The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jfj123

Why a chevy blazer?

Didn't need anything bigger.

Ok so no reason in particular to pick a particular vehicle of similar size over another. I thought you may have picked a specific make and model for a reason.

Also, there were body parts.

Not according to Wallace Miller on the day of the alleged accident.

Please tell me who wallance miller is and what he said on that day.

I know photos of body parts were taken and there was also eye witness testimony of body part.

OK. Lets see the photos and witness testimony. Be sure they both show date of 09-11-01. Thanks.

I would feel compelled to back up my statement but you've already proven you can make factual statements without presenting evidence to back them up. I say photos were taken without proving photos were taken. That is no more or less factual then you saying holograms were used and not provided ANY evidence that they are even possible-which they are not
If you are willing to provide evidence that holograms of the sophistication required to pull off the illusion, are real, I'll be more then happy to work on my end.

Also, I know many people on this thread have asked you to provide evidence that a hologram of the sophistication you are claiming, is even possible. Do you have any evidence or is the hologram idea strictly an opinion?

I strongly doubt that any evidence I could provide would be sufficient to satisfy you that holographs were used on 911 to simulate the Boeing 767's which appeared to glide into the WTC or the Boeing 757 which appeared to approach the Pentagon.

Well NO evidence, by default would not satisfy anyone so, any evidence is better then no evidence. Why not post it so we can actually look at it and evaluate the evidence? Posting the evidence may get someone just enough information to run with it and your proof may be forthcoming. On the other hand, maybe someone will find a terminal flaw in the evidence which will allow you to move on to another idea.

If there is no evidence to support a hologram theory, why would you even believe in it?

Thanks.

Hey I'm post #500! Woo!

Do I get a prize? Can I choose what it is? I'd like one of those flashy things!




Then I'd too be able to plant jet engines on crowded street corners!

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by PhotonEffect

What made you think hologram initially?

No aircraft hit the towers but people saw airplanes. They had to be holographs.

-Where did this idea come from, and why do you believe so strongly in this theory?

Holography was invented in 1947:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is the only possible explanation for what happened on 911.

Did you receive some sort of inside information suggesting this was how it was done?

No.

Have you seen this type of technology being used or heard of holograms being used in this capacity?

I have heard stories of its use, in one case simulating a large aircraft in flight.

Thanks for your post Mr Lear
We seem to be getting somewhere at least.

I respectfully suggest that there's no case for anything like holographs in your replies. If anything it just adds more weight to what was plainly evident and reported on the day IE real planes, real buildings, real casualties. There's FAR more evidence in favour of the 'official' or media version of events than this hollow fiction of hitech laser creations which have zero verifiable evidence of even existing not to mention the obvious problem of how it could cope with all the smoke and dust in the air and be at all convincing.

If I were to propose such a theory based on that sort of logic and 'evidence' I'd be torn to pieces within minutes - and deservedly so.

Originally posted by johnlear
I never said that holographs ‘hit’ the towers. Holographs are projected images. They cannot ‘hit’ anything. They are not ‘matter’.

I never said explosives were planted on the ‘outside of those buildings’.

Correct. Actually, you've never accounted for the 'Cartoon Cutout Challenge' at all. However, ignoring it will not make it go away.

Although I am certified as a ‘Blaster’ by the State of Nevada (B-702-2006) and hold licenses to purchase, possess and use high explosives by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives (9-NV-003-33-OE-00147) my experience with explosives is limited to that required for mining.

I am not familiar with any other use or controlled demolition. That is outside my experience.

You're obviously not familiar with holographs either, so why let that stop you. And you've already deduced that the buidings were brought down by controlled demolition, so are you now admitting that you don't know what you're talking about?

That's why it's so irritating to hear you say things like, 'No planes hit the towers' or 'all the witnesses that day saw holographs.' You should have to start sentences like that with a qualifier, like 'in my opinion...' or 'this is going to sound completely bonkers, but I think...'

Thanks for your post, your input is greatly appreciated.

So John you never answered any of my questions? will you please my post is a page back.

Originally posted by seridium

How can you blately say that flight 93 did not exist as a fact? when the people that were on that plane are dead!~ here is evidence indeed it did exist

There is no wreckage that can be identified as being part of United Airlines Flight 93. There is no record of Flight 93 having taken off at 8:42 from Newark. I know of no independent verification that anybody allegedly on board Flight 93 died. There were certainly no bodies at Shanksville.

Or I contact contact some people that had relatives or parents kids etc, that died on that flight let you know it did however exist.

I agree that there are people missing who were allegedly on Flight 93 but that doesn't mean they are dead or were killed.

