The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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...

I thought you were referring to another research group. Actually I have done plenty of research about holograms, holographic projectors, lasers and optics. thanks for your concern though.
I don't know what the big deal is. John Lear says I'm wrong and according to him, he has a ton of info. All he needs to do is post it and this whole discussion can end......Right John?

Originally posted by jfj123 Actually I have done plenty of research about holograms, holographic projectors, lasers and optics.

If you have done research you should know there are some classified projects out there.





[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 Actually I have done plenty of research about holograms, holographic projectors, lasers and optics.

If you have done research you should know there are some classified projects out there.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Yes there are PLENTY of classified projects out there but they still must obey the laws of physics. The project can be as classified as it wants to be, it's completely irrelevant unless the word "classified" now means "magic"??

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes there are PLENTY of classified projects out there but they still must obey the laws of physics. The project can be as classified as it wants to be, it's completely irrelevant unless the word "classified" now means "magic"??

So your stating that even though NSA can have computer systems years ahead of eveyone, but that there are no hologram programs that can be years ahead of others?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes there are PLENTY of classified projects out there but they still must obey the laws of physics. The project can be as classified as it wants to be, it's completely irrelevant unless the word "classified" now means "magic"??

So your stating that even though NSA can have computer systems years ahead of eveyone, but that there are no hologram programs that can be years ahead of others?

There's a huge difference between some juiced up processors and quantum computing techniques and developing force fields and heavy graviton beams. So YES, that is what I am saying. Like I posted to John Lear, I would love to be wrong. I am a huge tech head and if you can prove that super technology exists, I'd think that was just awesome.

For that kind of technology, you're not looking at a 5-7 year leap but a much, much more huge leap.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, an idea needs to be substantiated with some type of evidence before being called a theory.

Where were the four engines of the planes? The LACK of physical evidence to show that two 767s crashed is disturbing. The theory for two 767s crashing would need evidence to show that they crashed - wreckage in large pieces, engines, landing gear, etc...

jfj123

tezzajw
The fact that no significant wreckage was found to indicate that the 767 struck the building?

needle + haystack=missing needle

But the haystack was removed by the truckload, where was the needle? When you remove the haystack and sort it in tiny piles, you should expect to find the needle. Where were all of the engines from the planes?

jfj123

tezzajw
The fact that an unburnt passport of one of the hijackers was found on the street, surviving the ball of fire and the subsequent fall, without any damage at all?

Yeah weird...nothing weird ever happens so it must be planted...

Yeah, very weird indeed. It must be a 'magic' piece of paper to survive the blast, jet fuel, fall and then to be found as intact as the day it was issued.

So, a passport can be found amongst the haystack, but all of the missing engines were unfound needles?

[edit on 2-12-2007 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw

Where were the four engines of the planes? The LACK of physical evidence to show that two 767s crashed is disturbing. The theory for two 767s crashing would need evidence to show that they crashed - wreckage in large pieces, engines, landing gear, etc...

There was wreckage all over around the crash sites. I would guess that most of the jet the DISINTEGRATED inside the building, disintegrated inside the building.

But the haystack was removed by the truckload, where was the needle? When you remove the haystack and sort it in tiny piles, you should expect to find the needle. Where were all of the engines from the planes?

I would have to guess that they did not literally sift through every ounce of debris or they would still be doing it. I think a lot of people simply don't understand the scope of the debris left by the fallen buildings.

Yeah, very weird indeed. It must be a 'magic' piece of paper to survive the blast, jet fuel, fall and then to be found as intact as the day it was issued.

So, a passport can be found amongst the haystack, but all of the missing engines were unfound needles?

Like I said, it was strange. Strange things happen all the time. Weird coincidences happen all the time. I wouldn't automatically leap to "planted" just because it's a bit weird. A lot weirder things have happened in the earths history. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by jfj123
There was wreckage all over around the crash sites. I would guess that most of the jet the DISINTEGRATED inside the building, disintegrated inside the building.

It seems far too convenient to me that the engines disintegrated so that they were unrecognisable...

Like I said, it was strange. Strange things happen all the time. Weird coincidences happen all the time. I wouldn't automatically leap to "planted" just because it's a bit weird. A lot weirder things have happened in the earths history. Wouldn't you agree?

Weirder things like 'magic', perhaps?

It was too strange, far too strange... a passport can survive a quick-burn hell-fire, but six ton engines get disintegrated... ok, that gives me confidence that two 767s really did hit the towers... not.

I'll leave it at that. We've both defined our own parameters for what is believable and what isn't. There's no point, for me, to rehash the issue stating the same thing.

reply to post by tezzajw

It seems far too convenient to me that the engines disintegrated so that they were unrecognisable...

