The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jfj123

So what you posted was a complaint. How did the suit end? Who won?

Are you kidding? How old are you anyway?

Thanks for the post.

John,

I respectfully suggest that asking somebody how old they are in an obviously derogatory manner is an inappropriate comment and personal insult. Please read again the flashing yellow banner at the top of the page. This type of post is supposed to result in a post ban and what causes confusion about what is allowed and not allowed in this forum.

Anyway, back on point, I respectfully suggest that your practical understanding of the law is on par with your practical understanding of holograms, and can be described by the age old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

First, no matter what the law says, the judge can do whatever the heck he wants. The fact that the case was not thrown out is not necessarily evidence of probable cause.

Second, there may be dozens of other items in the complaint other than the energy beam/no plane theory. The judge may have believed there was sufficient merit in the other issues and may believe the energy beam/no-plane part of the complaint was irrelevant. It is not reasonable to make the conclusions you did based on what we know, e.g., that the case was not thrown out. The judge may have thought that the no planes/energy beam part of the complaint had ZERO merit and still kept the case.

I respectfully suggest that stating as fact that the judge thought there was enough evidence for no-planes and energy weapons is misleading an inaccurate.

By the way, have you spoken yet with Wally Miller about the body and plane parts he spent three years collecting at the Shanksville crash site?

Anyway, thanks for your input to my thread. It is appreciated.

reply to post by jfj123


I'm with ya brotha.

There's a lot of other evidence out there already that would provide better clues and answers to what we all seek rather than conjuring up new theories using some of that same evidence. If you believe in the hologram theory then you must believe that our government played a significant role in 9/11. All I'm saying is you don't need the hologram.

It all leads to the same conclusion I believe. If anything this hologram thing is leading people in the wrong direction if not on a longer path toward finding out the truth.

Peace.

I really don't want to get into a debate about either the no-plane or hologram theories, but I do have a question, the answer to which might add to the debate.

When the planes struck, is it at all possible that a quantity of jet fuel could have escaped without igniting? If so, do we have any reliable evidence that either survivors from within the building or else passers-by on the streets below were soaked by it?

If we do have evidence of jet fuel, then how do we account for it? The WTC towers were, to my knowledge, open-plan office buildings. Where would any significant quantity of jet fuel have been stored?

If there is no evidence of jet fuel, forget I spoke.

reply to post by InnocentBystander

Thanks for the comment and I owe you an apology and retraction.I re-read the NIST pdf and it was talking about WTC1, not WTC2.My mistake.
I've watched that video over 50 times,froze it, backed it up.Whatever that ejection is appears to be too close to the corner to be an engine core and too large, even if you factor in debris it pulled with it.
For a blurry photo you'd expect more "fuzz' if it was an engine with other artifacts.
If the engine found under the scaffolding was from that aircraft, has it ever been verified?If so, by whom?No doubt at least one serial number survived from the many components of an aircraft engine.
I clearly stated that I was neither supporting nor denying no planes.That was directed to the person mentioning the shadow.
All I'm looking for is the truth........where ever it may lie.
Peace, and thanks for your observations.

Originally posted by citizen truth

Thanks for the comment and I owe you an apology and retraction.I re-read the NIST pdf and it was talking about WTC1, not WTC2.My mistake.

No problem, it happens.

I've watched that video over 50 times,froze it, backed it up.Whatever that ejection is appears to be too close to the corner to be an engine core and too large, even if you factor in debris it pulled with it.
For a blurry photo you'd expect more "fuzz' if it was an engine with other artifacts.

What makes you say it's too close to the corner? Too large? What if the engine exited sideways? It's hard to know what to expect when we've never seen anything like this before. Remember how high up this is and how far away the camera is...

If the engine found under the scaffolding was from that aircraft, has it ever been verified?If so, by whom?

Depends on who you ask. *Hint - Don't ask John Lear.* Here's a diagram illustrating the debris path.

reply to post by citizen truth


CT,

I think your on the money so far. No 'nose cone' comes out looking like that - period. The exterior walls of WTC were not made of paper.

I am now off to the UFO threads to post that this NO-HOLOGRAM thread has helped to eliminate two of the four possible explanation typologies for ALL reported UFO sightings up to 2001. Before this thread we had four:

1) Natural Phenomena
2) Observer misperception/misrepresentation
3) Perpetrator Hologram Tech (This one is now safely debunked)
4) Advanced ‘other’ Hardware (your pick on the race of ownership)

Logically if 9-11Holograms are NOT technically possible then it’s a safe bet that Advanced Flying Hardware is also a fallacy.

SO - now we are down to just two options for shedding light on the enigma that is UFO’s - thanks to all Hologram debunkers

Originally posted by scrapple
No 'nose cone' comes out looking like that - period. The exterior walls of WTC were not made of paper.

Not a nose cone...an engine and some landing gear, plus whatever else was being dragged out with it.