How could you claim that it was projectors /holograms can you give full solid proof that these devices exist?
What kind were they? 2D / 3D hologram,Dot matrix, E-BEAM & 12,000 dpi?

I am not privy to secret technology developed by the government and I have no sources which are directly involved in the development of that technology.

I believe that the technology exists but I have no proof.

Where did they do the holographic recording process?

I have no information on that.

You did know there is a Holgraphic recording process?

There must be because there is a projected image.
Whether it is that process described in your post I do not know.

The hologram theory is only relevant to your mindset John, and whover has the scruples to beleive it, me myself in my humble opinion of it being holograms is complete theatrical, What do the holograms reflect off of, light has to reflect off something not just thin air?

Again, I am not privy to the technology.

Im not trying to personally discredit your claims but a little more proof other than you being John Lear is needed.

I understand completely. But for the time being all I have is my opinion. For proof of the claim you may have to wait a few years.

I mean this is A.T.S and it seems the favortism is directly on your side John.
I don't comprehend why your allowed to post lies on here with no credible evidence?

I would respectfully request that you don’t refer to my opinions as ‘lies’. They may not have the evidence you are seeking but my opinions are not ‘lies’. They are opinions.

It is a simple question that needs to be answered ? I m not asking Simon Grey im not asking Springer or Sceptic_overload I would like an answer from you and no comments about this from the peanut gallery.

OK. What is the question?

Im looking to hurt feelings im looking to go against forum rules im just tired of non sense...

Many share your feelings.

Can you please elaborate on these devices you claim projected holograms into thin air?

They are probably carried in, attached to and projected from E4-B’s. Alternately, maybe C-130’s.

The operator probably has a computer from which he can select “vehicle” either an airplane, car, train, tank etc. then he can select whether or not it tracks on the ground or in the air. Then he can probably select speed. Then he can probably select a background and sky condition. He then can select where he wants the object to begin its appearance and when he wants his object to disappear. He can probably select “time” for beginning or ending or ‘manual’.

He can probably pull up a map of anywhere in the world and use a mouse to select ‘start’ and ‘end’.

So in the case of 911 the computer operator would have clicked his mouse for ‘Airplane, Flight 175’, ‘Colt’s Neck VOR’ ‘Sky clear’ ‘Direct WTC South Tower’ ‘500 mph’ and then pressed ‘start’.

There was probably a prompt that said, “Abort?” and one that read “Complete” when the simulation was complete. He could probably input signals such as “South Tower Explosives” with a click of the mouse so that when the holograph reached the South Tower it would instantaneously and automatically trigger the explosives previously set in the tower.

It would look exactly like a real airplane flew into the south tower and blew up. The only difference being that there would be no airplane parts when the tower collapsed.

In my opinion IF they had hologram machines that you speak of Jebus would have spoken to us all at every corner of the world already.

The CIA pulled that off in Cuba in the 60’s, with the images they were able to produce at that time. How did you find out about that one?

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by seridium

Im looking to hurt feelings im looking to go against forum rules im just tired of non sense...


[edit on 023131p://upWednesday by seridium]

Heres a perfect example why you should proof read LOL this was supposed to say I am NOT looking to hurt feelings I am NOT looking to go against forum rules I am just tired of non sense...

Originally posted by johnlear himself

There is no wreckage that can be identified as being part of United Airlines Flight 93. There is no record of Flight 93 having taken off at 8:42 from Newark. I know of no independent verification that anybody allegedly on board Flight 93 died. There were certainly no bodies at Shanksville.

Iron Mountain holds the evidence of Flight 93.news link
There was also a Secondary Debris field of wreckage.see here

I agree that there are people missing who were allegedly on Flight 93 but that doesn't mean they are dead or were killed.

Well here it is pure raw evidence of the families that lost loved ones in that crash that did exist, seems someone is making a film about the facts.
Also just from the trailer on the site you can clearly see the people talking about how they lost there kin, in a plane crash they didn't just vanish out of thin air.

Evidence passengers did exist

I am not privy to secret technology developed by the government and I have no sources which are directly involved in the development of that technology.
I believe that the technology exists but I have no proof.

Enough said.




You did know there is a Holographic recording process?

Again, I am not privy to the technology.

Well then why state it exists.

I understand completely. But for the time being all I have is my opinion. For proof of the claim you may have to wait a few years.

Your opinion counts, but when its so far fetched and discrediting real actual info it gets me a little offensive.

I would respectfully request that you don’t refer to my opinions as ‘lies’. They may not have the evidence you are seeking but my opinions are not ‘lies’. They are opinions.

I say it as I see it...

OK. What is the question?

