Please stop with the crazy claims!

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jfj123

What this is saying simply is their complaint, should have some type of evidence to back up their claim.

And?

AND....your skewed interpretation of the complaint is absurdly incorrect.

Also, why don't you answer the vast majority of questions put to you by other posters? Specifically about your hologram idea? You make statements without proof and refuse to answer questions regarding your statements. If you KNOW what you are saying is true, why won't you respond? Please don't give me the whole "I don't have access to classified material" argument as you have posted several times that you DO have access to the information via your friend you had dinner with a week ago.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

AND....your skewed interpretation of the complaint is absurdly incorrect.

Thanks for the post jfj123. I didn't post any interpretatons. I posted the allegations in the complaint, the defendants and Rule 11.

All I said was that Reynolds amd Leaphart where not likely to liable themselves with 20 major U.S. Corporations unless they had the evidence.

And you call that skewed?

With all due respect jfj, you seem to be intentionally misunderstanding.

Let me respectfully suggest that you refrain from making each of your posts an attack with abusive language. In other words you could have just said, "Your skewed interpretation of the complaint is incorrect. I could be incorrect without being absurdly incorrect.

The fact is I am not incorrect at all.

You make statements without proof and refuse to answer questions regarding your statements.

Your statements that Boeing 767's crashed into the WTc are equally without proof. No bodies, no engine cores, no wing/fuselage intersections, no vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Nothing. Now it didn't all burn up in the WTC fire. Especially 3 Boeing 767 engine cores. Where are they? They are nowhere because they didn't exist. It was a hologram that people saw.

Thanks for the post and hey! Chill out!

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jfj123

Let me respectfully suggest that you refrain from making each of your posts an attack with abusive language. In other words you could have just said, "Your skewed interpretation of the complaint is incorrect. I could be incorrect without being absurdly incorrect.

I didn't attack you, I made an observation about the status of your correctness

You make statements without proof and refuse to answer questions regarding your statements.

Your statements that Boeing 767's crashed into the WTc are equally without proof. No bodies, no engine cores, no wing/fuselage intersections, no vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Nothing. Now it didn't all burn up in the WTC fire. Especially 3 Boeing 767 engine cores. Where are they? They are nowhere because they didn't exist. It was a hologram that people saw.
I haven't made statement as you've described.
You yourself have said there was wreckage including an engine core. You mentioned that your OPINION is that they were planted but you yourself said the items were there.

And of course it cannot be a hologram as those types of holograms don't exist. You say I'm wrong. Fine. Prove it. I've asked you dozens of times to simply back up your claim. You have NEVER done so. Why not?

Thanks for the post and hey! Chill out!

Actually, I'm fine. No need to chill out but thanks for your concern. May I respectfully suggest that in the future, you should not post opinions as facts as people will tend to call you on those posts as I and MANY others have. As example on how to avoid this, I would recommend something along the following lines:
Based on the following evidence (info here), I feel that the WTC planes never existed. My opinion is that they were some type of hologram. I would like to explain at this point that my hologram idea is just an opinion and I, in no way, can supply evidence to corroborate this theory.
Just a thought which may help you out in the future
Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by jfj123
I would like to explain at this point that my hologram idea is just an opinion and I, in no way, can supply evidence to corroborate this theory.
Just a thought which may help you out in the future

Thanks for your post.

Then i suugest you also make the same statement when you do not post any facts or evidence to corroborate any theory.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I would like to explain at this point that my hologram idea is just an opinion and I, in no way, can supply evidence to corroborate this theory.
Just a thought which may help you out in the future

Thanks for your post.

Then i suugest you also make the same statement when you do not post any facts or evidence to corroborate any theory.

I have posted quite a bit of facts. If you have a question about something I have posted or if you have something specific that you would like me to post, please ask.

Originally posted by jfj123
I have posted quite a bit of facts. If you have a question about something I have posted or if you have something specific that you would like me to post, please ask.

Do you have any facts or evidence on this?

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

Originally posted by jfj123
I have posted quite a bit of facts. If you have a question about something I have posted or if you have something specific that you would like me to post, please ask.

Do you have any facts or evidence on this?

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.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the question. Are you asking me to prove that a Volumetric Display that can be projected into the sky, exists?

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question. Are you asking me to prove that a Volumetric Display that can be projected into the sky, exists?

I am asking if you have any facts and evidence about Volumetric Display, either if it does or does not exist.

Hey John Lear take a look at this link:

www.rense.com...

What do you make of this?

Thanks!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question. Are you asking me to prove that a Volumetric Display that can be projected into the sky, exists?

I am asking if you have any facts and evidence about Volumetric Display, either if it does or does not exist.

Yes, I posted the below info in the HOLOGRAM THEORY IS DEAD thread right after your post. Sorry you missed it there.