MASS and GRAVITY can at time cause convenience problems

Weirder things like 'magic', perhaps?

Yes that is how I feel about the hologram idea. For it to be workable requires MAGIC not technology.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do appreciate the fact that although you have a differing opinion, you have expressed it civilly. Thanks

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Proof John? You know... "evidence" .... have you ever used that? I didn't think so.

CaptainObvious are you kidding? 99% of public thinks they saw airplanes and you are asking me for proof?

My proof is no airplanes+no wreckage=holographs. That should be Obvious...er Captain.

So therefore my evidence is the millions who actually believe that they saw airplanes which, I would assume, includes yourself. Obviously.

It was like magic. It was a holograph! Isn't that Obvious...er Captain?

Thanks for your post it is genuinely appreciated.

What? Dude... what in the hell are you saying? As Charlie Brown says... "Good Grief"

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Take it with a grain of salt. John Lear has been asked for literally months to support is humorous claims but never does. I can't say never as he did post an air force "pie in the sky" proposal sheet for a future weapon hologram program and he heard from someone who saw a plane that they thought was a hologram....See what I'm saying?

Good luck with prying info out of him

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

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.

There was never a crash investigation into the planes that hit the twin towers??? is that what you are suggesting? Are you sure that is correct?

Even if there was an investigation into the crashes, I would guess the government would get the results it wanted from the investigation. Would the FBI or Pentagon or some state controlled body have powers to control the investigation, I would imagine they would, but I can see why you are saying they prefer not to have any investigation at all.

What brought you to the conclusion that holograms were used? Have you seen or heard of such technology being in use?

From what I recall from previously reading 9/11 information (which is a few years ago now) there was a few firemen who made it to the floors where the planes crashed into the buildings, and they had the fires almost put out, their voices were captured on radio. Now was there any recording of a fireman remarking on actually seeing a part of the plane (or the absence of a plane) that morning.

And what about the fireball that was the jetfuel catching fire at impact. Are you suggesting the fireball was hologram, or do you believe that part was a real fireball???

was there any reports from any of the survivors from the towers who actually saw the plane coming in??? Did any survivor from inside the building happen to be looking out the window and report what he did or didn't see???

PS, are you John Lear from the Learjet company????

[edit on 2-12-2007 by golddragnet]

But everything wasn't fine--far from it. As Stanley was talking, he looked up an saw American Airlines Flight 11 heading straight for him.

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. "But this thing is happening in slow motion. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, I said 'Lord,
you take control, I can't help myself here.' "

Stanley then dove under his desk.

"My Testament [Bible] was on top of my desk," explained Stanley. "I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Lord was going to take care of me once I got there." As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane
tore into the side of the building and exploded.

Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to
his shoulders.

jeanne..._and_trev.tripod.com/america/id17.html

"We were on the 103rd floor of the second tower. I remember clearly shortly after 8:15 a.m. seeing an airplane just a speck in the distance. Thought nothing of it. And it started to get closer and closer. Then I realized that something pretty bad was happening, and just before impact I stood up and screamed at the top of my voice to everyone in the room that something was going to happen. And then impact," Gawthorpe said.

cbs2chicago.com...

They're not easy to find but they are out there. Those are some holograms though, and the timing of this whole thing was incredible.

Originally posted by golddragnet

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

It's clear to me that you aren't very familiar with the logistics of inserting real-time CGI into multiple cameras, some of which are on helicopters, and have it unfold live with no hitch. I have a good amount of experience with media production, and I'm positive it couldn't be done. Maybe the government has hologram projectors that are 60 years ahead of current technology, but I work daily on the best audio and video equipment and software that money can buy, and I know what it's capable of. There is a thread on this site debunking the September Clues videos, they are completely inaccurate.

Can you tell me maybe what programs would make this possible, and how they tracked live footage shot from a helicopter in order to insert motion graphics over live footage?

By the way, it wasn't the nose of the airplane that came out of the building, it was the engine. It was recorded on every angle that day, and even used as evidence in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. There is a diagram posted earlier on this thread showing the engine's exit from the building, and the path to where it landed.

Originally posted by golddragnet

There was never a crash investigation into the planes that hit the twin towers??? is that what you are suggesting? Are you sure that is correct?

Sorry golddragnet I should have been more specific. There was indeed an investigation but it did not include recovering any indentifiable parts that would match the maintenance records of the alleged airplane parts inventory.

Even if there was an investigation into the crashes, I would guess the government would get the results it wanted from the investigation. Would the FBI or Pentagon or some state controlled body have powers to control the investigation, I would imagine they would, but I can see why you are saying they prefer not to have any investigation at all.

