• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it cannot be repeated often enough--the idea that the planes were faked using some kind of holographic technology is absolutely ludicrous.

I really don't know what else to say
 
MIKILLINI said:
But you do support projected images and Jammy supports you. Guilt by association..ever heard of it?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that Jammonius supports a projected image theory. He's ok in my book, even if he doesn't, because even I don't support it with serious conviction. It's just one way things could have gone down.
 
Parasite drag! Parasite drag! There, right there! You said it.

SUSpilot said:
I'd like a specific post, please, or an immediate retraction.

I have never agreed with that. I did suggest that there might be some wake turbulence caused by form and parasite drag, but that they'd be trivial in comparison with the wake turbulence caused by the lift generated by the wings. Further, I don't recall my saying that either would be dragged alnog with the aircraft. In fact, my description of wake turbulence is that it would be "laid down, something like paint off of a roller."
Click to expand...
 
MIKILLINI said:
Why? It's no different than me saying you don't know much about pharmaceuticals even though I have no pharmaceutical degree.

What you are doing is telling an expert they are wrong! Beachnut is an experienced pilot who has tremendous knowledge of airplane wakes and how they react. He is way more qualified in this field than you are.
Click to expand...

You might know something about pharmaceuticals. You don't know much about 9/11.
 
Why are you so sure the weapon would drain power from the NY State system?

Axxman300 said:
The Tupac holgram is state of the art. It ran about $400,000 to pull off. It was done at night under controled conditions. A hologram which can be visible from all angles in bright sunlight would require a bunch of laser tech which doesn't exist yet, plus a reliable power source. Then there would be the years of testing, the remote facility large enough to simulate the scale of lower Manhattan, and the large technical crew required to make this happen.




Trade secrets yes. Game changing scientific/technology developments - no.

The Theory of Evolution, the aeroplane, the combustion engine, the light bulb, AC & DC current generation, the PC, the Atomic Bomb, and even the Stealth Fighter were all things which were being developed independently in labs around the world. Often without the knowledge of each other.

The technology required to pull off the jetliner strikes on 9/11/2001 would have required multiple breakthroughs in technology. We have not seen those breakthroughs occur independently anywhere since 9/11/2001. So it's safe to say it never existed.




It would have been close. It would have been large. It would have required multiple mirror repeaters on roof-tops surrounding the WTC AND the approach to the island (requiring a could of cargo-type ships). In the thousands of pictures taken on 9/11 there is nothing to suggest the presence of a holographic projection system of any kind let alone a system large enough for your theory.

There were no reports of flash-blindness on 9/11 (to my knowledge) which would suggest accidental laser exposure either. Remember there were witnesses in the neighboring buildings and inside each tower. A hologram visible from the ground should have blinded a few people in higher elevations just from the sheer number of people.

Finally, when you talk about a holographic projection on the scale of 9/11 you can't ignore the power required. You can't depend on the NY power grid, and a drain of the wattage required would have been noticed by too many people who monitor the grid system. This means your evil cabal would have had their own generators, big ones, flat-bed-truck big. They would have require long, massive cables extending to the projection systems. Someone would have seen them or they would be obvious in photographs.





Yes you are.



Profit which would forever be at risk because someone would eventually discover the plot.

Meanwhile, as I said before, they used a fantastic technology which they could have used in the open to make themselves wealthy(er), with money they wouldn't have to hide, and the prestige of every scientific award up to and including the Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...
 
This thread has gone wildly off topic and requires a split/cleanup/both so it is being closed until a Mod has the time to do that. As always, do not start new threads on the same topic in the interim.
Posted By: LashL
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I have no idea why those people destroyed the WTC, but I suspect that profit could have been a motive.
Click to expand...
Add economics to those fields you need to study.

Gosh. We have this hologram generator that can fool millions of people into believing planes are smashing into buildings and the technology to synch that with explosives that look exactly like a plane has just blew through the building, spewing and igniting jet fuel, and even a cannon that shoots jet engines and wheel assemblies out perfectly timed with the hologram and explosions, oh yeah, and the sound generators to fool people a jetliner is screaming over Manhattan at 500 mph, and the image can be photographed and videotaped flawlessly from every angle, and fool radar tracking, and all this technology has to perform while the explosions are wracking the buildings, and we have to assemble then disassemble the whole apparatus, get it out of Manhattan (unless we have unlimited range and power ) and a directed energy weapon that can use this hurricane to power it to destroy half a dozen skyscrapers and some cars by foamificating steel.

The only problem is all this will leave a small chunk of material that we can hide in a hole next to a lamppost under cigarette butts. So long as a pharmacologist doesn't walk by years later, we should get away with it.

So let's crunch the numbers....developing the technology....hiring everyone in the world (except a certain pharmacologist and a bunch of conspiracy loons) to plant the explosives and run the operation and never tattle ...How many takes do we get?...ONE!? ...Hey, how much do 19 plane tickets cost?
 