You answered them, thanks.

The CIA pulled that off in Cuba in the 60’s, with the images they were able to produce at that time. How did you find out about that one?

Well actually that was quite different when warm air lies on top of cold air, the difference in density is enough to bend light. At higher altitudes, a mirage can make whole landscapes appear in the sky. An artificial mirage could in theory be made by heating the atmosphere with radio waves or microwaves. The USAF then had the problem of making the image appear to speak. They postulated, "a pulse stream, an internal acoustic field of 5- 15KHz can be created which is audible. Thus it may be possible to 'talk' to adversaries in a way which would be most disturbing to them now if there was holographic images produced there it would be done in this manner I am sure.

Hologram theory was never alive so how did it die? dumbest theory to date IMHO. Planes penetrating the buildings DOES NOT violate any of the laws of physics. Off to college you need to go.

Originally posted by Pootie

dumbest theory to date IMHO.

Thanks for the post Pootie and many agree with you.

However I think that holographs were used to simulate the alleged crashed of Boeing 767's into the World Trade Center towers.

The reason I think that is because there was not enough debris from the 2 alleged Boeing 767's in the footprint of the collapsed buildings. There should have been at least 3 engines, all three of which weighed around 6 tons and which could not possibly have been destroyed by burning jet fuel mainly because this is what they use to run: burning jet fuel. So it is highly unllikely that burning jet fuel could have caused them to burn up. See what I mean?

But thanks for the post.

Parody

THERE WERE NO TOWERS. You cannot prove that there were any towers in the first place. Ground Zero has always been towerless. You say youve been there? You only think so. Thats a false memory implant. Pictures and movies of it? Fake. CGI. Documents that the WTC existed? Forged. Threre is no evidence whatssoever that WTC existed. Its a myth. There were NO Towers.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Ok, fine, but the planes were real!



Or better yet, there were towers, they just weren't the famous twin towers. Instead they were like 2 big antennas that had big "flashy things" on them which kept everybody within all line of sight tranced out in delusional fervor. They had obviously been planning it for awhile.

Proof they could build large antennaes:

Proof that "Flashy Things" exist:

Originally posted by johnlear

I am not privy to secret technology developed by the government and I have no sources which are directly involved in the development of that technology.

I believe that the technology exists but I have no proof.

This should end the speculation when one of the supporters of this theory writes something like this. 60 pages of dodging the questions and then this?

I find this thread maddening and a waste of time to read.
A certain member contributes and provides links ( not naming names) and then another member asks questions ( without supporting his/her claim to the contrary).Then the conversation turns "oh, did you mean ______?"
It goes round and round.
I'm not a "no planer" but I see some evidence brought forth by "no planers", yet I see no counter from the "planers".
I know what the response will likely be. "I don't have to provide evidence, the no planer does."
If a particular theory is DEAD then one must PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that it IS dead.If a "no planer" can provide evidence that a technology, no matter how limited is possible, then debunkers should pony up and show why it's NOT possible.
This roundy round isn't debating, it's badgering.I wish the polite sand kicking would stop.

Originally posted by citizen truth
I find this thread maddening and a waste of time to read.
A certain member contributes and provides links ( not naming names) and then another member asks questions ( without supporting his/her claim to the contrary).Then the conversation turns "oh, did you mean ______?"
It goes round and round.
I'm not a "no planer" but I see some evidence brought forth by "no planers", yet I see no counter from the "planers".
I know what the response will likely be. "I don't have to provide evidence, the no planer does."
If a particular theory is DEAD then one must PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that it IS dead.If a "no planer" can provide evidence that a technology, no matter how limited is possible, then debunkers should pony up and show why it's NOT possible.
This roundy round isn't debating, it's badgering.I wish the polite sand kicking would stop.

What questions do you have for people who don't believe the hologram idea? I will attempt to answer as many as I can.

reply to post by jfj123

What questions do you have for people who don't believe the hologram idea? I will attempt to answer as many as I can.

Not to sound rude but after 26 pages I expected to see some answers (with links) from the other side of the debate.I'm well aware of the no plane theory and I've researched on my own.I have found evidence that supports the no plane theory and I have found evidence that supports planes hitting the WTCs.
Perhaps I'm lashing out at this particular thread because it's a fine example of little debate.
If one side provides evidence (with links) of a theory then I think it would be intelligent for the opposing side to provide evidence (with links) as to why they oppose said theory.
I've read this thread from front to back several times and so far I haven't witnessed any intelligent counter argument.
My sincere condolences go out to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and to the responders who suffer from terminal illnesses and we owe it to them to find out what the truth is.
I believe that aircraft hit the buildings that day but what kind I don't know because I don't have definitive and verifiable facts.By verifiable I mean if I read a report and find flaws, then it is not verifiable.It doesn't make it fact or fiction, it just makes it questionable.
As you can see both sides of the argument leave unanswered questions.One side isn't right or wrong until proven so.THAT is what I'm getting at.

