I don't think it matters ultimately. It's definitely not something I would ever bring up if I were asked to try to convince someone of the veracity of alternative 9/11 theories. There are literally dozens of other more salient things that could be discussed.

That's been his entire shtick for years: he tapdances around having any concrete position on whether the Holocaust happened or if Sandy Hook really happened while tossing out vague hints and allusions to conspiracy nonsense.

Dude, I've never once even talked about the Holocaust here other than to say that COVID showed the people who would go along with it.

So stop being a lying ****

Also I've been very concrete on my stance on Sandy Hook in the past and never danced around the bush there.

The physics stuff is not something the layman can have an opinion on.

What’s more likely? That some guy/people of unknown expertise are right about the physics being off or that thousands of people simultaneously saw a mirage that happens to have also been recorded on video? I don’t need to know anything about physics to say it’s unlikely that the physics is wrong. It’s much more likely that whoever is making claims about the physics doesn’t know what they’re talking about. You’d think there’d be many prominent physicists piping up if the physics were really so obviously off.

Holograms are real things. The technology exists.

I feel like the guy who produced the video was a high school physics teacher-- it possibly was a guy named David Chandler-- but not sure.

Lol. The technology to project a plane crashing into a building in broad daylight and look realistic to thousands of eyewitnesses exists?

Source? Star Trek?

You know what they say about those who can't do, right?

Oh wait. Maybe they were "hard light" holograms, so they actually damaged the buildings. Definitely more plausible than real planes.

How should I know? Do you think the hologram technology that is commercially available is the pinnacle of what the military has developed?

https://911planeshoax.com/2020/09/11...e-used-on-911/

This website discusses the idea. I'm still just trying to find the video I watched.

While I wouldn't quite call you a proponent of the hologram theory, you're the only one here not saying how laughably implausible it is, so I feel the onus should be on you to show that this technology exists, not on me to show that it doesn't.

Did the Holocaust happen?

Well no, of course it doesn't "matter ultimately"; we're a bunch of strangers discussing politics on a forum. But it's OK to just outright reject obviously absurd theories rather than hanging on to them as if eliminating even one will bring down your CT house of cards or something. If there are "dozens of other more salient things that could be discussed", then you should be quite happy to reject the absurd ones so they won't distract people from the "dozens of other more salient things".

This is why you're getting a hard time on the holocaust issue. I expect you're not a holocaust denier, but I also fully expect that if pressed on the precise details of what that means to you, you'd say that you're 95 or 99 or some other high percentage certain it happened, but not completely certain. Or that if you watched a presentation by someone like James Keegstra, he might not persuade you the holocaust wasn't real/exaggerated, but you'd tell people about this guy you saw that presented his "evidence", and when questioned on different points of it, you'd be "agnostic" on it. Of course I'm no mind reader, so perhaps I'm off on this particular issue, but when you constantly pass on dismissing obvious absurdity as absurdity, this is the impression you leave people with.

Cliffs: It's OK to reject absurd CT arguments; they weaken the stronger CT arguments, and therefore you should be happy to see them dismissed.

Why are we even talking about the Holocaust? How did it come up?

Did I not make a post two weeks ago where I said people like you would be the Germans going along with it?

LOL, this **** is awesome. Hologram technology like this could make companies billions of dollars, but instead they're still stuck with technology that doesn't even remotely approach that realism, while the military has had it for 22 years? JFC man, a little critical thinking now and then wouldn't kill you.

buddy, what's so hard about saying the holocaust happened?

If you look at that website there are frames that don't look too realistic really.

Because I literally threw it out as a hypothetical about how I wouldn't succumb to people forcing me to comment on stuff?

lol, alright. seems much easier to say, "it happened, we should not get sidetracked."

Dude, you need to be more specific.

Do you mean in this timeline, or in the timeline where Hitler got beamed up to the Enterprise in 1945 and they did a couple of orbits round the sun at 3x light speed then dropped him back off in 1918, whereupon he became a celebrated inventor, paving the way for the ground-breaking technology that brought you holographic commercial airliners in the great timeline merge of September 10, 2001?

And yet after 22 years of technology advancement, 22 years of private companies being able to develop the software, and 22 years of the military having to keep this technology secret from others, nothing remotely close to it (because "there are frames that don't look to realistic really" is still miles away from where we are commercially) exists publicly?

You missed the point of the post. If it was a hologram then it wasn't fantastic at the time

You're missing the point. These types of top secret weapons "exist" exactly because their existence can't be disproven. Like, nobody is going around saying they have flying tanks, because there wouldn't be much of a point having a flying tank if you can't deploy it in battle, and nobody has seen a flying tank in battle, therefore they probably don't have flying tanks. But holograms, yo. How do you know if what you just saw was a hologram or not, smart guy? You don't, so, you can't prove they don't have them. Chessmate.

Let's talk about that website though. Would the aluminum wings of the plane slice through steel when bullets disintegrate on impact?

If bullets don't go through steel why would airplane wings?

I refer you back to this very salient video.



I especially liked the part where he proved metal was stronger than ice by leaving a bowl of metal and a bowl of ice out overnight and noting that the metal had hardly melted at all. Forgot that part, inspired!