Logically if 9-11Holograms are NOT technically possible then it’s a safe bet that Advanced Flying Hardware is also a fallacy.

Logic is obviously not your strong point. Nonetheless, if you're going to post in this thread, please stay on topic.

Has anyone figured out how holograms cast shadows, or travel through atmospheric inconsistencies, or are veiwable from 360 degrees without being projected on anything? Where was the image projected from? How did they line up the explosions with the hologram, and make the outside of the building blast inward at the impact point? How would a hologram go into the building, without light being reflected off of the windows? Where did the sounds come from? How did they make the sound follow the hologram of the aircraft? Where did the debris come from, and the human remains from the passengers? Where did the passengers go, after boarding an airplane that was tracked on radar until it slammed into the building? What about all the people in New York that saw planes crash into the towers? What about the live news broadcasts? How many people are in on this, without one whistleblower? What about all the home movies?

This is one of the most documented events in the history of mankind, and there is not one video or picture that shows anything but an airliner crashing into a building.

The only thing i have to say about 9/11 is, something fishy is going on, and I dont trust anything this goverment says about anything....

Honestly John, I am not going to say I am qualified to read 27 pages of legal documents about a lawsuit that has not even been litigated yet, and produce facts from it. Unless you have a law degree, I am going to say neither are you. That is up to the judge to decide what parts of this suit have merit and which don't. It's not up to you, hence the fact I interpret it different then you. The general gist of the lawsuit seems to involve more of a conflict of interest, then a case against no planes. It is being taken out of context. You seem to be reading inbetween the lines here. The case is not to prove if DEW/no planes were used. That is impossible to prove. The plantiff is mearly using that as an example to show collaberation between the military and these companies. It is more about the conflict of interest that involves corporations with military ties, investigating 9/11. He's trying to prove the investigation might have been biased, not trying to prove DEW were used. That is only an example he is using to show why corporations who develop military weapons might be biased in an investigation. It is a subtle but fine line. There is a difference between trying to show there might be a coverup (which I do believe, and which is the basis for the lawsuit), and saying that this case is to prove there were holograms used (which I do not believe, and is not the basis of the lawsuit). The best this lawsuit can hope to accomplish is to establish a reasonable doubt, and try to get more unbiased investigations in the future. There is no way they could ever prove DEW/holograms were used... hence this argument does nothing to prove your case for holograms (especially since there is not even a ruling yet). As for your ammo =) it took 30 seconds and google to shoot down two of your biggest arguments. No NTSB reports, because there were no planes...debunked. No lawsuits on behalf of airline passangers because there were no passengers...debunked. You present these as facts, when miniminal research reveals otherwise. This is not any different. Your bringing water ballons to a gunfight. Pop there goes another one. =)










[edit on 18-10-2007 by b309302]

Well im back Ive scanned over the topics for a response to my questions from John Lear but still havent found answers.
So as a reminder from way back at page 4-5 here is a quick breakdown question list.

1. How does a holo' create a shadow on the buildings?
2. How does it reflect the scene with updated cubemapping style environment (real time reflections)?
4. How is it solid looking with no signs of it being made of light?
5. Why is it viewable from all angles?
6. What is the light reflecting from to create a disembodied free floating hologram in mid air.
7. Why is it effected by lighting from the sun in 3 dimensions?
8. How does a hologram create a silhouette from cameras facing towards the sun?
9. How does the hologram create special sprite effects such as glare from the shiney surface?
10. How does a hologram emit sound.
11. Why do you keep saying holograph when ive already told you the proper term is hologram. Not very reassuring for a man who is seen as the leading role of the holography theory to use the wrong terminology.

Lets take a little look how to make a hologram shall we.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.holography.ru...
www.youtube.com...
Please note the conditions for these to work

Its a fun theory but then lives arent something to make light of (excuse the pun).

This is the best there is
www.youtube.com...

But look at the equipment, the faded quality, the dark room conditions, the fact its not viewable from directly on top or underneath, the fact the hologram cant cast shadows, reflect its surrounding object or lights and cannot have light cast onto the object to refract.

Basically your theory is like me shining a torch into a persons eyes on my tv and the light reflecting, they react and a shadow appears behind them from where the torch beam is blocked by them. Impossible.

[edit on 18/10/07 by eagle32]

One of the interesting points is that people are claiming holograms and what not that require these amazing technological feats which have never been achieved before and precision, accuracy, and detail beyond anything ever done before. And the evidence of this is the sloppiness and lack of attention to detail in the evidence used.

Does anyone not see the contradiction in this? This holds true for many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

reply to post by InnocentBystander


You are mistaken,

The NO HOLOGRAM position logically excludes UFO's
-as an actual advanced physical flying technology.

acceptance of the general 'possibility' of advanced technology cant be selective -
-no holograms - no UFO's

Now if your willing to go on record stating that......

