Hologram dudes, how was it done?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


i dont think at all that there were no planes. thats why i put up the . i was just saying that it maybe possible. but unlikely. and until someone can come up with solid prof there were no planes im with you guys on this one. i try to keep an open mind, but i think that this no plane thing is a farce.

hope that cleared things up..

Originally posted by Essan
If it was the Enterprise, then quite possibly they used a photon torpedo with a holographic field generated around it. Quite easy with 25th century technology.

A disrupter beam could have then triggered the final collapse.

Don't forget about the MIB "Flashy Thing" beams emiting from the holograms and TV sets:


www.std.com...



[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Thanks Dale, it's late, I'm tired, was out with my neighbor celebrating his 74th birthday on taco nite. Thanks for the clarification.
Regards
John

reply to post by jpm1602


no prob anytime. i know it late 530 am and i just got off work. ill try to cover these things better in future posts. 74 wow. tell your friend happy bday/

Wouldn't dream of it IIS, tho I plan some quality time with the back of my eyelids real soon. LOL! Jasus, I wish I could laugh about this stuff.

Thanks Dale, he's an old leatherneck WW2 marine. I'm a pup 44. But he's been the best neighbor I've ever had for 17 yrs. And he can still make me look like a girlscout on his lawn.

Thanks Dale, he's an old leatherneck WW2 marine. I'm a pup 44. But he's been the best neighbor I've ever had for 17 yrs. And he can still make me look like a girlscout on his lawn.

There's a possibility that this reality we are living in is nothing more than a holographic projection.

video.google.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
homepages.ihug.co.nz...
www.spaceandmotion.com...
www.experiencefestival.com...

I suspect that Holograms have come a long way. As for the planes hitting the towers, I suspect its much as the media has reported. Maybe the government was involved, maybe not..

All the USA wanted was Osama, and they said they would leave the Taliban alone.... Yet has now esculated to war, and two holograms were the precusor.. ..... .. Enough of that, I know little..

Anyhow check this out


www.coolest-gadgets.com...

Apparently they are not that expensive either ($230 USD).. Wow it will work at 400 keystrokes per minute.

Here is another tech blitz about a business card sized Harddisk.. This is a proven concept btw..
www.cnet.com.au...
This device can store 500Gb on the size of a Business card. Techs are talking about a stack of paper. There is your 100TB sir... Currently this amount of disk space would take considerable datacenter space, product a fair amount of heat, and consumer a huge amount of power. Interesting read

So yes, holograms have came a long way.. As for Holographic planes flying into the tower, keep speculating.. Makes for a humorous read.. As for tower seven John .. Keep dreaming

[edit on 26-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]

Creating a hologram of a plane flying into the towers is totally possible and the technology is pretty much there, however I don't think they used holograms but more likely they used some type of drone or remote controlling of the aircraft. Some of my main reasons being:

Sound produced by aircraft
Reflections on aircraft
Damage to WTC
The practicalities, ease and cost effectiveness of using a real plane over a hologram(!)

Infact the only reason I can find to support the holoplanes theory would be the video clips of missing wings, but thats likely due to compression errors and reflections, or atleast I assume it is. I am not going to completely knock this hologram theory because at the end of the day almost anything is possible, but we do need more solid proof. I think its much more likely that the planes were guided/modded/ on remote. Whats more a real plane has the advantage of delivering a real payload. If they used a hologram they would of had to sync the explosions with the collision, and make the blast happen in such a way it leaves the shape of a plane and bends columns inward. In a operation such as this you have to expect things to go wrong, for example what if they detonated the explosives a second too late? Plane collides with building and nothing happens. Everyone would of known, game over.

Observe:
uk.youtube.com...

This video shows that Flight 175 dropped into a deadly nose dive and was locked in to position on a collision course with the south tower. With unearthly precision, the plane banks the whole time zeroing in on the towers at full speed. The plane is real, its just taking a totally unreal flight path which suggests to me some type of computer guidance system. No suicidal hijacker who can barely fly a Cesna is going to do this, the accuracy is simply far too great.

The south tower approach was dazzling in itself, so what the hell was the pentagon approach like? Nothing short of miraculous imo!

reply to post by sensfan


It's true that holograms have come a long way...but Ms. Moss wasn't a hologram. The video in question is a modernized version of a fairly old stage effect known as Pepper's Ghost . I don't think we could use the technique to create the aircraft into a building illusion needed to cover 9/11.

