The Hologram Theory is dead

To be fair to John, it is possible. Do I believe it...no. But there is a POSSIBILITY he is right. I do not believe that anyone thinks we have the entire truth of what happened. Since 767's have never flown into the WTC before...NO ONE knows for sure what would happen. There is no guarantee on how a building will behave when a large plane crashes into it. Engineers can take educated guesses, but that is it. John is a nice guy. He is aware that some of his theories push the envelope a little. I've questioned several of them myself. Fact is, it is just a theory... it might be right, it might be wrong. If you do not agree with the theory, that's fine. No one says you have too. It never hurts to explore alternative explanations. Nobody on ATS has all the answers (although a few like to think they do). You can choose to believe what makes sense to you. Like them or not, his theories make for some of the best threads on this site.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Here's a rundown of that morning:

I was working at the NYSE at the time. That morning like every morning before the start the trading day I went out with a co worker to smoke a cigarette.We went out the back entrance which is on New Street. At this point we had known nothing about what had been transpiring at the WTC.

Note: New St. is a dark and dingy alley way looking street that runs north/south parallel to Broadway; the north end bisecting Wall St.

While we were outside we took notice to all the sirens, which sounded like they were coming from around the block where Broadway and Wall St intersect. So we decided to check it out. As we're walking up New St toward Wall I glanced skyward and noticed gray/black smoke and paper passing over top the buildings which I pointed out to my co-worker. I remember him saying something like "Wow, what the hell could be going on?" As we approached Wall St we noticed people kind of running toward Broadway pointing upward,as I looked up at the WTC which was now in full view. The north tower was billowing black smoke from the far side which we couldnt see from our view point, but we could see the south tower's east facade straight on as I remember. We were now standing in the middle of Broadway in front of Trinity church transfixed on what was happening.

We have co. offices in a building on Broadway and Exchange Place, just 2 short blocks south of where we were standing, with windows that faced north which would've had a view I remember thinking. So I yelled over to my co worker to come with me to the offices to see if we can see this better. We started running south and just crossed Rector st passed a building on the corner there that now blocked our view of the WTC, but it was at that moment when I heard the afterburner sound that jet engines make and I remember looking up and then running back out into broadway until I was able to just get a view of WTC again. It was then that I caught a glimpse of the 2nd plane just as it slammed into the south tower. I didn't see it full on, all I was able to catch was the right edge of what looked like a wing and the back end of the tail. It was real quick. But from the sound and what I had seen, although split second, I deduced it was an airplane.

So when you tell me that what I actually saw was a hologram I have a problem with that. All I ask is that you present some evidence that will confirm in me with out a doubt that what I saw was not what I saw.

edit-speliing

[edit on 16-10-2007 by WASTYT]

reply to post by b309302


Youre absolutely right. I need to calm down a bit and I apologize if I came on strong toward Mr. Lear and some others. I have hard time being told what I saw by people who weren't there.

Peace.

Originally posted by b309302
To be fair to John, it is possible. Do I believe it...no. But there is a POSSIBILITY he is right. I do not believe that anyone thinks we have the entire truth of what happened. Since 767's have never flown into the WTC before...NO ONE knows for sure what would happen. There is no guarantee on how a building will behave when a large plane crashes into it. Engineers can take educated guesses, but that is it. John is a nice guy. He is aware that some of his theories push the envelope a little. I've questioned several of them myself. Fact is, it is just a theory... it might be right, it might be wrong. If you do not agree with the theory, that's fine. No one says you have too. It never hurts to explore alternative explanations. Nobody on ATS has all the answers (although a few like to think they do). You can choose to believe what makes sense to you. Like them or not, his theories make for some of the best threads on this site.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Although technically you are correct that almost anything is theoretically possible, John Lear has never once presented actual evidence proving a hologram of that sophistication is even currently technologically possible.

Mr. Lear's idea's can't even be considered a theory. I hypothesis at best but not a theory.

I have a hypothesis/pretend theory too. Flying, purple, space wombats with an addiction to building insulation, destroyed the towers. Oh by the way, the wombats also have the ability to shape shift into exact replicas of 767's when flying. Now once the wombats hit the building, they shape shifted back into their wombat forms which by the way are also invisible. Upon consuming the insulation, they crap plane debris-just a coincidence. My hypothesis is no more or less valid then John Lear's.

