Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-12-2012, 01:35 AM   #1
thinker2
Senior Member
 
thinker2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Flight 175 Hologram

Flight 175 Hologram

The image speaks for it's self.



The only alterations I have made are the text and strawberry.

The source of the video was a Christian Cinema (NetFlix) about the victims of 9/11.

peace

I have cropped the image to make it fit the thread for easier reading.

peace
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!

Last edited by thinker2; 23-12-2012 at 04:28 AM.
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 01:59 AM   #2
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
Flight 175 Hologram

The image speaks for it's self.



The only alterations I have made are the text and strawberry.

The source of the video was a Christian Cinema (NetFlix) about the victims of 9/11.

peace
The technology doesn't exist for a so called hologram to be projected in broad daylight so that every withness in Manhattan would see the same 3-D image from their own perspective, therefore the hologram meme is nothing more than a distraction that can only benefit the media that broadcast fraudulent images as genuine on live TeeVee.

Quote:
Q: Can you project a hologram? A: This question is similar to the Star Wars hologram question. Depictions of holography have included fantasy methods for “projecting” a free standing image out into free space. Early in the history of holography, experiments were attempted using special screens and projection systems but they were expensive, of limited utility and so, abandoned. In other words....No.

Q: Can Holograms be viewed: in sunlight? at night? under water? with a candle or lighter? using night vision goggles? A: These lighting situations are not the preferred illumination source. Z-Scape prints are best viewed with point source illumination. Our lighting kits include appropriate sources. Narrow Flood/MR 16 incandescent lamps are good sources as well as our Green LED flashlights and fixtures.
http://forums.zebraimaging.com/faq.p...eral_holgraphy

More here:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram5.htm

Last edited by yankee451; 23-12-2012 at 05:45 AM.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 02:10 AM   #3
thinker2
Senior Member
 
thinker2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

We have just been told the definitive word on holograms, no one anywhere in the world knows more about holograms than this source. (NOT)

Well I guess you have to choose:

Do you believe what you see or do you believe what you are told?

For me; seeing is believing.

Before I saw this video I was a hologram skeptic.

peace
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!

Last edited by thinker2; 23-12-2012 at 02:16 AM.
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 02:18 AM   #4
ponzi nemesis
Senior Member
 
ponzi nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Colchester
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Very interesting. My favourite theory has been that the floors behind the exoskeleton that the 'planes' hit were missing, so that, in effect, from a structural point of view all the 'planes' would have to do to disappear into the buildings would be to pop some bolts and break some glass.

This allows the 'planes' to be actual aeroplanes, perhaps remote controlled (i.e. a 'drone'), and still disappear into the buildings hot-knife-into-butter. This seems more plausible, and has more evidence; you may have read about the book written as the result of what was said to be an art project, where someone on floor 91 of WTC1 described the ten missing floors above him. There have also been lots of posts, particularly on the 'Let's Roll' forum, where people argue that photographs of the towers show how the floors were missing; they are quite convincing.

Chasing for 'the truth' is like a dog chasing it's tail, however...
__________________
What is 'reality'?
ponzi nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 03:00 AM   #5
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
We have just been told the definitive word on holograms, no one anywhere in the world knows more about holograms than this source. (NOT)

Well I guess you have to choose:

Do you believe what you see or do you believe what you are told?

For me; seeing is believing.

Before I saw this video I was a hologram skeptic.

peace
Perhaps a little research can help make you less of a hologram believer.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 03:51 AM   #6
thinker2
Senior Member
 
thinker2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

It may not have occurred to you so I will explain:

You seem to know what I do not, but instead of presenting what you can prove, you want me to abandon the photographic evidence I have posted and go in search of something I may never find.

Here is an idea; show me what you can prove, not hearsay, rather than telling me to go looking for something that you have not and I must assume can not show me.

This is not brain surgery, computer or rocket science; it's a photograph showing NO visible damage to the facade of the South Tower with flight 175 buried half way in the building.

peace
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!

Last edited by thinker2; 23-12-2012 at 04:16 AM.
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 04:09 AM   #7
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
It may not have occurred to you so I will explain:

You seem to know what I do not, but instead of presenting what you can prove, you want me to abandon the photographic evidence I have posted and go in search of something I may never find.

Here is an idea; show me what you can prove, not hearsay, rather than telling me to go looking for something that you have not and I must assume can not show me.

peace
Why so prickly?