Originally posted by SmokeyJo

ISo yes, holograms have came a long way.. As for Holographic planes flying into the tower, keep speculating.. Makes for a humorous read.. As for tower seven John

.. Keep dreaming

Thanks for the post SmokeyJo. Apparently the United States District Court for the Southern district of New York does not share your humor.

In fact they accepted QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Docket No. May 31, 2007 filed by Plaintiff/Relator Dr. MorganReynolds on behalf of the United States of America vs. numerous defendants.

I mention this because although many believe that this suit was filed without any evidence and is sheer speculation I would refer them to Rule 11 of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure for the United State District Courts under which this suit was filed.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts, Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and other papers; Representations to Court, Sanctions, specifically states in (a)(3)” The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

I point this out because the Court, under Rule 11 (c) Sanctions, can “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

These sanction include (Rule 11 (1)(A) (excerpt) “If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees”.

What this means, of course, is that if Morgan Reynolds and his attorney Jerry V. Leaphart & Associates., P.P. can’t prove their allegations against:

Science Applications International Corp.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. Boeing; NuStates; Computer Aided engineering Associates, Inc.
Datasource, Inc.; Geostats, Inc.;
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP;
Hughes Associates, Inc.; Ajmal Abbasi;
Eduardo Kausel; David Parks;
David Sharp; Daniel Venezana;
Josef Van Dyck; Kaspar William;
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.;
Simpson Gumpertz & :Heger, Inc.;
S.K.Ghosh Associates, Inc.;
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP.
Teng & Associates, Inc.;
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.;
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.;
American Airlines; Silverstein Properties;
And United Airlines,

they are going to owe the above defendants a substantial amount of money in addition to which the Court may impose (Rule 11, (2) (excerpt) “directives of a non monetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

The reason I point all of this out is that in the Quitam Complaint and Jury Demand: 1. Nature of Action (7.) it is specifically alleged: Relator, in a Request for Correction dated March 8, 2007 (hereinafter generally referred to as March 8 RFC), copy annexed as Exhibit A, challenged NCSTAR 1 in its entirety based on the Data Quality Act Section 515 Public Law 106-554 and based on NIST’s admitted failure to determine what caused the destruction of WTC1,2, and further based on the submittal of proof that the actual cause was obfuscated by use of false, misleading and fraudulent simulations seemingly showing how hollow, aluminum aircraft could impact with structural steel and nonetheless, glide right through such steel structures (WTC1,2) from nose to end of its tail and wing to wing and leave an airplane shape, no less, all as though this event were a cartoon much like the Roadrunner; or much like a hot knife through butter. Such simulations violate the Data Quality Act and the False Claims Act and relator herein has so asserted.

And further alleges (9.): Relator, in a Request for Correction dated March 8, 2007 (hereinafter generally referred to as March 8 RFC), copy annexed as Exhibit A, challenged NCSTAR 1 in its entirety based on the Data Quality Act Section 515 Public Law 106-554 and based on NIST’s admitted failure to determine what caused the destruction of WTC1,2, and further based on the submittal of proof that the actual cause was obfuscated by use of false, misleading and fraudulent simulations seemingly showing how hollow, aluminum aircraft could impact with structural steel and nonetheless, glide right through such steel structures (WTC1,2) from nose to end of its tail and wing to wing and leave an airplane shape, no less, all as though this event were a cartoon much like the Roadrunner; or much like a hot knife through butter. Such simulations violate the Data Quality Act and the False Claims Act and relator herein has so asserted.

And further (13.): Instead, defendants, and each and every one of them, especially those among them who are developers of psy ops, including by way of non-exhaustive example, SAIC and ARA, committed fraud in seeking to have NCSTAR 1 deceive the public into not recognizing that WTC1,2 could not reasonably or possibly have been hit by jetliners in the manner depicted in some (but not other TV feeds) absent the use of psy ops. Some of the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did not, they should have known as it is all but obvious that hollow aluminum cannot glide through reinforced steel. To the extent they did not know this, such ignorance was willful, intentional and actionable under the False Claims Act.

So yes, SmokeyJo, I'll keep on dreamin', but the dream I'm dreamin' may not be the one you're dreamin'.

Thanks for the post and your input, it is greatly appreciated.

My question is not how but why....

