The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by eyewitness86

 

So do you think to Government turned on the projector a few hundred feet out from the buildings?

I do not know if it was a few hundred fet or a mile or so. But if you watch the Chopper Five video, please tell me WHERE the second plane comes from? The pulled back shot shows NOTHING on the horizon to the right. Then the camera zooms in for a couple of seconds and the BOOM..the ' plane ' hits the Tower. Also, the NOSE ( or pod ) comes out the other side of the Tower before being engulfed in the fireball. Here , watch the video again, slowly and carefully, and see what I mean. WHERE does the plane come from? WHY does the camera operator hold the tight shot? If there was a plane barreling in on a Tower, the helicopter crew COULD have and WOULD have seen it, and pulled the shot back to capture a possible second strike..that instinct for a news person.

A pod or such comes out the Tower....the film shows NO planes on the horizon seconds before the ' strike '..what does that mean to you? If you say nothing then you are beyond hope.

These planes were moving at an incredible rate, OVER 500MPH AT A HEIGHT OF 700 FEET, that which those with experience say was impossible. More Proof of the fact that the planes were made of AIR...

These estimates made by legitimate companies, shows that the planes were traveling over 550MPH!!!
SOME ESTIMATES WENT AS HIGH AS 590MPH

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Not that I do not believe you Ultima... but do you have a source for these statements?

www.rawstory.com...

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation.

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

OK, here is the film clip..You can forward to about 6:55 to get to the meat of the matter..when Chopper Five starts its shot, look to the right to the horizon..NO PLANES..then a few SECONDS after zooming in, with NO indication from the Chopper crew that another plane was heading in..and no pull backs on the zoom..we see the ' second ' strike..including the ' NOSE OUT ' phenomenon!! How do the official story believers explain this without getting laughed at?






Play it a few times: you will see the trickery of the Tv station and the cutting out after the NOSE shows..Here is PROOF that no plane was seen before the strike..I am beginning to think that John Lear is a tad smarter than many would give him credit for.

reply to post by eyewitness86


Please post it. I would be more then happy to look at it. Thanks.

Sorry, I entered it wrong: HERE is the video:

If there can be UFOs, there can be magic planes.

I myself believe that the buildings were brought down due to explosives which were planted into the walls of the World Trade Center as far back as the Construction of those towers by David Rockefeller the buildings founder. The Rockefeller family was very large with the Neo-Nazi government. And if there is still a Neo-Nazi secret society(like Thule) which would have any reason of committing a horrible atrocity such as 9-11,. then thats what happened.

Remember the reichstag? That would be a very interesting coincidence. A Neo-Nazi family being involved in another incident where a false catastrophe was cause for another call to government.

And so i am not a "No planer" maybe spelled "No plane'er"? or would that be a "No Jet'er"?

But i will say.....



That I believe in Aliens



AND SO, I BELIEVE IN THE POSSIBILITY OF MAGIC PLANES...

MAGIC PLANES WITH THE ABILITY TO TRAVEL
IN WAYS IN WHICH MOST PEOPLE WOULD CALL "IMPOSSIBLE."

Originally posted by robert z
Holograms did not cause the damage to the buildings, nor did explosives timed and placed at the location where the holograms entered the building. No, whatever hit the building is what caused the holes in the buildings.

Case closed

I have not read into the "hollogram theory", as it never interested me, I assumed it was more disinfo, or crazy speculation. However I haven't read enough about it to comment one way or the other. But I feel your post doesn't disprove anything at all, you will have to go into much greater details if you wish to disprove it, you have really only suggested it would be difficult to accomplish.

Originally posted by golddragnet
Originally posted by robert
I have not read into the "hollogram theory", as it never interested me, I assumed it was more disinfo, or crazy speculation. However I haven't read enough about it to comment one way or the other. But I feel your post doesn't disprove anything at all, you will have to go into much greater details if you wish to disprove it, you have really only suggested it would be difficult to accomplish.

