The Hologram Theory is dead

I just wanna say that i don't know for sure if the hollographic theory is the true explanation or not, but Holography can be very well evoluted enough to make "shows" like the OTC one, and many others.

Something just to inspire us! :

www.dailymotion.com...

Originally posted by johnlear

In fact, the truth is, no airplane crashed into the south tower. It was a hologram which appeared to crash into the south tower with the pre-planting of explosives to finalize the illusion. Direct energy weapons, using molecular disassociation techonolgy completed the job of the total destruction of the WTC.

John your responses are getting more absurd by the day. Remember last Thursday you had dinner with an expert that explained everything about holograms?? So lets hear it!
Now you're also talking about directed energy weapons??? For real??? Please describe this disassociation technology in detail, where the the weapon was fired from, how they were used and what were they used to do specifically.

Someone was supposed to scatter some wreckage around the area below the twin towers but they didn't do a very good job. They 'planted' a General Electric CFM-56 when they should have planted a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D.

Yeah someone (someone means 1 person) was supposed to scatter wreckage including the engine core... How heavy are those engine cores again John?? And how did the "someone" scatter wreckage around without being seen?

As far as evidence that a hologram was used I submit yourself as proof positive that holograms can fool anyone.

This is known as circular logic. Circular logic is USELESS.

If you would like a technical explanation of exactly how holographic technology was developed and deployed I suggest you address the issue to the Department of Defense and the Pentagon. I believe it is highly classified but they would be the people that would know.

Well it's not so highly classified that one of your dinner friends couldn't explain it to yourself and a group of people. So instead of contacting the pentagon, we can simply ask you as you have already stated you have the information.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ferretman2

John -
Whoever planned this PsyOp was not carefull in selecting the engine to be placed on the sidewalk below the World Trade Center. They should have placed a Pratt & Whitney. Possibly they didn't have any wrecked Pratt & Whitneys available and thought, "What the heck, who's going to notice."

OK now we're back to the stupid geniuses theory. The super geniuses that can defy physics and create a perfect hologram but couldn't figure out that the engine came from the wrong plane. Yeah that makes sense. Sorry try again.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by neformore
So how do you know about them?

Because i work for the government and have access to classified resources.


[edit on 13-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

you do realize that posting even this information puts you in violation of your S.C.?

Originally posted by jfj123
you do realize that posting even this information puts you in violation of your S.C.?

No, you do not know to much do you. I have not posted anything classified or what my work intails.

You might want to do some research before posting something you know nothing about.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Simply stating that you have access to classified info is against regs and you know it.

Originally posted by jfj123
Simply stating that you have access to classified info is against regs and you know it.

Then please show me the regs.

Or would you prefer i show my agencies regs?

[edit on 13-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Would it be possible to return to the topic on this thread?

Personal details can be handled per U2U rather than in the public arena.

Originally posted by masqua
Would it be possible to return to the topic on this thread?

Personal details can be handled per U2U rather than in the public arena.

Sure, no problem.

This thread and the two others that started this debalce seem to show how the people who say "in fact it was a hologram" dance around the real questions like the engine core being the wrong kind and planted by evil doers when they weigh like 3000 pds in broad daylight.

There were no holograms.
There was wreckage.
There were airplanes.
There were dead people.
There were eye witnesses.
There was a cover up.
There were lies leading up to the war in Iraq.

Lets try and make a difference in the future.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly


Thanks for the input and your post infinityoreilly. I agree that there is not a shred of evidence:

There were no holograms.
There was actual Boeing 767 wreckage.
There were airplanes crashing into the WTC.

The following statments are true:

There were dead people.
There were eye witnesses.
There was a cover up.
There were lies leading up to the war in Iraq.

Thanks for your post and I agree there is a difference.

Mr. john lear, have you seen the link i posted before?, do you know anything about that secret holography project it talks about it, in 1994?
The small movie it's not very informative, but rises some pertinent questions about actual army holographic tecnologies.

[edit on 13/11/07 by Umbra Sideralis]

[edit on 13/11/07 by Umbra Sideralis]

[edit on 13/11/07 by Umbra Sideralis]

I want to say a few things here as CGI often gets crossed with the hologram theory.

For the people who hold to CGI you are trashing to much eyewitness testimony. I can see a few being trashed, but come on. It is completely uncalled for.

I will cite just one example. This woman was badly burned and had surgery 5 times.

She was talking to her boss at the time and recalled him saying ....

www.cbsnews.com...

"My boss said, 'Oh my gosh I saw a plane hit the building.'

After her surgery and burns I doubt, sincery doubt she is making this up.

So remember, there were *PEOPLE* inside the towers who saw the PLane. And some of them that worked in the Towers were *MUSLIMS*.

