruction.
As we were waiting there, counting the people jumping, that's when we saw the scope of it. We counted 39 people. It was sad. That's when it stopped being exciting and reality kicked in and we were hanging out.
The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life.
Q. Did you see the plane?
A. Yeah. We saw it, we heard it, we felt the heat from it, the debris. We ducked under a truck...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110164.PDF

 

[DGM]

Not to despair, though.............................

We're sorry, were you talking to us?

 

[dafydd]

We're sorry, were you talking to us?

Not any more,methinks.

 

[dafydd]

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 1/18
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

Well, posters, no one tried to refute the claims that cast doubt on the reliability of Firefighter Casaliggi's claims. So, up until now, Carlitos' post # 1368 contains not one valid, verifiable witness.

Not to despair, though. One valid, verifiable witness has now emerged as shall be discussed below. First however, there are two from FUBAR newspaper sources that have to be discounted. Neither Peter Collins nor Carl Cuneff are reliably sourced witnesses. A review of what they actually said will also reveal anamolies, but it is useless to mention them as those who are bound and determined to support the common storyline of 9/11 have shown a tendency not to be able to identify anamolies, inconsistencies or out and out fabrications when it comes to 9/11, so it's useless to call attention to them, even though they are usually clear, apparent and plain as day.

Now onto Sean Cunniffe. He is a legitimately placed, validly sourced witness. He says he saw a plane and I do not dispute his claim. He is a valid witness. He and some others like him are one reason why I, personally, do not think it appropriate to claim all the videos are fake. There are valid and reliable witnesses who say they saw a plane and Sean Cunniffe is one of them.

That is why I think holograms or some other kind of deception technology has to be factored into the 9/11 equation.

1/18

Peter Collins

Another co-worker, Peter Collins, a vice-president at Rowland Communications, saw the second plane strike the second tower.
"As we're watching the building on fire, I saw this plane sweep over the bay and I knew it was from Newark," Collins said. "It kept climbing, and all of a sudden it just went into the building. There was a spectacular fire and then a few seconds later you heard a pop. It went directly towards it, never deviated."
He said the scene was surreal.
"You're so used to terrorism happening all around you and you become numb to it," Collins said. "You see the spectacular happening right in front of you and you're just like 'whoa.' "
http://www.esubjects.com/curric/gene...l_HardNews.pdf

Carl Cunneff

Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then we heard a loud roar and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. We heard the engines speed up as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball.
http://web.archive.org/web/200109142...4592-3,00.html

EMT SEAN CUNNIFFE
We were lined up on West Street, west side, right by the pedestrian bridge, between six and one, over here somewhere. I don't remember the supervisor's name, but they had us line up, put our stretchers and equipment on it. We were just waiting for further instruction.
As we were waiting there, counting the people jumping, that's when we saw the scope of it. We counted 39 people. It was sad. That's when it stopped being exciting and reality kicked in and we were hanging out.
The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life.
Q. Did you see the plane?
A. Yeah. We saw it, we heard it, we felt the heat from it, the debris. We ducked under a truck...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110164.PDF

So now you admit that witnesses saw a plane? Quite right,they did and it was not a hologram.In the real world holograms of huge planes crashing into buildings can not be created with the wave of a computer keyboard.How long will this thread continue to go round in circles?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jam, let me hilite some parts which you choose to ignore:

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 1/18
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

Well, posters, no one tried to refute the claims that cast doubt on the reliability of Firefighter Casaliggi's claims. So, up until now, Carlitos' post # 1368 contains not one valid, verifiable witness.

Not to despair, though. One valid, verifiable witness has now emerged as shall be discussed below. First however, there are two from FUBAR newspaper sources that have to be discounted. Neither Peter Collins nor Carl Cuneff are reliably sourced witnesses. A review of what they actually said will also reveal anamolies, but it is useless to mention them as those who are bound and determined to support the common storyline of 9/11 have shown a tendency not to be able to identify anamolies, inconsistencies or out and out fabrications when it comes to 9/11, so it's useless to call attention to them, even though they are usually clear, apparent and plain as day.

Now onto Sean Cunniffe. He is a legitimately placed, validly sourced witness. He says he saw a plane and I do not dispute his claim. He is a valid witness. He and some others like him are one reason why I, personally, do not think it appropriate to claim all the videos are fake. There are valid and reliable witnesses who say they saw a plane and Sean Cunniffe is one of them.

That is why I think holograms or some other kind of deception technology has to be factored into the 9/11 equation.