I'm sure John is a nice guy. There are a lot of nice but wrong guys here. From time to time, I have been one of them

I might be swayed to Mr. Lear's side if he had any proof that anyone on the planet can generate a hologram of the sophistication required to generate the plane.
I have also never seen any explosive on the planet that makes things explode toward the source of the explosion. How can this be explained by a hologram and planted explosives?

Originally posted by WASTYT
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

 

So when you tell me that what I actually saw was a hologram I have a problem with that. All I ask is that you present some evidence that will confirm in me with out a doubt that what I saw was not what I saw.

edit-speliing
[edit on 16-10-2007 by WASTYT]

As you point out, it's not just an incredibly detailed, solid, moving hologram that would need to be created but the moving sound complete with doppler shift, to go along with the hologram.

Again, where is all the evidence that proves this type of hologram with audio is possible?

Assuming the government had the technology to do this, why would they? What would be the point? Like I've said before, if anything flew through the hologram in flight and anyone saw it, "the jig is up". Why take the chance???
Why not just pack a bunch of explosives into the luggage compartment of the plain and fly a real one into the building? The hologram hypothesis requires explosives anyway ????? It simply doesn't make any logical sense on many different levels.

No i agree there is not enough (or any) proof that we have holograms of that sophistication.While I do not agree with John, I am just saying it is plausible. Now if he came on here saying flying purple space wombats downed the WTC, thats a different story. Everyone knows flying space wombats are green. Saying they are purple is just outrageous. I look at it this way, would you bet your life on the fact John is wrong? Is anyone that sure John is wrong they would stake their life on it? I wouldn't. There is always that possibility he is right. Does anyone feel there is 100% no way the military could have technology like that? So sure you would bet your life on it? To me that is enough to justify him having this opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
No i agree there is not enough (or any) proof that we have holograms of that sophistication.While I do not agree with John, I am just saying it is plausible. Now if he came on here saying flying purple space wombats downed the WTC, thats a different story. Everyone knows flying space wombats are green. Saying they are purple is just outrageous. I look at it this way, would you bet your life on the fact John is wrong? Is anyone that sure John is wrong they would stake their life on it? I wouldn't. There is always that possibility he is right. Does anyone feel there is 100% no way the military could have technology like that? So sure you would bet your life on it? I THINK he is wrong, but there is no way I am that sure of it. To me at least, it opens up the thought it is out there, but possible.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

The problem is that I can't even make an educated decision about his hypothesis as no evidence has ever been presented regarding the whole hologram thing.

Nice thread here robertz, the discussion continues unabated. Hey Wizard looks like some of the witnesses you said didn't exsist are chiming in here, does that change your mind a little bit? If not, then your not being very objective about this. Even someones "story" makes a small change in my perspective, not alot but I continue to update the files so to speak.

I'm still waiting for you and John to take us through step by step as the plane appears on the horizon until it impacts the side of the building. Where were the projectors? How many were there? Where did the sound come from? And ofcoarse what did the light reflect off of? Or if you choose refraction then what did the light refract through?

The problem is, there are a lot of holes in this story no matter what angle you look at it from. No one theory seems to explain everything that happened, at least not very well. So I just feel, nobody has it right, not me, not you, nobody. I don't like the hologram theory, however in John's attempt to support it, he did uncover some interesting facts. While in my opinion it didn't point towards holograms, it also doesn't point towards the offical story either. So even if you don't agree with the theory, in the attempt to prove/disprove it, important facts were uncovered. so good work John!!! I am sure the truth lies in between somewhere. Just making the point, that there is no reason to come down hard on John. Sure his theory does not fit all the facts perfectly... but well... none of them do. Until someone comes up with one that explains everything perfectly, and all the pieces fit in place, give John some credit for trying. Better then anything I could have come up with.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
The problem is, there are a lot of holes in this story no matter what angle you look at it from. No one theory seems to explain everything that happened, at least not very well. So I just feel, nobody has it right, not me, not you, nobody. I don't like the hologram theory, however in John's attempt to support it, he did uncover some interesting facts. While in my opinion it didn't point towards holograms, it also doesn't point towards the offical story either. So even if you don't agree with the theory, in the attempt to prove/disprove it, important facts were uncovered. so good work John!!! I am sure the truth lies in between somewhere.