All I'm suggesting is to verify what you think you believe is even possible, at least to better understand the technology. I posted two links to sites that explain how holograms work, hopefully to give you an idea what would be involved behind pulling such an illusion in broad daylight, but I have only led the horse to water as it were.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 04:40 AM   #8
thinker2
Senior Member
 
thinker2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Why so prickly?

All I'm suggesting is to verify what you think you believe is even possible, at least to better understand the technology. I posted two links to sites that explain how holograms work, hopefully to give you an idea what would be involved behind pulling such an illusion in broad daylight, but I have only led the horse to water as it were.
I accept that as a refusal.

PS. It is not possible to prove the technology does not exist, it is only possible to prove it does exist. The photo above is evidence suggesting the technology does exist.

peace
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 05:29 AM   #9
progenitor04
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 182
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
Flight 175 Hologram

The image speaks for it's self.



The only alterations I have made are the text and strawberry.

The source of the video was a Christian Cinema (NetFlix) about the victims of 9/11.

peace

I have cropped the image to make it fit the thread for easier reading.

peace
ive been sayin this for a while now i didnt need proof i knew it... this is proof
progenitor04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 05:38 AM   #10
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
I accept that as a refusal.

PS. It is not possible to prove the technology does not exist, it is only possible to prove it does exist. The photo above is evidence suggesting the technology does exist.

peace
Or - you saw a picture you don't understand and chose to explain it with technology you dont understand.

Here are a couple other explanations using technology known to exist:


http://yankee451.com/2012/02/29/green-screen-magic/

Last edited by yankee451; 23-12-2012 at 04:36 PM.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 05:41 AM   #11
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by progenitor04 View Post
ive been sayin this for a while now i didnt need proof i knew it... this is proof
How were the gashes cut?
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 03:14 PM   #12
sidlittle
Senior Member
 
sidlittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 308 (97 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Or - you saw a picture you don't understand and chose to explain it with technology you dont understand.

Here are a couple other explanations using technology known to exist:

Ghostplane Theory: Plane Crashes Were Faked? - YouTube

Green Screen Magic
Your green screen link doesn't seem to work.
From memory I think it is this vid..
sidlittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 04:42 PM   #13
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidlittle View Post
Your green screen link doesn't seem to work.
From memory I think it is this vid..
Be warned of Digital Deception - YouTube
Fixed - i shouldn't post in my sleep. Thanks for the heads up.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 05:07 PM   #14
thinker2
Senior Member
 
thinker2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Fixed - i shouldn't post in my sleep. Thanks for the heads up.
You shouldn't reading in your sleep too.

I said there were two ways this image could have been achieved:

Both methods require that the plain has no mass (not a physical airplane).

You have presented one and I have presented the other, but for your method (computer animation) to be correct there would have to be NO witnesses to the Flight 175 crash in New York City or New Jersey. I am not willing to make such a claim.

peace
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!

Last edited by thinker2; 23-12-2012 at 05:10 PM.
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 05:20 PM   #15
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
You shouldn't reading in your sleep too.

I said there were two ways this image could have been achieved:

Both methods require that the plain has no mass (not a physical airplane).

You have presented one and I have presented the other, but for your method (computer animation) to be correct there would have to be NO witnesses to the Flight 175 crash in New York City or New Jersey. I am not willing to make such a claim.

peace
Yes, you were so close but you chose to ignore all the evidence that eliminates a technology you can't even describe, and you're assuming there WERE witnesses to a jet impact, but you ignore the fact a real jet can't do such a thing in the real world. This is called "circular logic". Jet's can't do it, and holograms can't be projected, and they don't work in broad daylight anyway - so that leaves faked video.

I know you don't like to do your own research and expect me to feed it to you, so here's something else you can ignore:

Quote:
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
What Witnesses?
What Witnesses?
(A debate excerpt)
by Gerard Holmgren
Because the plane huggers always lie about my position, I will make it quite clear before I start with the
documentation. (The planehuggers will still lie anyway about what I said, but it will be easier to catch them at it, if I
say this clearly right here)
I'm not claiming that the witness evidence proves any particular kind of object. What I'm pointing out is that it does
*not* confirm a large jet. I am posting this in response to the endless cries of “thousands of witnesses” from plane
huggers who can't supply any, and who make wild reckless claims like
[[can you provide proof of *ONE* individual that said they saw a missile ?]]
[[But in this case, you cannot name ONE witness who says he saw a missile ?]]
The witness evidence doesn't tell us a whole lot about what it was, but what it tells us plenty about what it wasn't.
My position on this is the same as when I wrote the Pentagon witness article in June 2002.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html
I never claimed that the witness evidence proved one thing or another . I just said that it did *not* confirm a large
jet. This is also what I'm saying here. Now lets watch the planehuggers lie again “Holmgren claims that the
witness evidence proves it was a missile…”
Planehuggers ,being the sort of people who believe in 767s with 90 degree angle wings which do snapping karate
strikes on buildings, are unable to distinguish between “proves the opposite” and “doesn't prove anything”. Or if
their plane addled brains can manage to come to terms with this concept then they just lie about what I wrote.
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/cnn091101.html
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went
out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I
went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of
the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching.
LIN: Jeanne, we are continuing to look at pictures of this devastating scene, according to Sean Murtagh, vice
president of finance, who witnessed what he described as a twin-engine plane, possibly a 737. e was almost
absolutely sure it was a large passenger jet that went into that.
Jeanne, you are saying you didn't see anything initially. You didn't see a plane approach the building?
YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I
Evidence Kit Doublethink Salter Debates Articles Debate COINTELPRO
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange….
…LIN: Fortunately so. When you say a sonic boom, did you feel anything? Were things shaking in your
apartment?
YURMAN: Yes, you could feel it. It was a gigantic sonic boom. The TV went off for a second and went back on.
And the windows -- you felt the vibrations on the windows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of passenger jet makes a sonic boom, apart from the concorde ? And she heard it well before the
impact. In time to look out the window before the impact. And saw no plane and had “no idea” that a plane was
involved. Why would a passenger jet cause a power disruption – before the impact ?
http://www.andovertownsman.com/news/...20/FP_002.html
"There was a power surge. The lights flickered. I looked outside and I looked at the towers and all of a sudden
the whole top of the North Tower just burst into flames," she says.
I wasn't even sure it was a plane initially. I thought it was a missile attack. Most of the time you hear a plane at an
airport they're landing or taking off and they're not at full throttle.
http://www.pacepress.org/news/2002/0...The.Thinkable-
269953.shtml
I turned right to hear their response; just then I heard a sonic boom. I turned back and saw the second tower
engulfed in flames.
http://www.contactpressimages.com/se...c_journal.html
That's when we heard the crack of what sounded like a sonic boom and looked up.
It happened quickly. Later, after, time would bend and twist like the wreckage itself; seconds becoming minutes,
minutes seconds, and hours swept and snapped into different time signatures like modern jazz. But in that first
instant, it was fast. A glimpse. A speeding black projectile, maybe two, shooting from left to right into the side of
World Trade Center One.
A very accurate description of Blobs 11 as it appears on the video. A 767 (complete with sonic boom and power
surge) would be described as "A speeding black projectile , maybe two" ?
http://216.239.57.104/search?
q=cache:YXERDD56OF0J:http://www.nightlybusiness.org/trans...crpt091401.htm
HARDWICK SIMMONS, CEO, NASDAQ: It's a terrifying story, Susie. I was sitting there at about quarter of nine
in the morning and all of a sudden a kind of a sonic boom went right off over my head.
So, plenty of support for a sonic boom. Heh, but since in planehugger land, 767s have 90 degree angle wings
enabling them to hit the tower flush, why not a 767 which flies at supersonic speed? Anything is possible in
planehugger land. Except the idea that the media and Govt lied.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/u...ts_030828.html
WTC Ch. 07
MALE: Either … either a plane crashed into the Trade Center, or a rocket hit the Trade Center. And, uh, people
are all over the place, dead.
… MALE A: The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building. And the second
one they think is an airplane that was circling to watch it, and hit the World Trade.
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
INSPECTOR: One more question. Why do you think it might be an airplane?
PAPD RAY MURRAY: Uh, that's what one of the units, uh, said over the air. That's all. That's the only reason I
say that.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/attacko...143_headline=-
WE-ARE-ALL-F---ING-DYING-IN-HERE-name_page.html
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/us/graham.html
