Holographic Planes & Blue Beam

[zorgon]

That's why I start by identifying the different pieces and look at each one on their own merits first.

I will grant you that  BUT for that to be valid you have to look at ALL the pieces (Pentagon lawn, Shanksville, Building 7)  If you cherry pick only the pieces that fit your believe and ignore the rest, then your analysis is just as bad as a Sorch Faal work

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

So how does that explain the controlled demolition style collapse?

Witnesses who saw the second plane do not think it was a commercial airliner!

I don't know and neither do you. You're guessing. I am not. And don't throw out that 'bomber hit the Empire State bldg. two totally different things!

[ArMaP]

Well only because you wear blinders that have tunnel vision

No, because the people talking about this talk as if they are discussing religion or soccer, each one appears to have their own pet version and ignore any thing that looks like it doesn't follow it.

I KNOW  but you cannot ignore building 7 in the over all plot  If even just that one building was brought down by nefarious means it means the whole official story is bullocks

I'm not ignoring building 7, I'm looking at things one at a time, as I said I haven't look into this much, so I am starting from the beginning.

Well I say it is NOT plausible  so do many engineeers.

I don't care what other people find plausible or not when I am writing my opinion.

Jet fuel is not hot enough to make steel beams soft in 7.6 seconds (the duration of the fireball as ALL the jet fuel explodes.

In 7.6 seconds, I agree, but is there proof that all the jet fuel exploded on impact?

I say it is NOT plausible that the subsequent office fires were hot enough to soften steel core beams and I offered proof in the form of Edna Crinton who can stand in that opening MINUTES after the  errr 'plane' made that hole and it is obvioulsy no longer hot... unless she is Wonder Woman and immune to heat.  Last time I checked steel takes a lot more heat to get soft than human flesh

See, this is one of those situations I think you are just "following script" instead of thinking and what I think you should apply some of that "split into smaller problems" thinking.

What was the main support of the weight of the buildings, wasn't it the so called "core"? If it was, what's the importance of the outside "shell" of the building not being hot? She was some 17 (if I remember it right) metres away from the closest part of the "core", so it could be hot near the "core" and cold enough near the "shell" for her to be there.

Why don't you take a piece of rebar and put it in a gasoline and wood fire and see how long it takes to get 'soft'

I don't think it needs to get "soft" to lose some of its resistance to bending. And I don't have the conditions for that experiment, if I had I would do it.

Then extrapolate that to the time the fire burned enough to soften huge core beams Having used a forge to make swords  I know how long it takes YOU need to do the test... otherwise your opinion is based on assumptions, not facts

Yes, assumptions are the only thing I can present, (like most people) as:
a) I wasn't there;
b) I'm not a structural engineer;
c) I haven't seen any data related to that anywhere;
but, as I said, I don't think the steel needs to be as soft as iron on a forge to partially lose its strength.

No it wasn't Now you know

Now I know that you wrote it, I don't really know if it was or not.

And if you were really wanting to be sure, you would try to heat up a steel beam (without a blower forge or acetylene torch )

Too bad I don't have the means for doing it, I like to do those experiments, I am doing experiments with rocks at the moment, because of those blocks at Tiwanaku.

Temperature and length of time jet fuel burned
Tensile strength of steel beams
Melting point of large steel beams

None of those is a law of physics.

The fact that the steel beams vaporized instead of falling in a tangled mess of metal (like in any other building collapse EVER

Do you really have any evidence that they "vaporized", or are you assuming?
Either way, that's not a law of physics either.

Well you can see VISUALLY in the photos minutes befoer the collapse of #7 that theere is no damage save a few window out and two relatively small fires (one conveniently in the office that held the ENRON records )

I just looked at some videos (yes, sometimes I do watch videos, if I think it's worth my time ), and it looks like the fire was not that small, but it didn't look big enough to provoke the collapse of the building.

You don't believe your eyes?

I do, I am using them to read what you wrote.

But I also know that, without real knowledge of something (in this case, mostly of how a fire progresses inside a building like that and how it affects the building's structural strength) vision may not be enough, that's why we assume things.