The FBI took control of the investigation because it was allegedly a 'criminal act'.

What brought you to the conclusion that holograms were used? Have you seen or heard of such technology being in use?

My professional opinion is that no airplane crashed into the WTC. Therefore, since people did see and photograph an airplane the only other possibility is that they saw a holograph.

I have heard about the development of holographic technology and have written about it in this thread.

From what I recall from previously reading 9/11 information (which is a few years ago now) there was a few firemen who made it to the floors where the planes crashed into the buildings, and they had the fires almost put out, their voices were captured on radio. Now was there any recording of a fireman remarking on actually seeing a part of the plane (or the absence of a plane) that morning.

I don't recall any fireman stating that any specific airplane part was found. There should have been 2 6 ton engine cores which would not burn because they were jet engines and routinely burned fuel at temperatures far above anything seen in the towers. There shouldhave also been wing planks and wing-fuselage forgings along with wing spars, wing boxes, landing gear hydraulic retract cylinders and many others parts like these that could not, under any circumstance, burn, disappear or evaporate. It just could not happen.

And what about the fireball that was the jetfuel catching fire at impact. Are you suggesting the fireball was hologram, or do you believe that part was a real fireball???

I believe that was a real fireball positioned and set with explosives to simulate an aircraft flying through a building.

was there any reports from any of the survivors from the towers who actually saw the plane coming in??? Did any survivor from inside the building happen to be looking out the window and report what he did or didn't see???

I believe that there has been one or two posts by people claiming to have been in the building and watched the plane coming towards them. But I find this extremely unlikely.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

By the way, it wasn't the nose of the airplane that came out of the building, it was the engine. It was recorded on every angle that day, and even used as evidence in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. There is a diagram posted earlier on this thread showing the engine's exit from the building, and the path to where it landed.

Would that be the engine found on the street identified as the CFM-56? If so then the airplane profile (the apparent diameter) is substantially larger than a CFM-56.

The object allegedly exiting the south tower, was compared to the cockpit dimensions of a Boeing 767 (diameter 16.33 feet). The diameter of a CFM-56 is 88 inches about 8.6 feet short. Even if you were to argue that the CFM-56 was in fact a CF-6 which did power Boeing 767's and was 105 inches in diameter you are still 7 feet short.

Not, of course to mention the fact that, United Airlines did not use CF-6's. They used Pratt & Whitney JT-9D's.

Thanks for the post.

Does this theory also applied to living beings not appearing as they say they are like a lot of videos of people shape shifting on here on News cam. Of course there might be compression of data distortion but that may reveal rather than distort what we see. Maybe we are in some type of Matrix who knows, maybe that is why they made the movie.

Originally posted by johnlear
Would that be the engine found on the street identified as the CFM-56? If so then the airplane profile (the apparent diameter) is substantially larger than a CFM-56.
The object allegedly exiting the south tower, was compared to the cockpit dimensions of a Boeing 767 (diameter 16.33 feet). The diameter of a CFM-56 is 88 inches about 8.6 feet short. Even if you were to argue that the CFM-56 was in fact a CF-6 which did power Boeing 767's and was 105 inches in diameter you are still 7 feet short.

Hello Mr. Lear
Isn’t that assuming that the engine didn’t tumble or picked up any additional debris; if it did I would think it could leave a bigger hole
When you give those diameters of two different engines, are they the fan size or the over all size?

Originally posted by johnlear
Would that be the engine found on the street identified as the CFM-56? If so then the airplane profile (the apparent diameter) is substantially larger than a CFM-56...

Thanks for the post.

Can I ask you where you are getting your size information from? They seem like pretty specific numbers, mind listing a source? Who identified the engine as a CFM-56? Was the engine on the street a complete engine with a fan, or was it a core of an engine that just went through a building at 500mph and then fell 900 feet? Did the size analysis come off of youtube?

I'll leave the engine identification to the professionals, but considering your obvious marraige to the lol-o-gram theory, I certainly don't take your opinion as the final word. After all, I remember seeing you identify the exit hole inside the third ring of the pentagon as the entry point of the jet.

edit to add: the illustration moonking posted above is really helpful. John, would you mind showing us the three engines in question, cfm-56, cf-6, and the murray st engine, and helping us understand why it is a cfm-56?

Thanks!!

[edit on 2-12-2007 by InnocentBystander]

Looked into some info regarding the engine myself and the 'high-bypass' type CF-6 has a main fan diameter of 9 feet but the 'core' containing the latter stage turbines is only about 3' diameter so if the cowling, main fan, turbine shaft, concentrators and support structure is smashed off violently we'd be left with something exactly like what landed, hot and smoking, in Murray St.