A medium size or small plane flies very low overhead – straight into the north tower of the World Trade. There is
no way to think of it. He stares. Is it real? It is burning three quarters of the way up the building. It must be real,
but it cannot be. It flew very low overhead. He stares at it and shouts to everyone who can hear him, Come out
right away!
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abc911.htm
I would say 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago, there was a loud sound that I can only describe it--it sounded like a
missile, not an airplane.
SAWYER: And am I right? Are you a pilot?
DAHLER: Well, I have flown. I do not have a pilot's license, but I--I grew up on military bases. and I know the
sounds of jets. And--and I've been in war zones and--and heard those kinds of different sounds. So, again, not to
cause any kind of undue speculation but the sound itself was not of a prop plane. It was perhaps a jet. But it could
have been a missile as well.
GIBSON: Can you give me--was it--was it a whining sound, Don, or what?
DAHLER: Yes. It was--it was a--how to describe it. It was a high pitch, but it had a--a--a whooshing sound. Not--
not like a prop plane…
Mr. ARRAKI: I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside. A small
plane.
GIBSON: You say small plane. Was it a jet?
Mr. ARRAKI: Excuse me?
GIBSON: Was it a jet plane?
Mr. ARRAKI: No, no. It was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane--small plane, you know. It
was that kind of plane.
GIBSON: You mean like a small single or double-engine prop plane?
Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. Double-engine, yeah, yeah, yeah.
GIBSON: Right. And it actually went into the building there on the upper floors?
Mr. ARRAKI: Yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something--I don't know, it's
like they work with the motors--I never saw a plane like that before! Yeah!
GIBSON: And did you see the second plane come in?
Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my
head like that I saw the side, too.
GIBSON: And that second plane much larger than the first?
Mr. ARRAKI: Same. Same, two both. Both same.
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
GIBSON: They're both the same?
Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah.
GIBSON: Because the pictures we see, the second plane looks rather large.
Mr. ARRAKI: No, is going inside, too. Is going inside the building, too. And the second hole it's smaller than the
other one.
GIBSON: And it actually also penetrated the building? You could see it go in?
Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah, inside. Inside, inside. No planes outside, no planes.
So here we see exactly what I was talking about. The witness says small plane (and very strange looking) and
the reporter, influenced by the TV replay of the second strike pressures him to say that the second one was
bigger, but the witness resists.
http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abc911.htm
(here, bear in mind that Gibson and Sawyer are in the studio watching on monitors and Dahler is actually at the
scene watching live)
Don Dahler--ABC's Don Dahler, who is on the scene--Don, just give me some description again of what you're--
what you can see now.
DAHLER: Well, we see--it appears that there is more and more fire and smoke enveloping the very top of the
building, and as fire crews are descending on this area, it--it does not appear that there's any kind of an effort up
there yet, now remember--Oh, my God!
SAWYER: Oh, my God! Oh, my God!
GIBSON: That looks like a second plane has just hit ...
SAWYER: Terrible!
DAHLER: I didn't see a plane go in. That--that just exploded. I...
GIBSON: We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
DAHLER: You did? I was--that was obscured from my view.
GIBSON: That second explosion, you could see the plane come in just from the right-hand side of the screen, so
this looks like it is some sort of a...
SAWYER: Oh, my!
GIBSON: ...concerted effort to attack the World Trade Center that is under way in downtown New York.
SAWYER: We will see that scene again just to make sure we saw what we thought we saw.
GIBSON: We're going to give you a replay of what we just saw, and I--I must admit, I thought it was some sort of
fire equipment or some sort of observation plane, but it was obviously designed to attack the World Trade Center.
We're going to show you that--here's a replay of the videotape.
(Replay of videotape shown)
GIBSON: In a second, that looks like a good-sized plane, came in and hit the World Trade Center from the other
side. So this is obviously, or would seem to be, and again I'm dealing in speculation, but it would seem like there
is a concerted attack against one of the towers of the World Trade Center under way.
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
SAWYER: We had seen a plane coming in from the other direction earlier. I had noticed it. Had you, Charlie? I
didn't know if that plane had been circled wide and came back from another direction, but we all watched it, and I
just assumed...
GIBSON: Don, could you hear that? Could you hear that plane as it came in?
DAHLER: I did not hear that plane, but I had to step inside the window because the fire crews were so loud--the
sirens--that I couldn't hear you.
GIBSON: I got you.
DAHLER: I did see the explosion, but the side of the building that the plane entered was just outside of my view,
so all I saw was this huge fireball and the explosion.
GIBSON: Well, the shot that we've got is now just from one side of the World Trade Center, but this is the shot
again--this is moments ago of this--of this second plane coming in, and this is now in slow motion.
(Replay of videotape shown)
GIBSON: Ah, this is terrifying--awful.
SAWYER: We watch powerless. It's a horror.
GIBSON: All right, we're going to go back to live coverage now. You're looking at live pictures, and there is the
