[[But holograms? The planes slamming into the WTC were holograms? I'm sorry but that's just way too much! ]]

Well, that's a convincing argument, isn't it? The use of the word "but" and the observation that its "too much", as well as a double shot of the dreaded "holograms " word. Rivetting stuff !
Such serious research and insightful analysis really convinces me that real planes can melt away into nothing. Such meticulous attention to technical detail is a compelling case that a plane can stay silhoetted even in full sunlight.

In ranting about holograms, Baker shows a lack of understanding of the basics of how to analyze this issue. Holograms are not central to the argument at this stage.
Clearly, the video is a fake plane. But that doesn't necessarily mean its a hologram. What it means is that its a faked video. Everything which appears in that video is explainable through the use of video manipulation. The direct hit footage of the cartoon "plane" was not shown live, so its child's play to put something like that together and air it after the event.
The footage which was shown live does not show the impact. The "plane" disappears behind the tower and we see the explosion, giving the impression that the "plane" has caused the explosion. This footage is entirely explainable by the technology documented in the link I supplied earlier, something which Baker seems desperate to pretend doesn't exist. Quite simple to edit the plane in live. No hologram is required to explain any of this footage, simply video manipulation.
The only reason to suggest a holgram would be if there was significant documented eyewitness evidence to a large plane, indicating that a lot of people claim to have seen it from the street. Such witness accounts are very difficult to find.
Because I have searched for such accounts with little success, I am not convinced that one even needs to speculate a hologram at all.
However, should such speculation become necessary,it's all very well to incredulize "but holograms?" - but, hang on ! - A plane melting away into nothing, a plane growing a pimple on its underbelly in mid flight ? Thats all perfectly normal is it ? If its a choice, then I'll take the holgram, thanks.

What Baker has also failed to think through here, is that if any holgram was used, its not necessarily the same image that we see on the video. It could have been projected from a different angle at a different time, and thus be a completely seperate image from the live video animation. Thus its possible that a really brief ,unstable, poor quality image might have been projected, just enough to make a few people who saw it think that they saw a plane. Nobody is going to say "aha, thats really a hologram ". They'd just think they didn't get a good look at it.The more realistic TV replays then reinforce the deception. So ,even if one is speculating a hologram in order to reconcile witness accounts with what we see on the video,(and one must first produce the witness accounts to justify this process) its erroneous to assume that this implies that the quality of the hologram has to be anywhere near the standard of the fake video. They might have been completely seperate images.
I don't want to go in to bat too hard for a hologram, because I'm not necessarily convinced that one was used. But I'm unimpressed by "arguments" such as

[[But holograms? The planes slamming into the WTC were holograms? I'm sorry but that's just way too much! ]]

As I pointed out in my first reply to Baker. This is not "argument" of any description, its just drivelesque ranting.

What's particularly vicous about this approach from Baker, is that not once in this article does Scott even mention the word "holgram". He lists, quite specifically the impossibilties in the video and concludes, with a sensible researchers caution

[[Either all of these things are true or the TV networks screened video sequences that were fabrications.]]

Unable to counter this obvious fact, Baker resorts to misrepresenting what the article is saying. This is a really low tactic, and common amongst those who have no facts or rational argument to support their position.

Raw, unsupported increduality is not a coherent argument. What is undeniable is that the videos do not show a real plane.


I've mentioned some of the impossibilities of the direct hit footage, so now lets talk about the live footage.

A close examination shows that its defintely not a 767. Its got the distictive "bump on the head " shape, unqiue to 747's - but its only got two engines. According to my searches, no such type of plane exists - ceratinly no type of Boeing.

So in order to speculate that the live footage is a real plane, one must suggest that they built a plane specially for the operation. Then, because the "plane" in the direct hit footage is clearly a bad cartoon, one has to speculate that in addition to going to all the trouble to build a plane specially for the operation, they then, for some unknown reason, edited the real plane out of the direct hit footage to replace it with the cartoon plane.
So who's the one proposing "gibberish"? Who's the one proposing the "bizzare" ? When all of this can be perfectly well explained by the established easily available video manipulation technology referenced in the link provided above.
Baker's attempt to misrepresent this issue as all about holograms , as all or nothing, shows either a lack of understanding of basic thought processes about how to work through a problem, or else a malicious attempt to try make the issue seem more "way out" than it actually is.

In Bakers general approach, I detect exactly the same tactics that were uised to try to discredit the pentagon analysis in the early days.
The supporter of the govt story, piles on the insults - "gibberish, bizzare,pure nonesense,kooky" along with the obligatory accusation of spookdom, and then reacts with a tone of injured dignity, when a little of it gets dished back, haughtily procaliming that

[[I won't be resorting to insults. ]]

If that's going to be the style from now on, Jeremy - then fine, but don't dish it out if you can't take it.

That's all I'll say about Baker's rude, insulting, hypocritical and defamatory style, becuase the important thing is to remain focused on the issue of the faked video.

Baker declined my invitation to offer to any facts or analysis, but simply resorted to a more verbose version of the same drivel.

He makes no attempt to address the question of live video animation, or acknowledge the source provided. By his silence he implies that he believes that real planes can melt away into nothing, stay silhoutted in full sunlight, fly in the opposite direction to which they banking, grow strange pimples on their underbellies in mid flight,slice through a building without making a hole and without the slightest deformation of their form.
He also apparently believes that they built a plane specially for the operation.

And he accuses the author of being "kooky".

He also seems to believe that simply stating raw increduality over and over again, and repeating generalised slander against the author is a substitute for reasoned arguement.