Can you imagine if in New York City, a city with a large muslim population saw a missile hit the towers? Or just a bomb go off?

Now for the hologram idea.

There were survivors who saw plane parts inside the building! Are they just lying to? What? These people have nothing better to do?

www.cbsnews.com...

She heard the first explosion and felt the floor rock. Another employee saw the wing of the plane and everyone started running around.

www.arizonafamilynews.com...

the plane slammed into the building and the bottom of the wing sliced through his office and stuck in his office door 20 feet away from where he was huddled.

I don't think holograms leave Wings inside of buildings. So what do people do to get around this? They do exactly what 'debunkers' do. They go for any reason not to believe.

In my view there is a difference between a debunker and a skeptic. A skeptic is legitimate whereas a debunker comes up with some ludicrous ideas to explain away the obvious.

So to get around this we have.....

Full and complete denial of the media.
Full and complete denial of eyewitness testimony that agrees on there being Planes.


If you start denying to many things, then it stands to reason what you might really be denying is truth itself.



[edit on 14-11-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by johnlear

I agree that there is not a shred of evidence:
There were no holograms.
There was actual Boeing 767 wreckage.
There were airplanes crashing into the WTC.

What you've described as a hologram by definition is not.
Maybe the plane wasn't a 767.
There were airplanes used on 911.

Please dispute the previous sentences.

Now can we agree?

Infinityoreilly

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by seridium

For starters how can you prove that mangled up squished engine in that picture is in fact a General Electric CFM-56, it looks a little busted up to me and a little compacted, but if in fact it wasn't from a 767 then i would say I'm done discussing how your government is a lying piece of garbage.

If you had worked on that engine for 20 years and knew every little bit and piece you would instantly recognize a beat up mangled engine.

The same way way I would recognize a Learjet out of smoking hole.

But i mean if no evidence adds up regarding the 911 incident why don't people take a stand with hard evidence against the Neo conservative manifesto?

Just imagine if we had to convince each person in the United States and each person took as long as you.


If you read back to this post
Thanks for the post.

I knew it was fake ever since I actually looked into it all I seen the MK ultra tactics on the population to start the Iraq war.
I am not retarded liek most peopel you know I just can't fathom them using actual holograms thats just gotta be so precise to work its almost un-imaginable.

Some great flash animations below.
please take the time to check them out.

truth be told

fascism

more here

For people that do not think a hologram is possable should check out something called a Volumetric Display.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is thought that the device could be scaled up to any size, allowing for 3D images to be generated in the sky.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
For people that do not think a hologram is possable should check out something called a Volumetric Display.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is thought that the device could be scaled up to any size, allowing for 3D images to be generated in the sky.

Here is some info regarding Volumetric Displays

In other words, laser light is projected onto a screen.

You'll find a diagram of the screen here
www.laserfx.com...

Diagram 2



Here's a good example of Volumetric Displays
video.google.com...

There is also a huge difference between projecting any type of hologram in a dark, environmentally controlled area at a short distance, and projecting in th real world in broad daylight. Even the Helio Display needs very controlled conditions.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
For people that do not think a hologram is possable should check out something called a Volumetric Display.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is thought that the device could be scaled up to any size, allowing for 3D images to be generated in the sky.

Since you posted this in both threads, I'll do the same :

I now name this theory the lol-o-gram theory, it's just too laughable. To post something that says it is "thought" the device "could" do anything, is not any evidence at all. It's pointless in this context.

Evidence would be an actual lol-o-gram projector picture or video, or witness of it or the massive sound systems needed to simulate the jet that the lol-o-gram is projecting. Saying things "might" or "could" mean nothing.

Sorry.

Oh yah, one more thing... how in the world does a lol-o-gram make a hole the shape of a commercial jet into a skyscraper?

Originally posted by Soloist
Oh yah, one more thing... how in the world does a lol-o-gram make a hole the shape of a commercial jet into a skyscraper?

So when are you going to stop trolling and post evidence?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Soloist
Oh yah, one more thing... how in the world does a lol-o-gram make a hole the shape of a commercial jet into a skyscraper?

So when are you going to stop trolling and post evidence?

The total and complete non-existence of ANY evidence of a lol-o-gram being used is all I need.

I have listed the sound aspect alone, and no one seems to have an answer for it. If this truly were what happened it would be a massive effort just to produce the sounds accurately enough to fool people.

So, what evidence would you like me to post? I mean I think the lol-o-gram theory is utterly bogus. Why would I have or post evidence of it?????

Once again, you of all people telling anyone to stop trolling is hilarious.

If you have an answer to my question then by all means go ahead.

How does a lol-o-gram make a jet shaped hole in a building????