1/18

Peter Collins

Another co-worker, Peter Collins, a vice-president at Rowland Communications, saw the second plane strike the second tower.
"As we're watching the building on fire, I saw this plane sweep over the bay and I knew it was from Newark," Collins said. "It kept climbing, and all of a sudden it just went into the building. There was a spectacular fire and then a few seconds later you heard a pop. It went directly towards it, never deviated."
He said the scene was surreal.
"You're so used to terrorism happening all around you and you become numb to it," Collins said. "You see the spectacular happening right in front of you and you're just like 'whoa.' "
http://www.esubjects.com/curric/gene...l_HardNews.pdf

Carl Cunneff

Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then we heard a loud roar and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. We heard the engines speed up as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball.
http://web.archive.org/web/200109142...4592-3,00.html

EMT SEAN CUNNIFFE
We were lined up on West Street, west side, right by the pedestrian bridge, between six and one, over here somewhere. I don't remember the supervisor's name, but they had us line up, put our stretchers and equipment on it. We were just waiting for further instruction.
As we were waiting there, counting the people jumping, that's when we saw the scope of it. We counted 39 people. It was sad. That's when it stopped being exciting and reality kicked in and we were hanging out.
The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life. Q. Did you see the plane? A. Yeah. We saw it, we heard it, we felt the heat from it, the debris. We ducked under a truck...http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110164.PDF

Thanks for showing us all that what you've provided has disproven your silly "No Plane" theory, Jam.

 

[djlunacee]

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 1/18
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

Well, posters, no one tried to refute the claims that cast doubt on the reliability of Firefighter Casaliggi's claims. So, up until now, Carlitos' post # 1368 contains not one valid, verifiable witness.

Not to despair, though. One valid, verifiable witness has now emerged as shall be discussed below. First however, there are two from FUBAR newspaper sources that have to be discounted. Neither Peter Collins nor Carl Cuneff are reliably sourced witnesses. A review of what they actually said will also reveal anamolies, but it is useless to mention them as those who are bound and determined to support the common storyline of 9/11 have shown a tendency not to be able to identify anamolies, inconsistencies or out and out fabrications when it comes to 9/11, so it's useless to call attention to them, even though they are usually clear, apparent and plain as day.

Now onto Sean Cunniffe. He is a legitimately placed, validly sourced witness. He says he saw a plane and I do not dispute his claim. He is a valid witness. He and some others like him are one reason why I, personally, do not think it appropriate to claim all the videos are fake. There are valid and reliable witnesses who say they saw a plane and Sean Cunniffe is one of them.

That is why I think holograms or some other kind of deception technology has to be factored into the 9/11 equation.

1/18

Peter Collins

Another co-worker, Peter Collins, a vice-president at Rowland Communications, saw the second plane strike the second tower.
"As we're watching the building on fire, I saw this plane sweep over the bay and I knew it was from Newark," Collins said. "It kept climbing, and all of a sudden it just went into the building. There was a spectacular fire and then a few seconds later you heard a pop. It went directly towards it, never deviated."
He said the scene was surreal.
"You're so used to terrorism happening all around you and you become numb to it," Collins said. "You see the spectacular happening right in front of you and you're just like 'whoa.' "
http://www.esubjects.com/curric/gene...l_HardNews.pdf

Carl Cunneff

Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then we heard a loud roar and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. We heard the engines speed up as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball.
http://web.archive.org/web/200109142...4592-3,00.html

EMT SEAN CUNNIFFE
We were lined up on West Street, west side, right by the pedestrian bridge, between six and one, over here somewhere. I don't remember the supervisor's name, but they had us line up, put our stretchers and equipment on it. We were just waiting for further instruction.
As we were waiting there, counting the people jumping, that's when we saw the scope of it. We counted 39 people. It was sad. That's when it stopped being exciting and reality kicked in and we were hanging out.
The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life.
Q. Did you see the plane?
A. Yeah. We saw it, we heard it, we felt the heat from it, the debris. We ducked under a truck...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110164.PDF

nope, no holograms, just planes. waiting for the part where you show us how these two were lying about what they saw and heard, as you imply.

 

[twinstead]

Jammonius, if a reliable and valid witness saw a plane, and you admit it, then perhaps you may need to at least recognize that since your alternative--some kind of impossible holographic projection--is far-fetched to the extreme, that maybe, juuuuust maybe, there might have been a BIG FREAKIN PLANE.

To think otherwise is just plain crazy, right?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

To think otherwise is just plain crazy, right?

Jam does think otherwise! You know how crazy people are, when they get an idea stuck in their head it's hard to get that idea out of them. But then again I like laughing at crazy people who think that holograms were the cause. Where's LT. Commander Data & Capt. Picard at? I wanna use the Holodeck to see how crazy this "hologram planes" theory really is. Oh wait, it is crazy!