LOL Oh well no point continuing this... it's been 14 years... We will never get the truth in our lifetime  and politicians are erasing their hard drives these days so they don't get caught like Tricky Dicky did

That's, unfortunately, true.

Personally I don't think there was a hologram... Looking in detail at the news footage it is obvious that the film was doctored... especially the one that shows the nose of the plane coming out the other side... Really?  How did that plane smash trough the steel beams intact with an aluminum nose?   I can do better Fairy Tales

Can you point me to that video? Thanks in advance.

The Official story is like a religion You need to ignore reality to believe in that deity

As in most cases, both sides act like a religion, as if things can only be one way or the other, with no possibility of nuances.

[ArMaP]

I will grant you that  BUT for that to be valid you have to look at ALL the pieces (Pentagon lawn, Shanksville, Building 7)  If you cherry pick only the pieces that fit your believe and ignore the rest, then your analysis is just as bad as a Sorch Faal work

I'm not cherry picking, I have to start somewhere.

PS: something that came to my mind now, have you ever thought about the possibility that what happened was more than one event but that they were presented as one?

[RUSSO]

I'm not cherry picking, I have to start somewhere.

PS: something that came to my mind now, have you ever thought about the possibility that what happened was more than one event but that they were presented as one?

You mean more than one objective and they used the "No Crisis Should Go to Waste" to make it a plot to fit an agenda? Quite possible. But this would not change the fact they lied and used it as advantage to make even a war. (not mentioning about the sensitive data building 7 could be "holding" and who would make money if the other two towers went down.)

Which one of the pentagon's section the "plane" destroyed? Was that "holding" documents too?

[Sinny]

Probably none   Which was convenient for the perps

I wouldn't expect that you had... but surely SOMEONE did? And those should be readily available?  Well they are not Many have tried to find them.

That is why this is a conspiracy that will not die... you cannot find the evidence

Well only because you wear blinders that have tunnel vision

I KNOW  but you cannot ignore building 7 in the over all plot  If even just that one building was brought down by nefarious means it means the whole official story is bullocks


Well I say it is NOT plausible  so do many engineeers. Jet fuel is not hot enough to make steel beams soft in 7.6 seconds (the duration of the fireball as ALL the jet fuel explodes.

I say it is NOT plausible that the subsequent office fires were hot enough to soften steel core beams and I offered proof in the form of Edna Crinton who can stand in that opening MINUTES after the  errr 'plane' made that hole and it is obvioulsy no longer hot... unless she is Wonder Woman and immune to heat.  Last time I checked steel takes a lot more heat to get soft than human flesh


Why don't you take a piece of rebar and put it in a gasoline and wood fire and see how long it takes to get 'soft'  Then extrapolate that to the time the fire burned enough to soften huge core beams Having used a forge to make swords  I know how long it takes YOU need to do the test... otherwise your opinion is based on assumptions, not facts

No it wasn't Now you know  And if you were really wanting to be sure, you would try to heat up a steel beam (without a blower forge or acetylene torch )


Temperature and length of time jet fuel burned
Tensile strength of steel beams
Melting point of large steel beams
The fact that the steel beams vaporized instead of falling in a tangled mess of metal (like in any other building collapse EVER


Because it was heavier than air.

Well you can see VISUALLY in the photos minutes befoer the collapse of #7 that theere is no damage save a few window out and two relatively small fires (one conveniently in the office that held the ENRON records )

You don't believe your eyes?

LOL Oh well no point continuing this... it's been 14 years... We will never get the truth in our lifetime  and politicians are erasing their hard drives these days so they don't get caught like Tricky Dicky did

Personally I don't think there was a hologram... Looking in detail at the news footage it is obvious that the film was doctored... especially the one that shows the nose of the plane coming out the other side... Really?  How did that plane smash trough the steel beams intact with an aluminum nose?   I can do better Fairy Tales

The Official story is like a religion You need to ignore reality to believe in that deity

Yes the 2nd plane with the nose coming out the other side of the tower..  That needs explaining. 

So what's more likely,  plane holograms or or CGI? 