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

The laser optics system creates, modulates and projects laser beams onto the display medium.

Notice the info mentions a display medium.


The computer-based controller processes instructions and other data. It generates the electronic modulation and deflection signals that control the laser scanner and converts the beam into imaging pulses. The helical display is a volumetric medium that uses simple optical and mechanical principles to transform the scanned laser pulses into visible three-dimensional images.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



The display medium used in the system is a rotating helically-curved screen, referred to as the "helix".

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

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

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

Diagram 2


A short duration laser pulse striking the screen is diffused, creating a momentary visible spot (voxel), at the point in space where they intersect.
Images created by arrays of voxels can be generated anywhere within the volume swept by the helix. The light-scattering characteristics of the screen makes the images visible to all observers within a large viewing angle.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


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.

Le me know if you have any questions or if you'd like more/different info. Thanks, sorry for the confusion.

Sorry Ultima, looks as if the links did not translate

Here is one of the links for Vol Displays
www.laserfx.com...

Here's a video showing a Vol. Display
video.google.com...

Looks great !!!

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry Ultima, looks as if the links did not translate
Looks great !!!

en.wikipedia.org...

Another technique uses a focused pulsed infrared laser (about 100 pulses per second; each lasting a nanosecond) to create balls of glowing plasma at the focal point in normal air. The focal point is directed by two moving mirrors and a sliding lens, allowing it to draw shapes in the air.

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

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry Ultima, looks as if the links did not translate
Looks great !!!

en.wikipedia.org...

Another technique uses a focused pulsed infrared laser (about 100 pulses per second; each lasting a nanosecond) to create balls of glowing plasma at the focal point in normal air. The focal point is directed by two moving mirrors and a sliding lens, allowing it to draw shapes in the air.

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

I checked several sources for my info and they all mentioned a "display medium" (a screen). Based pm what I've researched, I don't know that the info. on Wiki is accurate . I'll look into it more and get back to you.

Originally posted by jfj123
I'll look into it more and get back to you.

Ok, i am doing more research too. Just wish i could find and post more of the DARPA and other government stuff but some of it is still classified.






[edit on 16-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I'll look into it more and get back to you.

Ok, i am doing more research too. Just wish i could find and post more of the DARPA and other government stuff but some of it is still classified.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I currently know of 2 DARPA projects:
1. Projects holographic blips onto enemy radar. These radar images are not viewable in the sky just on radar.

2. Holographic Radar which is a much more advanced type of radar. The return image doesn't just show a blip and approx. size but the actual 3-D image of the ping.

Other types of of advanced holograms include:
Helio Display
Vol. Display

So far this is the only info I have been able to find. John Lear has stated he has all the info but for some reason he has chosen not to share with us

Originally posted by jfj123
So far this is the only info I have been able to find. John Lear has stated he has all the info but for some reason he has chosen not to share with us

Well i have info on other aspects of 9/11 too but some of it i can not share becasue you would not be able to get to the links to verify the information, so i do not use it.

Originally posted by bovarcher

If you have any doubts, study the Kamikaze. They were less well trained, were aiming at small moving horizontal targets taking violent evasive action on the sea and being shot at by hundreds of AA guns of various calibers. And yes, the Jap aircraft of the time dived at >400kts @45deg & the Ohka rocket planes dived at >600kts. Result? >200 US Navy ships struck, many by multiple Kamikaze, and >30 destroyed or sunk.

Hitting the Pentagon with a 757 is easy compared to that, believe me. Assuming murderous and suicidal intent, and enough planning and preparation. So don't insult my intelligence, as an experienced pilot, by saying it 'can't be done'. I KNOW it can be done. I could do it, were I so inclined, so could most pilots - if so inclined.

I am neither for or against any theory as such....in fact....I dont know what I believe in....but I do know what I dont believe in, and I dont believe you just used Kamikaze pilots as a valid study in relation to what happened on 9/11.

How manouverable and nimble were the Jap fighters of WWII in relation to a Boeing?

I mean come on man, thats like comparing driving an 18 wheeler to a sports car. The Jap fighters of the time were highly manouverable, quick for their size - they were fighters for god sake.....how can you even relate that to flying a Boeing, even at a static target?

Do you know how wide the turning circle of a Boeing is, even at a steep bank angle? You would have to know PRECISELY when to bank in, and precisely when to roll out, otherwise you would be chasing the guages all over the sky and this would show up on flight plans. Steep turns need forward planning and take a lot of experience to do them ACCURATELY.

I have'nt looked at the flight plan of those planes properly, but from what I've seen, there were'nt many corrections needed to line up on the buildings properly. That would indicate either a very experienced pilot, or computer control.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Blayde]

Hi Blayde

Originally posted by Blayde

How manouverable and nimble were the Jap fighters of WWII in relation to a Boeing?