Axxman300 said:
The Tupac holgram is state of the art. It ran about $400,000 to pull off. It was done at night under controled conditions. A hologram which can be visible from all angles in bright sunlight would require a bunch of laser tech which doesn't exist yet, plus a reliable power source. Then there would be the years of testing, the remote facility large enough to simulate the scale of lower Manhattan, and the large technical crew required to make this happen.




Trade secrets yes. Game changing scientific/technology developments - no.

The Theory of Evolution, the aeroplane, the combustion engine, the light bulb, AC & DC current generation, the PC, the Atomic Bomb, and even the Stealth Fighter were all things which were being developed independently in labs around the world. Often without the knowledge of each other.

The technology required to pull off the jetliner strikes on 9/11/2001 would have required multiple breakthroughs in technology. We have not seen those breakthroughs occur independently anywhere since 9/11/2001. So it's safe to say it never existed.




It would have been close. It would have been large. It would have required multiple mirror repeaters on roof-tops surrounding the WTC AND the approach to the island (requiring a could of cargo-type ships). In the thousands of pictures taken on 9/11 there is nothing to suggest the presence of a holographic projection system of any kind let alone a system large enough for your theory.

There were no reports of flash-blindness on 9/11 (to my knowledge) which would suggest accidental laser exposure either. Remember there were witnesses in the neighboring buildings and inside each tower. A hologram visible from the ground should have blinded a few people in higher elevations just from the sheer number of people.

Finally, when you talk about a holographic projection on the scale of 9/11 you can't ignore the power required. You can't depend on the NY power grid, and a drain of the wattage required would have been noticed by too many people who monitor the grid system. This means your evil cabal would have had their own generators, big ones, flat-bed-truck big. They would have require long, massive cables extending to the projection systems. Someone would have seen them or they would be obvious in photographs.





Yes you are.



Profit which would forever be at risk because someone would eventually discover the plot.

Meanwhile, as I said before, they used a fantastic technology which they could have used in the open to make themselves wealthy(er), with money they wouldn't have to hide, and the prestige of every scientific award up to and including the Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...

While there's nothing wrong with pointing out the specific problems behind the notion of holographic hoaxing during September 11th like you did here, we all have to admit that there's nothing really substantive in such claims to begin with. Regardless of the technical issues refuting such proposals, it's still true that there's yet to be a hologram technology that
  1. Actually causes physical damage to buildings
  2. Leaves behind debris, as well as human remains.
  3. Is detectable on radar from soon after takeoff to mere moments before impact (in both cases, only losing contact when the jets descended below a certain altitude).
Anyone who tries to forward the holograms argument regarding Flights 11 and 175 are willfully ignoring the multiple, converging lines of evidence that includes all that as well as the airfone calls, the events in the FAA and NEADS control rooms, and so on.

Again, though, there's no problem with pointing out the specific issues with the technology. I'm merely pointing out that's it's not the only line of argument refuting the claim. Multiple ones exist and reinforce each other, and above and beyond that are not sufficiently responded to by the claimants. That's why the claim fails in the end.
 
Pantaz said:
It wasn't actually a hologram:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/329404/20120417/tupac-hologram-works-pepper-s-ghost-musion.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...logram-works/2012/04/18/gIQA1ZVyQT_story.html
Click to expand...

That's what I thought was going on. I wonder if that's how the Gorillaz/Madonna Grammies appearance was done.

Ok so in order to have the "Holoplanes" they simply need to have a series of sheets of glass suspended in the sky from...helicopters? Which are covered with mirrors reflecting blue sky. They also need some sort of "whisper-drive" so no-one hears a buncha helos they can't see.. or a white noise generator to cover the sound. C'mon, this isn't so hard.
 
WTC Dust said:
You might know something about pharmaceuticals. You don't know much about 9/11.
Click to expand...

Wow..just Wow! Dodging facts, playing ignorant, skipping over posts that prove you wrong and trolling is all you've done here. Typical twoof tactics.

You know nothing about holograms, wakes caused by airplanes, physics, fire, steel elasticity, gravity, and common sense. You only pretend to be knowledgeable in your arguments, but fail miserably when experts point out facts to you.

You debunk yourself foolish girl.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
While there's nothing wrong with pointing out the specific problems behind the notion of holographic hoaxing during September 11th like you did here, we all have to admit that there's nothing really substantive in such claims to begin with. Regardless of the technical issues refuting such proposals, it's still true that there's yet to be a hologram technology that
  1. Actually causes physical damage to buildings
  2. Leaves behind debris, as well as human remains.
  3. Is detectable on radar from soon after takeoff to mere moments before impact (in both cases, only losing contact when the jets descended below a certain altitude).
Anyone who tries to forward the holograms argument regarding Flights 11 and 175 are willfully ignoring the multiple, converging lines of evidence that includes all that as well as the airfone calls, the events in the FAA and NEADS control rooms, and so on.