Well to start, an idea needs to be substantiated with some type of evidence before being called a theory. Those who create the idea and wish to "upgrade" it to a theory are responsible for proving their case. In other words, innocent until proven guilty. So far nobody who believes in the hologram idea, has provided any real evidence, only 2nd and 3rd person anecdotes and 1 proposal sheet.
There are some MAJOR leaps in technology that would need to occur for this "idea" to be reasonable. Those major leaps would be the equivalent of jumping from the iron age to the space age.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 2-12-2007 by jfj123]

Originally posted by johnlear
Somebody photographed an alleged engine that allegedly flew off of Flight 175 when it allegedly hit the south tower. This alleged engine turned out to be a CF56 which neither Flight 11 or Flight 175 had. Flight 11 had CF-6's and the airplane that allegedly hit the south tower had Pratt & Whitney's. The exact model of which was: Engine Model: JT9D-7R4D. So however was in charge of planting evidence planted the wrong engine.

Here is an example of an alleged piece off of a Boeing 767 which pentetrated 52 steel box columns then blew up with 23,000 gallons of jet fuel and then dropped to the street. Doesn't looked charred or burnt to me. Maybe a passport was wrapped around it:

I refer you to Morgan Reynolds Quit Am Complaint filed in New York District Court which alleges fraud against:

Defendants. :
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.;
DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.;
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP;
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI;
EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS;
DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO;
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,

I would also direct your attention to allegation 9:

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.

Although the March 8 RFC is a comprehensive document detailing exactly how, in what manner and for what reasons NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent, and should therefore be read in its entirety in conjunction with the claims of fraud made herein, it can be said that in the main, NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent because it intentionally conceals the fact that the buildings known as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center Complex, World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 were not hit by Boeing 767 jetliners and all such claims to that effect are glaringly and obviously blatantly false and are indeed, a manifested psychological operation (“psy op”) of the type that one or more of the defendants herein, including, without limitation, SAIC, specialize in.

The World Trade Center Towers were not hit by Boeing 767 airplanes. It was a PsyOp.

The holograph thread lives on!

that is a very interesting post, and if what you say is correct then it is proof of a US-admin coverup.

However, not having read the "hologram theory", I would wonder why bother??? Wouldn't it have actually been easier to fly 2 actual boeings, by remote control into the towers, less chance of getting caught. Wouldn't it be an enormous risk, even greater risk than the theory that the US admin substituted the boeings with remote control boeings of their own, and then used explosives the bring down the towers.

The parts that were found on the street that didn't belong to the boeings that were supposed to have crashed into the building, when exactly were they found and how did they get there???

I don't know the technology involved in holograms, but the images of the plane hitting the first tower, posted on this thread already, looks very convincing, and people watching it were convinced. I am aware there was alot of strange stuff going on with the TV footage that day, but it would seem to me to be more difficult and risky to use holograms rather than substituting the planes, or even remotely control the actual planes that were supposed to have crashed. If you were plotting 9/11 wouldn't it make more sense to actually fly 2 planes into the towers rather than using holograms

Originally posted by jfj123

There are some MAJOR leaps in technology that would need to occur for this "idea" to be reasonable. Those major leaps would be the equivalent of jumping from the iron age to the space age.

We know that the government keeps a close hold on technology often for many years until its allowed to dribble slowly into the hands of corporations and then to the public.

So you are assuming that I am incorrect, and that the technology doesn't exist to be able to project a holograph of a Boeing 767 so the question is how and when do you expect the government to start releasing this technology. In other words at what point in time in their research and developement would you expect to see holographic technology and how do you think it would be presented.

Also, do have ANY proof that the government does not possess this technology at this time? ANY teeny, tiny shred of evidence?

Thanks for your posts.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jfj123

There are some MAJOR leaps in technology that would need to occur for this "idea" to be reasonable. Those major leaps would be the equivalent of jumping from the iron age to the space age.

We know that the government keeps a close hold on technology often for many years until its allowed to dribble slowly into the hands of corporations and then to the public.

Assuming they starting working on the technology in the 12th century BC, it should be available now.

So you are assuming that I am incorrect

Based on information related to physics, lasers, optics, etc.. YES I am assuming you are incorrect.

and that the technology doesn't exist to be able to project a holograph of a Boeing 767 so the question is how and when do you expect the government to start releasing this technology.

They can't release technology that doesn't exist.

In other words at what point in time in their research and developement would you expect to see holographic technology and how do you think it would be presented.

Approximately 600 years from now.

Also, do have ANY proof that the government does not possess this technology at this time? ANY teeny, tiny shred of evidence?