second fire, which was brought about by this second plane that hit the tower, and Don, from everything I can see,
it was the same tower that was hit the first time, right?
DAHLER: No, it's the second tower. It is the...
GIBSON: It's the other tower.
DAHLER: It is the other tower that was hit.
GIBSON: My mistake.
DAHLER: They targeted--from your--from what I'm seeing on television, from your view, they are--the two towers
are in--one is in front of the other one, but it was definitely the second tower that was hit about halfway down, not
quite as high, and from my view here, it does not seem to be as--as big, as much damage as the original. It--I
don't know if that means it was not as big a plane or what. I did not see the plane go in, but it's--I mean, it's
horrendous damage, but it doesn't seem to be the gaping hole through two sides of the building like on the first
one.
SAWYER: Don, from your vantage point, can you see if there are people coming out down below?
DAHLER: I don't--I can't see the bottom of the base of the building.
GIBSON: There's the wider shot of the two towers now. Both towers have been hit by planes now in the last halfhour,
and again, I say, we are--we are totally powerless in knowing what's going on here, except that it would
obviously appear this is--can't be a coincidence like this. It would, obviously, be some sort of a concerted attack
against both towers of the World Trade Center. This is--again, we're going to show for the third time this tape of
the--of the airplane flying in and hitting the World Trade Center.
(Replay of videotape shown)
GIBSON: This is slo-mo, slow motion of the plane coming in and hitting the obscured second tower of the World
Trade Center, and you can see flames coming out. And I can't see the plane coming down. You know, if it just...
DAHLER: Charlie, that's a commercial size jet. That is--that did not look like...
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
GIBSON: No, that's a good-sized airplane. That's...
DAHLER: Yeah, that is--that is not a little commuter plane. That was a good-sized jet.
GIBSON: And I can't tell if it actually flew into the building or if it just clipped it with a wing. And if it did, of course,
then there's the frightening prospect that the plane would have crashed right on the streets of--very busy streets
of New York.
DAHLER: Yeah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, the studio reporter saw the plane on the monitor, the witness on the spot did not see a plane. Before
anything can be reasonably discussed, the witness who thinks there was no plane gets a replay shoved in his
face. Understandably enough, he assumes that it must have been obscured from his view. What else would he
think ? This is the *exact scenario* which I mention in the "why they didn't use planes" scenario. They didn't need
to. It was seen live on TV, and anybody who didn't see a large jet was convinced that they just missed it or didn't
see it properly. Except for Mr Arraki, and nobody takes any notice of him.
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/cnn091101.html
Dr. J., what can you tell us?
DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.
I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the
top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller
plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second,
and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible,
that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center. ..
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific,
some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might
keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.
KAGAN: Were you close enough to see or get a general idea of what kind of plane that was that flew in the
second time?
TRACTSONBURG: Well, I'm not an expert on planes, but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was smaller
type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...hen/html/1.stm
I distinctly remember somebody saying: "A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit."
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock052402.asp
"I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile.
http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/wtc.html
I stood immobilized, watching the flames.
Then there was an explosion, and fragments of glass rained down on my head. I saw a huge hole in the roof of a
building two blocks from the World Trade Center. I thought there were incoming projectiles of some kind, missiles
or mortar rounds, and began running away from the burning buildings
http://www.wfn.org/2001/09/msg00170.html
911 Closeup
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84[6/25/2012 11:29:58 PM]
McGaughey was at his desk at the 217 Broadway location when he heard "what
sounded like a missile"…Someone from the other side of the building reported that
he had seen what appeared to be a missile going into the tower in a reflection on his computer screen.
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...1/backyard.asp
Victor Rao had just stepped off the elevator on the 11th floor of a building a block away at the corner of Murray
and Church streets, humming a "silly Beatles song," when he heard a sound like a low-flying plane.
"I turned and said to my friend, 'Man, that plane is flying low,' " he recalled hours later. "Before I could even get
the last word out, it hit the side of the building and just blew the other side out."
Rao, a 40-year-old account executive for an export company, called his wife at work and told her he thought a
missile had just hit the World Trade Center. He soon learned from the radio that it had been a jetliner.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website
are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or
educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the
original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the
original sources.