Originally posted by citizen truth
Not to sound rude but after 26 pages I expected to see some answers (with links) from the other side of the debate.

And now you're beginning to see. This theory's sole purpose, and that of most of its proponents, is to divert. Diversionary disinfo. Divide & Conquer. Each one of these threads, everywhere, and their inevitable outcomes, are each ongoing-growing evidence of the Diversion Disinfo Conspiracy.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by citizen truth
Not to sound rude but after 26 pages I expected to see some answers (with links) from the other side of the debate.I'm well aware of the no plane theory and I've researched on my own.I have found evidence that supports the no plane theory and I have found evidence that supports planes hitting the WTCs.

So by 'the other side' you mean whom? Can I ask you what evidence you have found that supports the no plane idea?

If one side provides evidence (with links) of a theory then I think it would be intelligent for the opposing side to provide evidence (with links) as to why they oppose said theory.

Agreed. But when one side makes posts like Wizard in the Woods did on the first page, denying that anyone witnessed a plane hitting the WTC, and stating that every video of the impact is CGI - with absolutely no evidence - no amount of links can make sense of that. I could try to explain the logistics of real time motion graphic generation, and we could point out all of the impossibilities of the hologram theory (which we have done many times without any reply), but it's pointless.

Remember, this is one of the most documented events in human history. We have actual video evidence, from a plethora of independent sources, that all shows the same event. Hundreds of pictures of the attacks and the aftermath. Just becuase you deny the evidence doesn't make it any less real.

I've read this thread from front to back several times and so far I haven't witnessed any intelligent counter argument.

How about this one: If you believe that holograms hit the WTC, then what caused the cartoon cutouts in the side of the buildings?

I believe that aircraft hit the buildings that day but what kind I don't know because I don't have definitive and verifiable facts.

Then you are on our side. What kind of plane hit is of no importance to this thread, unless it was a hologram.

As you can see both sides of the argument leave unanswered questions.One side isn't right or wrong until proven so.THAT is what I'm getting at.

Not unanswered questions, just answers that you are apparently not satisfied with. Many people are completely satisfied that planes hit the towers.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
This should end the speculation when one of the supporters of this theory writes something like this. 60 pages of dodging the questions and then this?

I have the nagging suspicion many readers have not understood the essence of the hologram theory. So I’ll recap – it seems that can’t be done enough times here.

On 9-11 four flights were reported as highjacked, AA77, UA175, UA93, AA11. However, in reality none of these flights really existed. None of these Boeings ever left the terminals. The flight logs show this — there are no records of these planes. We have shown this on ATS repeatedly. And I don’t have the time to look up the posts. Sorry. But it’s been discussed.

The 9-11 false flag event unfolded as follows. During the course of that day’s morning phony hijacking reports of these phantom planes were gradually released to the mainstream media. From this point on, those four non-existent planes needed to publicly be accounted for. Once reported everyone wanted to know what was happening to those aircraft and their passengers. We all were concerned about their whereabouts.

Two of the four make-believe planes were stated as having crashed into WTC1 and 2. That left two more fake flights which needed to ‘go somewhere’. Well, one was said to have smashed into the Pentagon. That left one last bogus flight out there in limbo, UA93. John Lear’s hologram scenario suggests the 9-11 cabal wanted to announce this plane as having hit WTC-7. But for some reason they weren’t able to make that claim. But they still needed to get rid of that sham aircraft, still reported as being hijacked but only existing as a fiction. So they sent up a few fighter jets — making sure plenty of people would see them — and then arranged for us to be informed that the aircraft had ‘crashed’. This was done in a way — perhaps on purpose, perhaps by accident — that many of us would later speculate that that flight was shot down.

If people really did planes flying into WTC1, 2 and the Pentagon, then they saw nothing but holograms. That is the essence of the hologram hypothesis. If you believe the eyewitness accounts, then the hologram theory is the only show in town. So far no one has offered any better (serious) suggestions to bridge what was seen with reality.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

If none of them existed, then why do at least two of them show up in transportation statistics as having departed that day? The site doesn't work anymore, but you can find many references to having found the United flight departure statistics for 9/11. So if they didn't exist on that day then why are there records showing them departing? And if the people that you say did 9/11 were smart enough to put the United flights on record, why wouldn't they have been smart enough to have put all four on records?