Again you're asking me to prove a negative. Horrible logic. It's like proving god doesn't exist.

I have posted a few BASIC yet HUGE stumbling blocks that anyone wishing to produce this technology would need to surpass. Please review my post a few threads back.

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, an idea needs to be substantiated with some type of evidence before being called a theory. Those who create the idea and wish to "upgrade" it to a theory are responsible for proving their case. In other words, innocent until proven guilty. So far nobody who believes in the hologram idea, has provided any real evidence, only 2nd and 3rd person anecdotes and 1 proposal sheet.
There are some MAJOR leaps in technology that would need to occur for this "idea" to be reasonable. Those major leaps would be the equivalent of jumping from the iron age to the space age.

I don't know what technology the military does or doesn't have exactly, but I thought most people knew the US military does have technology far more advanced than is in the public domain. The technology they had 40 years ago to put men in space and keep contact with the crews, land vehicles on the moon etc is really remarkable amazing acheivements, and this was 20 years before remote controls for tv's were commonly used!!! There are people sponsored by the military who spend their working lives developing new advancements which don't get into the public arena for a long time. I assume they have been working on hologram technology also, and thinking about the advancements in technology these days, and the reality of specialm effects in movies etc, then to make realistic looking holograms doesn't sound at all difficult or far-fetched.
However as regards 9/11 it would appear to be a particularly high-risk form of attack. It would take alot to convince me that holograms were actually used rather than flying planes, but the TV footage of that day had very many inconsistancies, and some of John Lears post is very interesting. There has to be an explanation for the irregularities in the TV footage of that day, and I will assume all of you will have seen this documentary by now.
video.google.com...

Well, if planes were actually flown into the buildings, then why all the need to fake tv images and manipulate the news that day.
I haven't read threads or news on 9/11 in along time, as I always knew it was an inside job, and that was enough. The "who dun'it" was more interesting than "How", but some of what Lear wrote there is quite interesting

[edit on 2-12-2007 by golddragnet]

Originally posted by jfj123
Assuming they starting working on the technology in the 12th century BC, it should be available now.

If you had any knowledge of or could do research on government agencies you would know that NSA has computer systems that are least 5-7 years ahead of anyone else.

That means they are doing things with computers now that you will not even know about for at least 5-7 years if at all.



[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by golddragnet
I don't know what technology the military does or doesn't have exactly, but I thought most people knew the US military does have technology far more advanced than is in the public domain. The technology they had 40 years ago to put men in space and keep contact with the crews, land vehicles on the moon etc is really remarkable amazing acheivements, and this was 20 years before remote controls for tv's were commonly used!!! There are people sponsored by the military who spend their working lives developing new advancements which don't get into the public arena for a long time. I assume they have been working on hologram technology also, and thinking about the advancements in technology these days, and the reality of specialm effects in movies etc, then to make realistic looking holograms doesn't sound at all difficult or far-fetched.

If you were more familiar with the technologies, you would feel different. Trust me.

However as regards 9/11 it would appear to be a particularly high-risk form of attack.

Keep in mind that holograms have no substance and are made of nothing more then light. We know birds fly into planes all the time right? You see this huge flying hologram coming toward the towers and all of a sudden you see a bird fly through it. Oops...Do we get a do over?

Well, if planes were actually flown into the buildings, then why all the need to fake tv images and manipulate the news that day.

Please provide evidence that images were faked by either the government or media. Thanks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Assuming they starting working on the technology in the 12th century BC, it should be available now.

If you had any knowledge of or could do research on government agencies you would know that NSA has computer systems that are least 5-7 years ahead of anyone else.

That means they are doing things with computers now that you will not even know about for at least 5-7 years if at all.
[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Assuming that is true and you referring to the government sponsored think take in Idaho, they still must obey the laws of optics, physics, etc. I didn't make the rules up but they are indeed there for all to see

How exactly does 5-7 years extrapolate from 12th century BC to present?

Originally posted by golddragnet

However, not having read the "hologram theory", I would wonder why bother??? Wouldn't it have actually been easier to fly 2 actual boeings, by remote control into the towers, less chance of getting caught.

The government certainly has money to waste but not to waste flying airplanes into a building when they can simulate it with a holograph.