Surely the CGI person wouldnt have cocked up with the above scenario?  Or would they? 

 

[astr0144]

Hi Sinny,

I can see  this is a thread you started that refers to your UFO sightings I think from your earlier days...that I had not come across or got around to looking at that I can recall.

I will try to read your initial story, but I can see its now a large thread and would take some time to go thru.

Your Title also refers to Holographic planes and you refer to the 2nd plane nose coming out of the 2nd tower  on 9/11.

Is there a picture of it on this thread ?

I would like to see it if I am unable to come across it on a quick search.

It seems quite a few of photos posted at least in the early parts of the thread have disappeared and show a picture of Cat in place of them .

Yes the 2nd plane with the nose coming out the other side of the tower..  That needs explaining. 

So what's more likely,  plane holograms or or CGI? 

Surely the CGI person wouldnt have cocked up with the above scenario?  Or would they? 

[Sinny]

don't have time to reply to this...at work...have to look for the posts and the de-bunking...
If i can't find it, I'll say I'm sorry....nevermind

If that video of the plane wing behind a building has been debunked can you let me know..  I'm having a 911 debate elsewhere

[Sinny]

Hi Sinny,

I can see  this is a thread you started that refers to your UFO sightings I think from your earlier days...that I had not come across or got around to looking at that I can recall.

I will try to read your initial story, but I can see its now a large thread and would take some time to go thru.

Your Title also refers to Holographic planes and you refer to the 2nd plane nose coming out of the 2nd tower  on 9/11.

Is there a picture of it on this thread ?

I would like to see it if I am unable to come across it on a quick search..

Hey Astro. Are you sure you haven't participated in this thread? It's been around for a while lol. 

Me and Duem have managed to ruin half the thread between us and our photo storage, or lack of haha.   

The 2nd 911 plane can been seen exiting the building in all 911 videos I have seen,  you will need to revisit one In the mean time I'll try and link one for you. 

[astr0144]

That was a very quick reply...

I had felt that Id only posted it a minute or so ago and you had made two replies. having said that my computer and I am slow 
so that would explain.

I may have made a comment somewhere in the thread, but I dont recall seeing the start with your main UFO story number 1 post.

I had never noticed or recalled seeing it seem to show on the other side of the building on a video....but may recall seeing an opening on the other side of the  building..with flames and smoke coming out.

I thought that if there was now a conspiracy about it coming out the otherside of the building.. that there would have been specific images of it..and it would be all over the net.

I recall John Lear claiming it was a Holograpthic projection...
and I am interested in the possibilities behind this ! as well as it being used for other things like UFOs

The 2nd 911 plane can been seen exiting the building in all 911 videos I have seen,  you will need to revisit one In the mean time I'll try and link one for you.

[Sinny]

"The Nine", "Ashtar", "Galactic Federation of Light" are in my opinion the result of a social engineering project/experiment in the USA which created much of the New Age mythos.

Off topic on 911. But in future I'd like to explore the cross over between discarnate entities and these psy-ops.

[astr0144]

On a quick search. the best image that I can see is this that suggests that the planes nose comes out the other side of the building.

but I am not sure I am fully convinced.. as it could just be another explosion.

I looked at a video posted by Sarg above on this page..at about the 2 min mark.

I am not sure which building it was, but it shows a plane hit one of the buildings that appears to be more or less in the more central part of the hit side of the building... then we see smoke appear very quickly on the right side of the building..and you see debris seem to come out the other side... but it may just be from an explosion as the plane hits if it was detonated on impact.


it happens so quick its hard to tell as smoke covers things up so fast






The images below show or suggest  that Building two was hit first.

and the lower image shows a view from above and you can see how the plane hit that face... the plane did not hit in the centre. like in building one.

Building 2 was  the right hand side of its centre.. and not square on.. but it appears to have hit it at an angle.

On the View looking from above...I wonder if the planes wingspan is to scale in ref to the width of the building..?

so that may explain the debris appearing so quickly to the other right side around its corner ,shown on the video that I refer to .



On the View looking from above...I wonder if the planes wingspan is to scale in ref to the width of the building..?




