The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by jfj123

 

´´You can't stamp "top secret" on something and make all principles of optics and physics stop.´´

right. and because of that, Judy Wood raises good questions about some of the main physical phenomenons of 911.

we dont have to´discuss´here the possibilities of a direct energy weapon.

My apologies but what does that have to do with this thread? Thanks.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Here are some cropped-down frames from the same video that I captured the flattened-out plane from.

As the plane passes the South-West corner of tower two, it blocks off light coming into the South facing windows and it creates a dark spot that shows up on the North wall.
I am posting this to show that I think there was a plane.
So, I am not trying to say there was a remote projector making an image in the air, while there was not anything there.
What I am trying to say is, there was a plane, but it was using a cloaking device (by holographic means) attached to it.
The object of doing this is to not make a plane appear, where there is none.
The object is to make a highly maneuverable and controllable military plane look like an ordinary commercial passenger airliner.
The military's ability to do something like this would necessarily have to be a closely guarded secret because that ability would be worthless if it was known, to the enemy.
In this instance, we are the enemy.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

The other problem you have is that the hologram would need to be projected onto a medium in the open air in the daylight. Again, thats why holographic presentations are performed onto something in typically environmentally controlled, low light area's.

reply to post by jfj123


OK, so you are right.
I am sure that is true about what we know about holograms.
I have no idea how something that I propose would actually work.
I am not a die-hard proponent of any theory.
I have worked very hard to try to disprove a lot of theories.
I just got serious about looking into all this 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff recently, since back in December.
I started watching some of the 9/11 videos and after a long time and a lot of videos, I realized there was not one that showed what I saw on 9/11 presented as being live.
I knew it was not because of a faulty memory.
So, something else must be the reason for this.
I decided to dedicate some serious time on looking at these videos to figure out what was real and what was fake.
I decided that it is not possible to come up with one explanation that fits all the various versions.
So, I came up with the idea that the optical illusion that was played sometimes worked better in some situations and not at all, in at least one instance.
I did not start out trying to find that.
I gradually went in that direction, the more I studied the videos.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by jfj123

 

OK, so you are right.
I am sure that is true about what we know about holograms.
I have no idea how something that I propose would actually work.
I am not a die-hard proponent of any theory.
I have worked very hard to try to disprove a lot of theories.
I just got serious about looking into all this 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff recently, since back in December.
I started watching some of the 9/11 videos and after a long time and a lot of videos, I realized there was not one that showed what I saw on 9/11 presented as being live.
I knew it was not because of a faulty memory.
So, something else must be the reason for this.
I decided to dedicate some serious time on looking at these videos to figure out what was real and what was fake.
I decided that it is not possible to come up with one explanation that fits all the various versions.
So, I came up with the idea that the optical illusion that was played sometimes worked better in some situations and not at all, in at least one instance.
I did not start out trying to find that.
I gradually went in that direction, the more I studied the videos.

I applaud the fact that you're asking questions and putting time in to try and find out what happened at 9/11. I consider someone to be a true patriot if they question their government to keep them honest.

no, you didn´t get it. when talking about physics,
these principal data must be explained:
(hologram or not)

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with a controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive.
9. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions.
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely




[edit on 13-6-2008 by anti72]

[edit on 13-6-2008 by anti72]

Originally posted by anti72
no, you didn´t get it. when talking about physics,
these principal data must be explained:
(hologram or not)

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with a controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive.
9. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions.
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely




[edit on 13-6-2008 by anti72]

[edit on 13-6-2008 by anti72]

My suggestion is you review the following site
www.debunking911.com...

It should answer most if not all your questions.

This subject of energy beam weapons is off-topic for this thread.
It does not have anything to do with holograms.
Unless you want to tie it in as another example of secret technology at work.
I happen to believe there are some sort of beam weapon programs.
I have brought up this story a couple times and have never gotten any response.
Where I live in Florida, if you see a night launch of the space shuttle, when it gets really high, it seems like you are looking right into the engines.
That makes me feel that if it is going straight away from me when it goes into orbit, that eventually, it will circle around and fly right over my head.
A couple of years before 9/11 there was a secret mission where they had an all military crew on the shuttle.(to test a beam weapon)
I was driving down the road at around 11:30 am.
In the distance before me I could see white smoke floating across the road.
There was a bridge close to that spot and from half a mile away I thought that homeless people under the bridge had started a fire.
When I got up to it I saw that it was the mowed grass medium, about 40 ft wide, in the middle of the highway, going up in smoke.
Very odd because there was no flame and there were businesses around, like a produce stand, with people who seemed oblivious to it.
I went back, in the late afternoon, with my camera in hand.
I took pictures and closely examined the ground and the edge of the road.
The yellow painted stripe just beyond the curb had bubbles in it.
I was really trying to find any evidence of some fuel.
I found little bits of paper and trash from the mower blades, right on the ground, under the grass that looked perfectly normal, with no signs of being dowsed with gasoline, or something.
All the green grass was scorched to brown and all the dead grass had been scorched to black.
Nothing looked like it had been consumed.
I had to drive by this spot daily so I checked it and the grass, at one point, was more green than the rest, in that formerly burnt spot, because of the new growth.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
This subject of energy beam weapons is off-topic for this thread.
It does not have anything to do with holograms.
Unless you want to tie it in as another example of secret technology at work.
I happen to believe there are some sort of beam weapon programs.