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84

The companion piece to your hologram conviction is the gash in the tower. How did they cut the gash?

Last edited by yankee451; 23-12-2012 at 05:59 PM.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 08:24 PM   #16
thinker2
Senior Member
 
thinker2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 733
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Again, you can not prove something does not exists, it can only be proven if it exists.

The photo at the top is proof of one of two things; Hologram or Computer Graphics Animation.

A copied and pasted transcript is slightly more credible than your opinion.

I have watched both videos above and read all the comments.

The way to prove you are correct is to show that people did not see what they thought was Flight 175 slam into the South Tower.

Nowhere have I herd of or seen a video showing a gaping hole open up in the South Tower with no impact visible, which is what would have had to happen in reality for your Computer Graphics scenario to have occurred. Do you have any evidence to support this occurring?

I repeat; I have not ignored anything you have written, I am just not convinced you are correct.

My background includes CAD/CAM computer graphics, animation, and engineering. I know what computers are capable of, but that does not mean I know everything computers or holograms can do for Black Ops.

peace
__________________
Don't FIX anything, Wake-Up, Grow-Up, and Energize Peace!
1. Wake-Up: Recognize the deception; discover your contribution
2. Grow-Up: Be responsible; stop deceiving yourself and others
3. Energize Peace: Apply your energy to loving and peaceful pursuits

Everything is FIXED by virtue of Waking-Up!

Last edited by thinker2; 23-12-2012 at 08:50 PM.
thinker2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 09:13 PM   #17
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,640 (818 Posts)
Default

So in your opinion what caused the wing scars & hole then Thinker?
porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 09:24 PM   #18
progenitor04
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 182
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

missle disguised as a plane
progenitor04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 09:59 PM   #19
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by porridge View Post
So in your opinion what caused the wing scars & hole then Thinker?
What porridge said.

If the plane was a mirage, what caused the holes and the bent columns?
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2012, 10:26 PM   #20
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
Again, you can not prove something does not exists, it can only be proven if it exists.
So get cracking then, if you claim it's a hologram, prove it. I've already provided information that shows there is no known technology that can accomplish a hologram in broad daylight, so you're starting a bit behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
The photo at the top is proof of one of two things; Hologram or Computer Graphics Animation.
Right, and once again we're down to which technology works and which one is from George Lucas' imagination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
A copied and pasted transcript is slightly more credible than your opinion.
All you've done is share your opinion about a photograph, while disregarding information that might conflict with it. Thanks for sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
I have watched both videos above and read all the comments.

The way to prove you are correct is to show that people did not see what they thought was Flight 175 slam into the South Tower.
No, the way I prove I am correct is to demonstrate a jet wing could not have caused the damage to the towers at any speed, then it's just a matter of examining the damage forensically to glean what DID cause it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
Nowhere have I herd of or seen a video showing a gaping hole open up in the South Tower with no impact visible, which is what would have had to happen in reality for your Computer Graphics scenario to have occurred. Do you have any evidence to support this occurring?
Have you watched all the videos and studied all the photographs? I've been working on this for a decade and I'm still finding some I haven't seen yet, but it doesn't take a video of a missile impact to examine the evidence for clues as to what caused it; the same way a detective can examine a bullet hole and learn from where it was fired.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
I repeat; I have not ignored anything you have written, I am just not convinced you are correct.
That's clear - because you began your investigation already convinced of holograms, and you're ignoring anything that doesn't support that conclusion (nothing does).

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinker2 View Post
My background includes CAD/CAM computer graphics, animation, and engineering. I know what computers are capable of, but that does not mean I know everything computers or holograms can do for Black Ops.

peace
So it's science magic then? One of the things priests, kings, generals and other assorted charlatans have done since the dawn of so-called civilization is to try to make the unwashed masses believe they have supernatural powers. It helps keep we slave-classes resigned to our fates, and helps keep us from ripping our leaders limb from limb. We're much easier to control when we believe they hold all the power, so it's in their best interests to make us believe they can destroy the world with the snap of their fingers or they can travel to the stars or they can bring down the power of Isis. But it's all the same con, and they get away with it because most people believe what they hear, and won't verify the facts for themselves.

Last edited by yankee451; 23-12-2012 at 10:36 PM.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.