Why would some shadow operation which, by default would have had to given up on 5-10 thousand lives, which aims to kill thousands and destroy buildings at any cost would risk using holograms instead???? To spare the few hundred innocent passengers in their remote controlled planes???? Drop in the ocean compared to the thousands that died that day and the thousands ever since... (Not to mention the millions of people, killed, displaced, pushed to poverty, etc)

The planes were simply a distraction.... Magician style.... Hey, check these giant holes and fires out while I pull the controlled demolition rabbit out of my conspiratorial hat!

reply to post by may_be_true


I completely agree with you.. did they use the holograms to save the innocent lives on the plane??? i don't think so. A computer guided plane is probably much more likely and a hell of alot safer and more effective (in terms of getting 'their' cover blown.

Can someone please explain to me how huge, shiny, noisy, completely solid objects were holograms.... i hear the only answer is 'the govt has the technology to do it, we know nothing about it but thats what happened'.

How can you claim that you think the planes were holograms when your answer is that you have no idea how they did it and know nothing about our current hologram technology but they just did it that way?

Originally posted by Shadowflux

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

This is the thing I always come back to, why holograms when actual airplanes will do the job.

Exactly, what's the point? Why go through all this effort to fake an airplane and then demolish the buildings? Why is it even an issue? What's the point in arguing all this hologram crap when the bottom line is that planes or not we all agree the buildings were purposefully demolished in a controlled demolition.

If we're all in agreement that it was a controlled demolition than I feel this hologram theory is obviously put forward to discredit us and makes us squabble amongst ourselves.

Seriously, we need to focus on the important things.

In the words of rapper Tech-Nine:

Absolute power.

I am still at odds with holograms, as it would have taken technology 50 years more advanced that we have today, at the least.

Oh, wait.. the military IS 50 years ahead of where we, the people, are now.

Have any of you ever used an ipod with the no-speaker technology?

It allows a speaker to be utilized without a physical connection, and all you need to do is sit said ipod right near it, and the speaker begins playing music.

About 30 years ago, that would be black magic. Imagine what you could do with a satellite equiped with this technology able to transmit over a large area, say, like new york city?

Speculation without direct evidence to support, but an example nonetheless of technology that is available, and applicable in some way to give the appearance of hearing a massive jet flying overhead. Note where the speakers in your house are, plus every speaker in your city, and what you have is one giant sound system.

If you were at street level, and all the speakers in every home in the city sudden blarred the sound of a passing aircraft, easily given a "point of origin" through equalizing which speakers in what general area play what tone of the sound, theoretically it is possible to give someone the impression that a massive plane just flew over.

The problem that comes into play is simple: what about people who are in line of sight?





-Knight

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Knightshadowz]

Now boarding Ark B .....

The NWO disinformationist are winning the war .... before long you'll believe anything but the truth. Bush is a cyborg from the 22nd century and Aerosmith are all reptilians ......

Originally posted by Essan
Now boarding Ark B .....

The NWO disinformationist are winning the war .... before long you'll believe anything but the truth. Bush is a cyborg from the 22nd century and Aerosmith are all reptilians ......

Im sorry, but if Bush were a cyborg he would have been the runt of the litter, and the one who got the least attention to his speech and short term memory programing.

Aerosmith rocks, and if they are snakes all I gotta ask is can I get an autograph, and a skin sample?

-Knight

Wow! Some would have us believe a band of disenfranchised jihad telle tubbies with real bad attitudes had a thing for real tall buildings. Take a break from reality, what is reality anyway?

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post SmokeyJo. Apparently the United States District Court for the Southern district of New York does not share your humor.

John,

I am going to have to do some more research. I came across a report of a possible hologram on either a EC-130 Commando Solo or Comapss Call aircraft.

Originally posted by jpm1602
. Take a break from reality, what is reality anyway?

Well it's not Star Trek.

What next? The Burmese protests are all hologams? Ozzy Osbourne died in 1974 and was replaced by a hologram?

Come on guys, there's a difference between possibilty and a complete fantasy that isn't even physically possible!

(show me a hologram of a large, fast moving object that appears 100% solid from all angles and I may reconsider my opinion. And no, 9/11 doesn't count as evidence )


Edit: I shouldn't really let myself get wound up by you NWO lackeys, but some others may fall for your daft scam and divert attention from what really happened

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Essan]