Yes there are several programs. You can u2u me if you're looking for info on them.

I have brought up this story a couple times and have never gotten any response.
Where I live in Florida, if you see a night launch of the space shuttle, when it gets really high, it seems like you are looking right into the engines.
That makes me feel that if it is going straight away from me when it goes into orbit, that eventually, it will circle around and fly right over my head.
A couple of years before 9/11 there was a secret mission where they had an all military crew on the shuttle.(to test a beam weapon)
I was driving down the road at around 11:30 am.
In the distance before me I could see white smoke floating across the road.
There was a bridge close to that spot and from half a mile away I thought that homeless people under the bridge had started a fire.
When I got up to it I saw that it was the mowed grass medium, about 40 ft wide, in the middle of the highway, going up in smoke.
Very odd because there was no flame and there were businesses around, like a produce stand, with people who seemed oblivious to it.
I went back, in the late afternoon, with my camera in hand.
I took pictures and closely examined the ground and the edge of the road.
The yellow painted stripe just beyond the curb had bubbles in it.
I was really trying to find any evidence of some fuel.
I found little bits of paper and trash from the mower blades, right on the ground, under the grass that looked perfectly normal, with no signs of being dowsed with gasoline, or something.
All the green grass was scorched to brown and all the dead grass had been scorched to black.
Nothing looked like it had been consumed.
I had to drive by this spot daily so I checked it and the grass, at one point, was more green than the rest, in that formerly burnt spot, because of the new growth.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

My first thought is that this sounds just like a cigarette burn but would you mind sending me the photo? I'm really curious to look at it. You have some interesting thoughts and opinions. Regardless of what side of the position we are on, I enjoy speaking with people such as yourself.

To bad this happened before I started blogging because I could tell you exactly when it happened.
I could figure it out if I found all my old diaries.
My guess is it was ten years ago.
I looked at the list of shuttle missions on the NASA web site.
I remembered what time of day it launched and could not find a listing of one that matched.
They did show one picture on TV, during the mission.
It was a photo taken in orbit with the bay doors open and this big dish thing coming out.
The claim was that they deployed it, tested it and brought it back to earth.
My idea was that once they got up and were able to position it, they ran a preliminary test at the first opportunity.
They picked out the first clear spot they would have run across, as they came over the Gulf of Mexico.
This is on the West coast of Florida and it would have been the first place on an East-West line that they had a clear shot.

This is a google earth shot of the area. The burn spot is where the "41" sign is.
So you can go ahead and reject the whole thing, based on what looks like a ridiculous spot to pick out.
The median was a lot wider when this happened.
They added left turn lanes on both sides, so it looks a lot narrower than it was.
I just recently found those photos.
They were shot on film with a small 35mm camera.
I do not have a scanner so I can not put them up right now.
What the photos show is a nice green median, well mowed, with a big black area.
You can see the ends are rounded, as if a big circle was superimposed over a grass strip that was narrower than the circle.
It just looks too perfect, all uniform, everything inside the circle looks the same.
Then there are close-ups showing how the area underneath looks unaffected.
To me. it looks like a beam was put on it that fryed the exposed part.
I would think that if gasoline was used, it would have burnt right to the ground.
Again, I think they were just testing their aim and were running low power.
There was probably another place, inland, that got blasted.

This is from Google earth, street view.
On one side of the street there is a chuch, that is set back from the road pretty far.

On the other side, this Tuffy auto care center was not built, yet, so there was a lot of space here.

So this spot may not be as crazy as it first seems.

Just curious but does anyone have any solid evidence to suggest holograms of this type can/do exist? Please don't use the "we don't know what the government has" argument because there is science behind holograms, optics, lasers, computational power, etc... that must be adhered to.

The title of the thread kind of sums it up.
If people do not want to present some sort of proof, the story is dead.
I felt that you revived this thread to counter something I said on another thread.
I can only go with the hologram theory if it is used in a very narrow way.
As part of a cloaking device that we know the military is working on.
Even with that limitation, I think if it was used, it was still experimental and did not have perfect results.
I think the fundamental question is, Who crashed the planes?
If you believe it was hijackers, then that is the end of the argument.
If you believe it was not hijackers, then the arguments and speculation have no bounds because we are dealing with people who had every conceivable asset at their disposal.
My main reason for thinking it was not hijackers is that I see evidence for military weapons being used.
That is just what it looks like to me.
Throw a few of these:


And a couple of these:

You would end up with a bunch of these:

When I look at the videos, it looks like a series of fire bombs going off, and not one big dumping of fuel, in like 1/32 of a second, and just nicely spreading out.