Just curious but what important facts were uncovered?
And not to nit pick but without any evidence, there is no theory. Just an opinion.

Originally posted by johnlear
all airline traffic usually goes north into San Francisco

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by craig732

I have a house very close to Newark Airport.

On different days, or even different hours, the planes will approach or depart the airport from different directions depending on wind direction.

Why do they do things differently in California?

Well the guys were 25 miles south of San Francisco International. The airplane flew over at 500 feet headed southbound. SFO is 25 miles north. An average altitude for 25 miles out is between 6000 and 8000 feet. And when they are that low it is customary for the airplane to be headed towards the airport. Not away.

Thanks for the post.

Oh, by the way. In California when airplanes are too low, headed in the wrong direction, apparently they turn 'em out like a light.

Mr. Lear: You artfully evaded answering my question.

Why in California does all airline traffic usually go north into San Fransisco, when in other parts of the country the landing pattern is determined by wind direction?

Also, another poster mentioned another airport much closer than San Fransisco is to the location you specified. If you need, I can quote it, but I am sure you read it. Why did you or your freinds think the plane was heading for or departing from San Francisco if there was another airport very close to where they were?

There are only so many possibilities, and among them one must eliminate the least likley and move from there to the most likley, and then IF possible narrow down from evidence the field until there are no really plausible explanations left and one choice is made representing the most likley scenario. Fine. But when one examines the evidence here, one is left with many puzzling facts that do NOT add up to an aircraft plowing into those buildings.

If one can present a case firm enough to establish the doubt that the aircraft alleged could have entered the buildings the way they did and cause the effects they claim that they did, then it is likley that there were no holograms and that airplanes really did hot the Towers as seen and photographed. But also a case can be made that seems to establish great doubt as to the assumptions of planes hitting: The effects seen of the planes entering all the way in before any apparent damage was done to them, the lack of deceleration, the lack of aircraft parts on the attack side falling to the street, and varying witrness and camera evidence that screams out that ' something ' is wrong, very wrong.

But in spite of it all, I still must believe that aircraft hit the Towers due to the sounds associated with it and the multiple films and witnesses of such.If it could be shown that the government possess's the technology to perform daylight holograms with accompanying sounds appropriate to the scene, I could believe that that was possible, but until then I must go with the odds, and that is that real planes hit the Towers and sounded just like one would expect. As far as Mr. Lear goes, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: I agree with a majority of what he believes, and disagree with some; that is fine and part of the delibertive process, analyze and accept or reject data and form an opinion. Mr. Lear contributes in many ways and has a lot of things to share, so when we disagree, let's do it without being disagreeable!!

Originally posted by johnlear
As you probably know there has never been any insurance claims against either United Airlines or American Airlines in the alleged 911 crashes which is very suspicious.

In 2003, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners, and Boeing Co., the aircraft manufacturer. The case was brought by people injured in the attacks, representatives of those who died, and entities that suffered property damage. In September 2004, just before the three-year statute of limitations expired, the insurers for the World Trade Center filed suit against American Airlines, United Airlines, and Pinkerton's airport security firm, alleging their negligence allowed the planes to be hijacked. Because the Air Transportation Act, which was passed after September 11, limits the liability of airlines aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage, this case will likely be combined with the consolidated master case filed in 2003.

Source

Yes, I know Wikipedia is not the best source to use, but it was certainly the easiest. If anyone disputes this source I will take the extra time to search for other, more legitimate sources.

I lived by SFO for many many years. Airline traffic approaches going North. Comes from the south and goes in a northern direction. Not sure if this is what John meant. San Francisco is a no fly zone. No airline traffic of anykind...even helicopters are allowed to fly over San Francisco. I worked as an EMT there many years, and not even EMS helicopters were allowed to land in SF. We had to go out to the docks to pick them up. I am not sure what direction John meant. But all planes landing at SFO have to fly around SF, make a uturn and come in on a northern approach. Not enough clearence between airport and SF to make a southern landing. Don't know if that helps or not.