1) You flatly reject the phenomenon of UFO's (alien or otherwise) as physical yet unidentified flying hardware.

Or

2) that you believe in UFO's (alien or otherwise) and that their observed flight characteristic requires less technical prowess than projected holographic images...

....I think some here may agree that your logical position is exactly on topic


Best,
Scrap

reply to post by scrapple

Your logic is flawed. According to your logic, if one UFO video is debunked, then they all are fake. Your taking a specific example, that has contrary evidence, and making broad sweeping generalizations. Tell you what... you show me a video of a UFO in broad daylight hitting a skyscaper exploding, being filmed at multiple angels, have sound matching the direction and course of the UFO, and have alien debris scattered afterward, I will agree it was not a hologram. This is the complexity of the holograms we are talking about. To just say I saw something strange flying in the sky can be attributed to the known properties of holograms. Stop making broad generalizations. Each case is examined on a case by case basis for a reason. If you want to play that game there are many examples of saucer shape UFO hoaxes. Does this mean all saucer shape UFO's are hoaxes? Or you want to play it case by case and not generalize?


[edit on 18-10-2007 by b309302]

No one is debating wether on not holograms exist. We are mearly stating we do not believe we have the technology to make them as complex as the ones supposedly used at the WTC. To say a UFO is a hologram takes no where near the technology we saw exibited at the WTC, unless you have a video like I mentioned before. To just project an image into the sky is well within the realm of technology. It is a large leap of faith (not logic) to say well if the WTC was not a hologram then nothing else can be either.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by scrapple
reply to post by InnocentBystander

 

You are mistaken,

The NO HOLOGRAM position logically excludes UFO's
-as an actual advanced physical flying technology.

acceptance of the general 'possibility' of advanced technology cant be selective -
-no holograms - no UFO's

Not necessarily true. For you to be correct, you must assume all advanced technology was developed equally. That would mean all advanced technology must have the same amount of researchers with the same intelligence and imaginations, same funding, same physics applicable to all aspects of all programs, same starting point and same equipment availability, etc...

By saying a technology is advanced, it means that it is above and beyond what is available to the general public and thus by default limited in some way. This means that the equipment, personnel, funds, etc. May also have a limited availability. If there is a limited availability of one or more things, automatically one or more programs would suffer and maybe the Holo program suffered.

So, not all advanced technologies are created equal-necessarily.

Now if your willing to go on record stating that......

1) You flatly reject the phenomenon of UFO's (alien or otherwise) as physical yet unidentified flying hardware.

Or

2) that you believe in UFO's (alien or otherwise) and that their observed flight characteristic requires less technical prowess than projected holographic images...

....I think some here may agree that your logical position is exactly on topic


Best,
Scrap

I can see what you're getting at but, sorry, flawed logic

reply to post by jfj123



This is where the hologram believers logic leads:

1. According to the hologram proponents, the ONLY explanation for the WTC planes is the use of futuristic technology.

2. We have no evidence that the U.S. or any other country is capable now of producing this futuristic technology.

3. Therefore, we can conclude that the WTCs were destroyed by holograms and energy beams produced by the same aliens that fly around in UFOs.

Originally posted by robert z
reply to post by jfj123

 

This is where the hologram believers logic leads:

1. According to the hologram proponents, the ONLY explanation for the WTC planes is the use of futuristic technology.

2. We have no evidence that the U.S. or any other country is capable now of producing this futuristic technology.

3. Therefore, we can conclude that the WTCs were destroyed by holograms and energy beams produced by the same aliens that fly around in UFOs.

Yes, you are so correct. I like to call it circus logic
We can't prove it because the technology is secret so that proves it's real

You must admit thought that they have dug themselves in nice and deep so they have a great position. We can't disprove something that doesn't....not exist.... because we can't prove it doesn't exist or ...not exist....
That makes my brain hurt

Perhaps someone can present an example of a hologram being used in a similar event. Not so much a plane hitting a building, but in a way where holograms have been used and can convince people they are real by presenting shadows, sounds, and moving physical objects etc. Or at the very least, can anyone provide an example o the most impressive use of a hologram?

Originally posted by snoopy
Perhaps someone can present an example of a hologram being used in a similar event. Not so much a plane hitting a building, but in a way where holograms have been used and can convince people they are real by presenting shadows, sounds, and moving physical objects etc. Or at the very least, can anyone provide an example o the most impressive use of a hologram?

Good luck with getting an answer
I've asked this about a dozen times and NO ANSWER.
Other's have asked this quite a few times here and.......NO ANSWER.

Hopefully you'll have better luck

Originally posted by snoopy
Perhaps someone can present an example of a hologram being used in a similar event. Not so much a plane hitting a building, but in a way where holograms have been used and can convince people they are real by presenting shadows, sounds, and moving physical objects etc.

Problem is hologram projects that big are mostly still classified. Their are only a few hologram projects on the market.

Like the following:
www.heliodisplay.eu...