Huh? Hologram?! Is this a joke?

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
Huh? Hologram?! Is this a joke?

No, unfortunately this idea keeps getting dredged up by various individuals such as John lear and Wizard in the woods. They provide no evidence mind you but keep making the claims that holographic planes were used to impact the WTC's. Of course this is utter nonsense but....

Oh, right, these guys are the No-Planers I've been hearing about, I always figured they backed the missle angle, this hologram business is news to me.

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
Oh, right, these guys are the No-Planers I've been hearing about, I always figured they backed the missle angle, this hologram business is news to me.

Yep, they're the "no planers" all right

John Lear and Wizard in the Woods have been big proponents of this nonsense and there have been several threads about it. There has been one thread that turned into an anti-no planer thread as it evolved which as far as I'm concerned, conclusively proved that the whole hologram idea is just not possible. One very smart member even performed laser experiments to prove or disprove claims made within the thread and his experiments helped to disprove the hologram idea.

In case you're interested, here's the thread. You'll want to concentrate on reading deezee's responses in particular but the whole thread is a good read if you have the time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by zerbot565
fact :

first plane is not documented anywhere , ( pictures , video ) ,
second plane that hit was not a normal fitted airplane , acording to the spanish goverment , who is just as legit as the us .

Truthers, meet one of your members.

Honest-to-goodness, the lack of basic knowledge - displayed in the above post - is a hallmark of the truth club. I honestly believe without a single, rational counter-effort the truth club would collapse under it's own weight of ignorance.

Oh, and the factional fighting between the noplane/wrong plane, hologram, space-based orbital beam weapon, pod plane, MOSAD, G-Man, thermite, mini nuclear bombs, focused sun beam factions.

Oh, my bad, I forgot to mention the Doppler Sound Effect faction and the “Psy-Op” factions.

reply to post by Kulturcidist


No, it's not.

My friend, that just scratches the surface of what the truth club has claimed.

If you have some free time, research how claims have morphed over the years. Ask yourself why Loose Change: The Final Fraud has gone through something like 5 revisions and in it's latest form, essentially, makes no claims what-so-ever?

Here are just a few of the truth clubs claims:

1. MOSAD did it
   
2. The CIA did it
   
3. All Jewish people were forewarned and vacated the various buildings
   
4. No plane hit the Pentagon
   
5. No plane in Pennsylvania
   
6. No plane in either WTC
   
7. Thermite brought down the WTCs (never mind that's a cutting agent, not an explosive)
   
8. Mini Nuclear explosions brought down the WTCs (never mind ZERO radiation was detected)
   
9. Focused sun beams brought down the WTCs
   
10. Space based orbital platforms brought down the WTCs
    
11. Directed energy weapons brought down the WTCs
    
12. The WTC pile of debris was less than a story deep, proof of “vaporization” (never mind the pile was in excess of ten stories – truthers don't seem to understand [care?] the amount gargantuan of rubble that collapsed into the basement area, otherwise known as the “tub”)
    
13. MIlitary refueling planes brought down the WTCs
    
14. Civilian airliners - with explosive pods slung underneath - brought down the WTCs
    
15. Remote controlled airliners brought down the WTCs
    
16. The cell phone calls from the hijacked planes to loves ones were faked
    
17. Passengers from the "supposedly" hijacked planes were off-loaded at a NASA hanger and gassed
    
18. The same passengers were gassed on the planes themselves, the "hijackers" jumped out and the planes were remotely flown into the buildings
    
19. The WTCs were brought down by pre-planted "squibs" (never mind that would involve a herculean effort of a large team, working for at least a year, and nobody noticed)
    
20. The live, on air attacks weren't because the live feed was replaced with pre-recorded video. Everyone who saw the planes impact the various buildings were mistaken. All - roughly - 25,000 of them standing in the streets as it happened.
    
21. It goes on and on and on and on
    

Why all the various claims (and my list is not even close to the number of permutations put forth)? Because there is absolutely no evidence of any of these claims, none. When confronted with the overwhelming amount of actual evidence to the contrary, they (the truth club) wilt, regroup and put forth yet another equally implausible “theory”. Do they provide proof of their claims? Of course not, they demand others prove they aren't true.

So, we do and the story eventually evolves into yet another permutation of the same tired, woefully uninformed crud they have been peddling (buy their books, coffee mugs and T-shirts!!) for more than six years.

Originally posted by jfj123
Just curious but does anyone have any solid evidence to suggest holograms of this type can/do exist? Please don't use the "we don't know what the government has" argument because there is science behind holograms, optics, lasers, computational power, etc... that must be adhered to.

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
www.washingtonpost.com...

What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad?

Allah on the Holodeck

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.

The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns raised by Arab coalition partners.

But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

www.washingtonpost.com...

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

I think I hear John laughing...

Originally posted by zorgon

I think I hear John laughing...

Yeah, me too, mate.

Some day we'll see some people eating their words.