I don't have the time to link all the sites. I know I know... but there were things uncovered in a lot of these 9/11 threads that didn't support the offical story. Maybe someone else wants to find them all. I'm not buying the hologram theory, but I still find too much wrong with the 9/11 report findings too. By the way no NTSB reports were filed. John claims that is because no planes crashed. Turns out it is because 9/11 was under jursidiction of the FBI. The NTSB assisted the FBI, but did not do their own offical investigation.

The NTSB Web site references the documents but does not provide copies, claiming "the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."

link: www.gwu.edu...



[edit on 16-10-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by WASTYT
It was then that I caught a glimpse of the 2nd plane just as it slammed into the south tower. I didn't see it full on, all I was able to catch was the right edge of what looked like a wing and the back end of the tail. It was real quick. But from the sound and what I had seen, although split second, I deduced it was an airplane.

So when you tell me that what I actually saw was a hologram I have a problem with that. All I ask is that you present some evidence that will confirm in me with out a doubt that what I saw was not what I saw.

Dear WASTYT:

Than you for your detailed account of your experiences on 9-11. What you saw and heard may have been similar to what Gedeon Naudet filmed. Here’s a still picture of WTC-2 being ‘hit’ by UA175.

If you indeed did see what you say you did then I would suggest it was a hologram rather than a real airplane. Because a real plane would have left real wreckage — outside the building — and lots of it. Parts would have ricocheted of the tower walls and been strewn all over Liberty Street. And none were.

This is why the hologram theory may be a possibility, to explain on-site live observations like yours.

The evidence for holograms is, per se, your eyes’ perceptions. If your eyes recorded airplanes, then this is strong possible evidence that holograms were present.

Greetings.
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by WASTYT
It was then that I caught a glimpse of the 2nd plane just as it slammed into the south tower. I didn't see it full on, all I was able to catch was the right edge of what looked like a wing and the back end of the tail. It was real quick. But from the sound and what I had seen, although split second, I deduced it was an airplane.

So when you tell me that what I actually saw was a hologram I have a problem with that. All I ask is that you present some evidence that will confirm in me with out a doubt that what I saw was not what I saw.

Dear WASTYT:

Than you for your detailed account of your experiences on 9-11. What you saw and heard may have been similar to what Gedeon Naudet filmed. Here’s a still picture of WTC-2 being ‘hit’ by UA175.

If you indeed did see what you say you did then I would suggest it was a hologram rather than a real airplane. Because a real plane would have left real wreckage — outside the building — and lots of it. Parts would have ricocheted of the tower walls and been strewn all over Liberty Street. And none were.

This is why the hologram theory may be a possibility, to explain on-site live observations like yours.

The evidence for holograms is, per se, your eyes’ perceptions. If your eyes recorded airplanes, then this is strong possible evidence that holograms were present.

Greetings.
The Wizard In The Woods

So even though there is no evidence it is even possible to project that type of hologram, you still believe it's a hologram?
If you have evidence to suggest it is a hologram, please prove it. Remember, it is not enough to debunk a plane, you must first debunk the plane then prove a hologram is possible technologically.

Here is an interesting video simulation showing how the plane entered the building.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by johnlear
As you probably know there has never been any insurance claims against either United Airlines or American Airlines in the alleged 911 crashes which is very suspicious.

John Lear is correct. Only the families of occupants in the targeted buildings are suing (the airline industry). None of the cases being litigated are pertaining to passengers of 9-11 flights.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/16/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

The wreckage to me seems to be the biggest problem with the hologram theory. There was wreckage, it's on film. There are pictures of it. I can not believed it was just placed there afterwards and no one noticed. The best argument I heard was that it was not from a 767. Well it is still plane wreckage. Even if it was not a 767 it sure wasn't a hologram either. Honestly I would expect more wreckage then what was found, but nothing like this ever really happened before either. Maybe that is just how planes break apart. With no real refrence point in history to compare it with, it is impossible to say 100% one way or the other.