Flying airplanes into buildings is very risky business and you are certainly not going to trust some Arab hijacker to do it. Its possible to do it by remote control but that has risks also and the risk is, if there is any wreckage the NTSB is going to get involved and start a crash investigation.

As there were no planes crashed on 911 they never started any investigation other than opening the paperwork and waiting for evidence to arrive. It never did.

Now, if you had a remote control airplane, there is going to be substantial wreckage. The NTSB is going to want to know who owned the airplane, who modified it, who operated it and a lot of other questions.

The advantage of using a holograph is that there are no planes, therefore there is no wreckage, therefore there can be no investigation and therefore no one can be blamed.

If you can just get the public to believe that there would not one single shred of wreckage from two 350,000 pound airplanes each with 2 six ton engines that apparently evaporated in the fire and collapse of the WTC.

Right now, its looking pretty good. The gullibility of the public is infinite. But their patience is not. When the public finds out what happened there is going to be hell to pay for those perpetrators.

The parts that were found on the street that didn't belong to the Boeings that were supposed to have crashed into the building, when exactly were they found and how did they get there???

There was an engine found in the street that allegedly flew off United Airlines Flight 175 that hit the south tower. United Airlines uses Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines. The engine that was found was identified as a General Electric CFM-56.
The CFM-56 is a smaller engine used on smaller airplanes like the Boeing 737 and some business jets.

I don't know the technology involved in holograms, but the images of the plane hitting the first tower, posted on this thread already, looks very convincing, and people watching it were convinced.

Yes, it was a very well done PsyOp but no real airplanes were used. ]

Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by jfj123
Assuming that is true and you referring to the government sponsored think take in Idaho, they still must obey the laws of optics, physics, etc. I didn't make the rules up but they are indeed there for all to see

You really need to do research before posting.

No i am not referring to a think tank in Idaho. NSA is a government agency in Maryland.

www.nsa.gov...

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by golddragnet

However, not having read the "hologram theory", I would wonder why bother??? Wouldn't it have actually been easier to fly 2 actual boeings, by remote control into the towers, less chance of getting caught.

The government certainly has money to waste but not to waste flying airplanes into a building when they can simulate it with a holograph.

Because of course you have decided a hologram is cheaper then a real airplane?

Flying airplanes into buildings is very risky business and you are certainly not going to trust some Arab hijacker to do it. Its possible to do it by remote control but that has risks also and the risk is, if there is any wreckage the NTSB is going to get involved and start a crash investigation.

So the government is smart enough to pull off a holographic terror attack but they can't hide some remote control parts or stall an investigation if they are found?

As there were no planes crashed on 911 they never started any investigation other than opening the paperwork and waiting for evidence to arrive. It never did.

Can you show me that no evidence never arrived?

Now, if you had a remote control airplane, there is going to be substantial wreckage. The NTSB is going to want to know who owned the airplane, who modified it, who operated it and a lot of other questions.

Again, you're saying the government can control thousands of people and keep them from talking but they cannot control the NTSB. That must be some powerful group !

The advantage of using a holograph is that there are no planes, therefore there is no wreckage, therefore there can be no investigation and therefore no one can be blamed.

But wouldn't no wreckage be evidence? So then they had to plant evidence but how could they without getting caught doing so? Remember, the NTSB cannot be controlled due the their immense governmental power and they will not ever lie or cover up something for the rest of the government.

If you can just get the public to believe that there would not one single shred of wreckage from two 350,000 pound airplanes each with 2 six ton engines that apparently evaporated in the fire and collapse of the WTC.

Except of course the wreckage that was found all over the crash site.

Right now, its looking pretty good. The gullibility of the public is infinite. But their patience is not. When the public finds out what happened there is going to be hell to pay for those perpetrators.

I guess if someone were gullible enough to buy the hologram idea, don't they deserve to be deceived?

Yes, it was a very well done PsyOp but no real airplanes were used.

I would respectfully ask that when posting without any evidence to back up your "story" you use the word opinion. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Originally posted by jfj123
Please provide evidence that images were faked by either the government or media

video.google.com...
You have seen this before, it is one such documentary, there are lots of "irregularities" with the tv footage on 9/11, and add to that the reporting by BBC and CNN of WTC7 collapsing before it collapsed, it is clear the Media was being manipulated that day