Holographic planes vs the real thing?

[Magamud]

Radar deception through phantom track generation. But again this is academic.


https://labs.tdl.org/tdl/handle/1969.1/3169

[dataeast]

...
Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes.

"I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down," said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. But it was only when the television pictures of a burning World Trade Center tower came on, that he knew why the flight had disappeared from his scope.

For Doug McKay, a 20-year veteran at the Boston Center, the hijacked flights hit much closer to home.

Before he left for work on Sept. 11, he heard on radio and television that the World Trade Center's North Tower had been hit. As he was watching the news report, he saw the second flight slam into the South Tower.

...

Cont.: http://web.archive.org/web/200210012...ers020906.html

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by Magamud

Radar deception through phantom track generation. But again this is academic.


https://labs.tdl.org/tdl/handle/1969.1/3169

The thesis is from 2005. It presupposes that the ECAVs themselves have 360 degrees stealth capability because the scenario is in an area of enclosed radar coverage. By design they will be limited to the size required by their radars. And that, in this scenario, the ECAV's would need to engage all radars in the covered area including NORAD, unlike in offensive ECM scenarios where the outer fringes are probed and stealth is at its highest (generally frontal radar cross section).

[Callidon]

Sweet lord of mercy people really will latch on to anything regardless of how ludicrous it is.

"What proof can you point to in supporting the use of planes? None of the video I watched convinced me of real planes. The plane holes on -both- buildings were located on the computer floors, ideal locations for the black op team to rig the exterior columns with explosives to create plane-shape cutouts."


Honestly the single most ridiculous thing i have read on here, and perhaps, anywhere, ever.

It boggles my mind that people think this. The planes were tracked independantly via radar, there are thousands of eyewitneses, the physical evidence from the vids/pics/wreckage of the towers supports the inclusion of the planes.

Agreed, the manner of collapse and explanation that it was the planes that caused the actual collapses is highly suspect, but to think people would make light and fantastic claims over a serious world shattering event like this makes me not only deeply concerned but horrified and sickened.

The beliefs/views i have on the 9/11 event do not try to trivialize it in any way, they do not try to make it into some fantastical magical mystery of lights and sound. Its deception over the truth of the manner of collapse, and the evidence of who was really behind it.

Lest not you forget that hundreds of people, people with families, some of which may be present on this very forum, died onboard those planes and thousands more in the buildings. I cannot countenance anyone making claims that trivialize the pain and misery brought upon the victims families on that day.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, and get back on track with the disclosure of the real issues.

[Seth Haniel]

"Honestly the single most ridiculous thing i have read on here, and perhaps, anywhere, ever.

It boggles my mind that people think this. The planes were tracked independantly via radar, there are thousands of eyewitneses, the physical evidence from the vids/pics/wreckage of the towers supports the inclusion of the planes."


Wake up and Believe ;0

can you please point me to the wreckage pics of the plane - the engine was from a different type of plane altogether - the piece with the windows intact when everything else shredded to fine dust - come on - open your eyes to the truth

[Callidon]

My eyes are open, and what kind of proof can you offer me otherwise?

Open your eyes, if i'm the one that needs "convincing", convince me.

Trouble is you can't, don't decry my not believing this toss because my eyes are closed, thats weak and not even a valid arguement.

Point me to the proof that they were holographic, point me to the proof that they didnt exist, point me to the thing that, in your bent view, explains what happened to the people aboard those planes.

The real problem here is your looking further and further into things looking to make an even bigger demon out of the USA gov't.

I'm from the UK, i am seeing this from the outside, and all i can see is closed minds belonging to those that claim to be open. Your looking for mystery beyond conspiracy beyond lies. Its not there, wake up.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? good rule of thumb, here i'll show you...

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" attb. William Occam (nay Okham)

[Magamud]

Callidon,
Im speculating about the possilbility of holograms to further understand the matrix im in. And please dont use the people who died at 911 to validate your frustrated emotions of not knowing what reality is.

Cheers

[Callidon]

I think you'll find that i'm not "using the people" the plain simple fact is you seem to all be glossing over the horror of that day.

In my opinion i have a far stronger grasp on what reality is, reality is my partner and kids, my job, my family, the way my dog looks at me when i pick up his lead, the wind in the tree's and the rain. Reality is not looking for explanations to things which require no explanation, just the details fleshing out. I believe whole heartedly that we have all been decieved as to what really went on on that september morning. We still don't really know who was behind it, or how the jet fuel on board the planes, which would have burnt rapidly, managed to bring the towers down (in my opinion, by controlled means). I don't believe for one second that it was all smoke and mirrors.

You all preach, yes preach, freedom of mind and voice, but your constant decrying of anyone that doesn't share your veiws is startlingly oppressive. Every single thread on here started, or replied to in a manner that does not support the OP or the communities beliefs gets shot down with moralistic arguements like "And please dont use the people who died at 911 to validate your frustrated emotions of not knowing what reality is."

I have no frustrated emotions. You believe that you know my state of mind and feelings better than i know them myself? I am merely speaking out against something that i happen to believe is the biggest pile of **** around about the 9/11 incedent, and that i personally find to be ridiculously unfeasable. I can give you a garauntee that i am not the only person on this forum that believes such.

I'm not trying to get personal with anyone, so don't come over all high station that its just my emotions, or that your moral view is more valid. Everyones opinion is valid, this threads opinion is that it was smoke and mirrors, mine, as you can see, is quite strongly opposed to that theory, that does not mean i think your opinion is not valid.

You want me to wake up and smell the arabica beans? Open my eyes to the light?


Show me.

100% undeniably.

And i'll take it all back.

[wags]

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)

[Callidon]

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

[samncheese]

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.

[Callidon]

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.

[samncheese]

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.

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by wags

...

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.

...

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.



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.



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.

Originally Posted by samncheese

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.

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.

Originally Posted by samncheese

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.

Sure.

Originally Posted by samncheese

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.

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.

[samncheese]

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

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by samncheese

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

Here's the overall WTC area:


A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:


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

[feeler]

Originally Posted by dataeast

Here's the overall WTC area:


A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:


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

"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

[samncheese]

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

[Magamud]

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?

[samncheese]

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

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by samncheese

thank you for putting this information up...

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.

Originally Posted by Magamud

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

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.

Originally Posted by Magamud

How do we explain that nose pointing out of the building?

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

Originally Posted by Magamud

How do we explain the plane just getting engulfed by the buildings?

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

[Magamud]

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

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by Magamud

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

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



EDIT:

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

[Magamud]

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

[dataeast]

Originally Posted by feeler

"A piece of the lattice/facade with a wheel embedded into it:"

Only at WTC 1, but not at WTC 2, how convenient.

...

Ah... nevermind.