I mean come on man, thats like comparing driving an 18 wheeler to a sports car. The Jap fighters of the time were highly manouverable, quick for their size - they were fighters for god sake.....how can you even relate that to flying a Boeing, even at a static target?

I see your point, but though many successful kamikaze missions were flown in multi-engined aircraft less easy to manoever than a 767, manoevrability or size is not really the main issue. Kamikaze attacks were usually executed in a straight line dive to target, at 40-60 deg from vertical, with little or no course correction or deviation; though as you can see here -

www.youtube.com...

(sorry about the soundtrack - turn it down) many were flown horizontally 20 - 30ft above the waves so as to get under the defensive AA of the US warships.

This subject has been extensively debated on ATS before (not by me) with a lot of detail and links. Sorry but I can't find the threads right now.

Do you know how wide the turning circle of a Boeing is, even at a steep bank angle? You would have to know PRECISELY when to bank in, and precisely when to roll out, otherwise you would be chasing the guages all over the sky and this would show up on flight plans. Steep turns need forward planning and take a lot of experience to do them ACCURATELY.

Yes, I know. I have a few hours on multis (not jets) You have to be good at all this to land on a runway, which is a bit more difficult than intentionally flying into a building under power. But thousands of pilots successfully land aircraft on runways all over the world every day. What's your point? Do you really believe it's not possible to hit a building with a plane?

I have'nt looked at the flight plan of those planes properly, but from what I've seen, there were'nt many corrections needed to line up on the buildings properly. That would indicate either a very experienced pilot, or computer control.

Competent to the task, with an experience level appropriate to the requirement.

Some evidence would need to be uncovered/presented for 'computer control' to be taken seriously. Even just a little, weeny bit of evidence would be something. As far as this poster is aware, United & AA have confirmed that their aircraft were not fitted with any system of e-guidance which would allow someone at a remote location to assist with flight direction, nor that such technology was even available in 2001. So it's a non-starter. Unless, after 6 years, someone can prove this was used, what system was installed, who fitted, managed and controlled it all, with some supporting testimony and a paper trail.

Just proclaiming a theory as an unsupported opinion is not going to convince anyone, when a conventionally piloted aircraft is obviously more plausible and fits the facts as observed and known. We're open-minded here.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Blayde]

Originally posted by bovarcher
Yes, I know. I have a few hours on multis (not jets) You have to be good at all this to land on a runway, which is a bit more difficult than intentionally flying into a building under power.

So you could make the 360 degree turn that Flight 77 did without any correction input during the turn (according the flight data recorder) and come out exactly lined up on a building the size of the Pentagon?

Either the pilot had thousands of hours or the autopilt was flying the plane. Which leads to the question how did the hijackers know how to program the autopilot exactly?

Originally posted by Blayde

Originally posted by bovarcher

If you have any doubts, study the Kamikaze. They were less well trained, were aiming at small moving horizontal targets taking violent evasive action on the sea and being shot at by hundreds of AA guns of various calibers. And yes, the Jap aircraft of the time dived at >400kts @45deg & the Ohka rocket planes dived at >600kts. Result? >200 US Navy ships struck, many by multiple Kamikaze, and >30 destroyed or sunk.

Hitting the Pentagon with a 757 is easy compared to that, believe me. Assuming murderous and suicidal intent, and enough planning and preparation. So don't insult my intelligence, as an experienced pilot, by saying it 'can't be done'. I KNOW it can be done. I could do it, were I so inclined, so could most pilots - if so inclined.

I am neither for or against any theory as such....in fact....I dont know what I believe in....but I do know what I dont believe in, and I dont believe you just used Kamikaze pilots as a valid study in relation to what happened on 9/11.

How manouverable and nimble were the Jap fighters of WWII in relation to a Boeing?

I mean come on man, thats like comparing driving an 18 wheeler to a sports car. The Jap fighters of the time were highly manouverable, quick for their size - they were fighters for god sake.....how can you even relate that to flying a Boeing, even at a static target?

Do you know how wide the turning circle of a Boeing is, even at a steep bank angle? You would have to know PRECISELY when to bank in, and precisely when to roll out, otherwise you would be chasing the guages all over the sky and this would show up on flight plans. Steep turns need forward planning and take a lot of experience to do them ACCURATELY.

I'm sure you can learn to do this in a couple hours in a flight simulator Try flying an accurate computer flight simulator and see how it works for yourself.

I have'nt looked at the flight plan of those planes properly, but from what I've seen, there were'nt many corrections needed to line up on the buildings properly. That would indicate either a very experienced pilot, or computer control.
[edit on 17-11-2007 by Blayde]

Actually the kamikaze fighters were a fairly good example. The pilots received little training.


source
www.pbs.org...

Sound familiar?