Again, though, there's no problem with pointing out the specific issues with the technology. I'm merely pointing out that's it's not the only line of argument refuting the claim. Multiple ones exist and reinforce each other, and above and beyond that are not sufficiently responded to by the claimants. That's why the claim fails in the end.
Click to expand...

There's a perfect storm of unknown technology at work here, there's the holograms, the dustification/foamification ray and the energy from the hurricane thingy.

Any of these would be paradigm breaking.
 
fess said:
There are several pilots on this forum, none of which will agree with you. Where in hell did you get this ridiculous idea from? Getting high is not necessarily flying.:)
Click to expand...

She apparently 'heard' about the boundary layer and decided to misinterpret what the boundary layer is ....
 
JohnG said:
Scientists spitballing ideas? What is that proof of? To take another example, I don't doubt that visual effects artists were thinking about the possibilities of CGI back in the sixties, but it doesn't follow that they were capable of creating Jurassic Park-level effects back in 1967.

And I notice that you perversely debunked your own argument by going out of your way to quote this...




Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash real planes into the buildings?
Click to expand...

Good point, John. It would have been simpler to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, but it wouldn't have been as secure, and it wouldn't have been capable of destroying the World Trade Center.

Why did I mention security? I will elaborate. The scenario I'm speaking of has a single technician or a single team controlling a single weapon that used electromagnetic energy to destroy the WTC at low temperature. A second technician, team, or possibly the same small team, control the equipment that projects a flying image of an airplane into the sky. (note 1) I'm talking about a secret weapon. You need a small team in order to keep the secret. A large conspiracy with many players has very little chance of success, if secret-keeping is required.

My scenario has two small teams accomplishing both the actual destruction of the WTC and the production of the cover story. They messed up. They didn't include an impact at the south face of WTC 2. They didn't disturb the air around the WTC consistent with an jet airplane flight. They allowed a "nose-out" of the projected image on the north side of WTC 2. We busted their asses, because they didn't get it right.

We also busted their asses on the impossibility of a fragile aluminum air-boat smashing through incredibly strong steel beams, but most people aren't skeptical, so they get a win on that one. They convinced most people that "it could happen." But still, a few people controlling a couple of pieces of machinery is a small conspiracy, one that is relatively secure compared to the sprawling conspiracy accepted by most people.

Second point on security is that, even if four hijackings were to take place successfully, hitting both WTC buildings isn't a guarantee. There is added risk to using planes compared to using a projected image of a plane + energy weapon. The planes might not meet their intended targets.

There is a strong likelihood that the planes would fail to impact their intended target and hit the wrong building. Plus, you'd still have some planes at the end of the day. Forensic scientists would have pieced the planes together, etc.

I think I've elaborated at length before about the impossibility of success of a plane crash model, so I won't do it here.
 
Note 1: I have actually made a cartoon of the small conspiracy scenario. I'll try and start a separate thread.
 
WTC Dust said:
Good point, John. It would have been simpler to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, but it wouldn't have been as secure, and it wouldn't have been capable of destroying the World Trade Center.

Why did I mention security? I will elaborate. The scenario I'm speaking of has a single technician or a single team controlling a single weapon that used electromagnetic energy to destroy the WTC at low temperature. A second technician, team, or possibly the same small team, control the equipment that projects a flying image of an airplane into the sky. (note 1) I'm talking about a secret weapon. You need a small team in order to keep the secret. A large conspiracy with many players has very little chance of success, if secret-keeping is required.

My scenario has two small teams accomplishing both the actual destruction of the WTC and the production of the cover story. They messed up. They didn't include an impact at the south face of WTC 2. They didn't disturb the air around the WTC consistent with an jet airplane flight. They allowed a "nose-out" of the projected image on the north side of WTC 2. We busted their asses, because they didn't get it right.

We also busted their asses on the impossibility of a fragile aluminum air-boat smashing through incredibly strong steel beams, but most people aren't skeptical, so they get a win on that one. They convinced most people that "it could happen." But still, a few people controlling a couple of pieces of machinery is a small conspiracy, one that is relatively secure compared to the sprawling conspiracy accepted by most people.

Second point on security is that, even if four hijackings were to take place successfully, hitting both WTC buildings isn't a guarantee. There is added risk to using planes compared to using a projected image of a plane + energy weapon. The planes might not meet their intended targets.

There is a strong likelihood that the planes would fail to impact their intended target and hit the wrong building. Plus, you'd still have some planes at the end of the day. Forensic scientists would have pieced the planes together, etc.

I think I've elaborated at length before about the impossibility of success of a plane crash model, so I won't do it here.
Click to expand...

OK. Show us an unaltered photo of what the disturbance in the air caused by the passage of a 757 at roughly 500 KTAS would look like. Temperature and humidity the same as that of New York City at approximately 1300Z on 9/11/2001, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom