Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Would like to put my two bob’s worth in if I may.
It has always intrigued me how an aircraft could just ‘bury’ itself into a building. Maybe there is someone out there who could explain this to me.
I have a long history working with heavy earthmoving machinery, including manufacture of ground engaging components, steel rakes and timber handling equipment for bulldozers etc. So I do have a little bit of an idea of metal construction though do not have any engineering qualifications.
I have absolutely no knowledge of aircraft construction / manufacture, maybe there is someone out there who could enlighten me in this matter. I assume, aircraft wings, and tail for that matter, are manufactured of a lightweight material, maybe aluminium.
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.
I understand how the villosity of impact could amount to an aircraft being able to penetrate the buildings to a certain degree, but I don’t understand how it could be completely ‘buried’ into the building. I can’t see how the wing tips would penetrate a steel construction let alone the tail section doing the same thing, disappearing into the building that is.
I think, someone help me out here, the tail of these aircraft, that reportedly hit the towers, stands quite a bit higher than the fuselage of the craft, would not the tail section of the aircraft be travelling at quite a reduced speed than the nose of the craft on impact, making it just about impossible to have enough villosity to enter the building, acknowledging the impact area of the tail is quite higher than the hole in the building where the fuselage entered. Would not the tail be left on the outside of the building?
I realise the explosion prevents us seeing much of what happens when the aircraft impacts the tower, maybe there is someone out there who is skilled enough to be able to ‘slow’ the film down so as to be able to see the wings and tail section enter the building. My thoughts are, these lightweight sections of the aircraft would have to break away from the fuselage on impact, not disappear into the building.
Maybe I have all this wrong, just a thought.
(no thoughts on hologram’s, that stuff is way beyond me)

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Basically, the speed at which the aircraft were travelling at the time, coupled with the lightwieght materials and inherant flexibility of the wing design means that as the wings meet the outer structure of the tower, they kinda fold back, therefore not penetrating in the horizontal manner i think you imagine.

As for the tail sction the same is true there. The "fin" itself folds down when it impacts. It helps if you can imagine the mechanics of an arrow with a feather flight. the main shaft, or fuselage, of the arrow is a semi-rigid construct, it can crumple as they did on 9/11, but essentially they pierce the body(tower) they impact. Then imagine the flights as the wings, they are lighweight in nature and will fold back to the body of the arrow allowing them to pass thorugh the body(tower) without having to create their own channel with which to pass through.

This means that you won't see the wings/tail section make extra holes or damage as they are essentially folding back to pass through the hole made by the main fuselage section.

Hope this clears up you question, if not, i'll be glad to help

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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.

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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.

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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.

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...dimensions.gif

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.

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdci...c/spandrel.jpg

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.

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.:shocked:

Sure.

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.

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Here's the overall WTC area:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/FEMA...parts-full.jpg

A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70...panel-full.jpg

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Callidon

It's you who trivialize the fact finding process. Where are these "thousands of eyewitnesses" you are talking about? Where is their witness testimony located? What background check did any of these witnesses pass? Who conducted the interviews and cross-examination?

Keep looking at the plane-shape holes and make believe; it's your prerogative.



-feeler

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

"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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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?

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Ah... nevermind. :lol3:

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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.

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.

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

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

:wink2:

EDIT:

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-69...tor-s-full.jpg



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


-feeler

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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?

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

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

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Dear feeler: feel sorry for someone that can't tell the hind end of a woman with her toes pointing forward...black slacks with black shoes form a leg. when the butt of a person is facing the camera it usually means that the toes are pointing the other way....

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

I think the victims families would like to know the truth. If there is evidence that the planes were not real they would want to know that. Didn't you see the early version of loose Change where 2 of the planes were still flying by the seial number on the tail. The idea of saving the families from more misery was used to stop an investigation of 9 /11 in the first place. The groups representing the victims are not telling anyone they should be ashamed of themselves for bringing forth evidence. They want it all out. There is probably as much evidence (including Operation Northwoods) that there were no planes.

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Well put...You talk about victims, but were they killed in an explosion or murdered by our gov? A guy comes forward and says holograms...ok but he didn't dot all the i's. I don't think for a second that if the gov was willing to kill a few thousand for this and let him talk freely without an accident befalling him. Come on folks let's wake up and use our heads.

The man that called home just before his plane went down, I am refering to the "let's go guy" that the movie was made around, I saw him in vision 9 months before it happened and believe that was a real hijacking situation. I also saw large winged missles hitting the WTO in the same vision. visions can be very enlightening but are not hard evidence.

No, the real truth is still out there and we need to keep looking.

Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing?
 

Either way this is pretty interesting.I kinda feel bad now for thinking John Lear was a nutball.
True or not....this was done by The American Government.Its just a matter of finding out how the hell they did it.