This is an image that I seem to recall as being the 1st time that I remember seeing the 1st plane crash...so I assume this was into building two.  I cannot see any smoke from the building behind when this image was taken.

Depending upon what angle or direction photos were taken from it can be hard to try to determine which building are which when looking at various photos.


but this image seems to show the building being hit to its left side rather than its right like the over view drawing suggested.

I can get a bit complex trying to check all the facts and one may have to check the various drawings etc if they are correct.





but maybe not. and it did hit slightly to the right hand side of the centre of building two ...Added after comments made above !

[astr0144]

I was wrong in my earlier post...

Building TWO was hit 2nd....at 9.02 am

but I think it collapsed first... after 56 mins at 9.58 hrs

and Building ONE was hit at 8.46 am...and collapsed after 102 mins.... after 10 am  at about 10.28 hrs

I Think Building two was the SOUTH Tower..

I am now NOT sure which tower my later pictures refers to ?
and what direction the photo was taken or looking towards...

The images below show or suggest  that Building two was hit first.

I have now had a quick browse through your thread Sinny.
and have some idea of your UFO sightings.

Very Interesting if so many have been witnessed as you describe by yourself and others.

I had not been aware of so many or read about them in the Birmingham area.

I think you seem very lucky to have been able to see so many  varied sightings  Esp being within a main City in the UK.
It certainly makes life interesting in wondering what these things were !

Although being in a main central city location ..there is a LOT of air traffic that fly over the midlands. not just from Birmingham airport.

You may also get some small light aircraft that fly lower than normal as well as helicopters or other small craft / flying objects. 

I cant recall or didn't note all the details and the missing images were unfortunate and did not help.

But I later see that Saunder and Dueme had done some image analysis for you.

I am not clear if they were of your actual photos or from similar ones maybe also taken in Birmingham..But some did look very interesting especially the triangle ones.

Was any of those from your photos ?

Also has your opinions changed in any way...as to what  you thought your sightings were ?

Do you see some of Unidentified still...or do you think you maybe now have other evidence that may explain many of them ?

I assume you do not think of them as being ET craft ! but as either manmade ones or possible holographic projections or things like chinese Lanterns.

I know that I only became familiar with Chinese Lanterns in what seems a few years ago .. then they seem to have become so well known... but prior to that when they were less known about..
I would think many of these would account for many unexplained sightings at the time.

Also another main thing that I think could account for sightings are Blimps and Balloons.

I remember one day seeing hundreds of what seemed like small silver glittering objects very high up moving quite fast in the sky er. that appeared one after another for 5 to 10 mins or more.

I was able to look at them thru binoculars and I could see they were released balloons from some event that had took place nearby....BUT it was amazing to see how high they had gone in a relatively short time... and just how many of them there were at such high altitudes..

some even seemed as if they were combined with 2 or 3 together and were rotating around each other. and catching the sun light.

I had and have never seen anything quite like it before or since.

but at least I was able to explain what it had been.

The thread has then took quite a turn in discussing the 9/11 events . but still with possible explanation that the planes were Holographic projections.

[Sinny]

Sorry Astro,  I got distracted mid flow then. 

The still picture that you have which professes to be the plane nose exiting the building is a true representation of the live footage.

The 'plane' appears to enter and exit.

This defies the laws of physics as we know them. 

I'll respond to the rest shortly

[Gigas]

Here's my pet version. like it or not.

The planes were twilight quasi orb projections that because they can project quasi material, it becomes real even though it's not in the sense how the human believes physical laws are to work. Humans don't know sheet as to whats happening around them. Well, some do, but the TV makes the others epic fail in knowing anything other than what the TV tells them.

The two planes that hit the towers should have folded up and dropped the tail and the wings should have folded and fell away and not slice through concrete and metal. The device hitting the pentagoon was not a commercial jet but rather a bunker missile. I saw the pics right after it happened and they showed a small turbine laying inside the inner ring that could have only come from a very small jet engine.

That's how I know it. Your pet version may vary since reality has a habit of changing itself per observer.