Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
My understanding of holograms is limited, as the only ones I have witnessed were associated with rock concerts. And unless there was a smoke machine on you couldn't see it very well.

Please explain how the light photons are reflected back to the observers eye. On a clear day in September what are the photons hitting?

Also the level of hologram were talking about, what type of machine would it take? Are there any practical examples of know hologram devices that could fool the city of New York?

And of course the sound system for the jet noise and matching it up with the hologram, now it seems like you would need a whole crew and then secuity to make sure no one stumbles onto your opperation.

I'm not saying it would be impossible just not practical. Cost wise and logistically nightmarish. And if for some reason it didn't work then what?




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by infinityoreilly



My understanding of holograms is limited



Thanks for the post infinityoreilly. Your understanding is shared by many.


as the only ones I have witnessed were associated with rock concerts. And unless there was a smoke machine on you couldn't see it very well.


Yes, that is an example of what is available today.


Please explain how the light photons are reflected back to the observers eye. On a clear day in September what are the photons hitting?


I haven't been read in to the project so I can't help you. And if I had been read in I wouldn't be able to help you either. In any case I don't know HOW it works except, according a good many here on ATS it works GREAT!


Also the level of hologram were talking about, what type of machine would it take?


Again, I haven't been read into the project.


Are there any practical examples of know hologram devices that could fool the city of New York?


The best examples that I know of where 2 Boeing 767's, one crashing into the north tower and one crashing into the south tower. All of the city of New York and a good portion of those here bought into it hook, line and sinker.



And of course the sound system for the jet noise and matching it up with the hologram, now it seems like you would need a whole crew and then secuity to make sure no one stumbles onto your opperation.


It would seem so but apparently not.


I'm not saying it would be impossible just not practical. Cost wise and logistically nightmarish. And if for some reason it didn't work then what?


Its been operational for many years. There was little chance of failure. What did fail was the airplane that was probably supposed to hit Building No. 7. It didn't arrive and they had to control demo it anyway. How embarrassing.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I saw a new technology from South Korea last year and that hologram actually poduced focused light which it projected. Like it was holding a flashlight. I think there will be applications for these in microchips.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
As much as I may respect Mr. Lear I feel the hologram theory is completely ludicrous. Everything I've read on the topic seems to follow the pattern of it being so secret no one knows of it yet so obvious everyone can tell. On the one hand they'd have us believe this technology is extremely advanced yet on the other they'd have us believe the perpetrators are idiots. I really think this is some sort of effort on the part of some group to confuse and distract us. This "theory" will also be perfect fodder for discrediting all of us.

I could probably go on forever listing the reasons it's total crap but seriously, wouldn't it just be easier to actually fly some planes into the buildings? All their arguments are pretty useless and unfounded and a lot of people are wasting their time arguing with these people.

Its perfectly possible (not to mention true) that planes did in fact hit the WTC that morning.

These people really do make me a bit angry and if I wasn't so against censorship I'd say they should all be banned.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I posted a challenge thread that not even Killtown could answer up on earlier this year. It had about 5 main opening points. I dont feel like digging it up but here's the most important one in attempting to even suggest the hologram theory...

The Hologram Challenge:
What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buildings? You can add to that the 'thermite'-corner: damage in the South Tower, as well as the 'zipper cut' along the wall leading to it.

Please don't bother arguing that explosives on the inside did it. Photo's claerly show that the beams were bent in. If you're not aware of thsi damage then you probably haven't seen enough vidoe and potographic evidence to make any rational judgment. You can try arguing that every still and video camera in the city was operated by government disinfo agents, but good luck with that one. If you presist tho, where are the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people that witnessed it with their own eyes coming forward to declare that we're all being shown false images of the plane impact damage?

If these point can't easily be answered then the hologram theory is futile to try to argue let alone convince anyone (therefore counterproductive to actionable consensus issues and collective time), at best.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Holograms have come a long way. Here is one of Kate Moss from a recent fashion show.



And here's one of Al Gore from the live earth concert.




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Holograms have come a long way but they haven't come that far. I don't think people aren't taking into account exactly how much the hologram would have to have done considering it's solid from all angles and even reflects the sun and is shaded on the underside.

Hell, even the Enterprise needed to use small localized force fields to give the projected photons some sense of mass and solidity in the Holodeck.

The main proponents of this theory are either:

Delusional

Disinfo Agents

Trolls

No disrespect to Mr. Lear.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Shadowflux]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
The Hologram theory is an interesting one, and i know for sure that the US Gov. has the technology to create a realistic hologram to fool anyone. But i dont really buy it either, there would have to be a smoking gun to be proven. And the Cartoon Cutouts as mentioned earlier, i think that is the Hologramers' hardest challenge that i have seen. But of course we can say that ALL of the video on 9/11 was fabricated too. No matter which we we go, theres always something contridicting something or one thing doesnt lump with another in the correct spot...


But we must continue to question or we will lose all the answers......



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
One of my main questions with the whole hologram deal is about the sounds the planes made..

How did they go about making the sounds match the image our eyes where seeing..
As this goes far past just our visual senses.. This also affected our hearing sensors.. Im wondering how they would have gone about making the sounds we heard on that fateful day..

I use to completely dismiss all no planes theroy.. But after a little digging and listen to some of Mr. Lears thoughts, I keep an open mind to these thing.

Remember Mr. Lear is a pilot, and has information that none of us have..

If I was to find a group of well known pilots all stand up and say NO John Lear is wrong about his findings.. Then I would put it to rest..
But to this day Ive not found a group of skilled pilots who disagree with John.. I only find many pilots agreeing with Mr. Lear.. Very interesting.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
As much as I may respect Mr. Lear I feel the hologram theory is completely ludicrous.
These people really do make me a bit angry and if I wasn't so against censorship I'd say they should all be banned.


Dear Shadowflux:

John Lear happens to be a nice person and technically a very knowledgeable one. My guess is he’s put forth the hologram theory to reconcile the fact that there were no planes with the purported eyewitnesses.

He’s offering a technical solution — his uncommon insights allow this — to what people have claimed they saw. His only possible deficiency may be that he’s not cynical enough to consider the possibility that people could be delusional or outright lying about what they observed. All the so-called bystanders are far too defensive and short with their descriptions of their recollections — something’s just not right there.

Holograms or not, there was no physical evidence of planes crashing on 9-11. Not in theory or in reality.

In case you don’t think people are capable of fibbing — read the now closed ‘Towers of Terror” thread. Whoever wrote that doesn’t have a conscience (I don’t mean the original poster, I’m talking bout the pasted content).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Wizard,

I keep hearing that there was no evidence of a plane at the WTC wreckage. From everything I've seen there is also no evidence of any computers, telephones, office supplies, filing cabinets, desks or anything to indicate that it was in fact an office building. Are we to conclude, based on this, that it was not an office building either?

I don't know if you've ever been to the WTC but I also didn't see any evidence of escalators, elevators, bathrooms, carpets, lighting fixtures, I didn't see anything I could attribute to what I've seen inside those buildings. Am I to assume that it wasn't even the WTC?

Look, I respect Mr. Lear and his past career but that doesn't make everything he says right.

There is no way anyone is going to get me to believe that every video and every photo is fake, that every eyewitness is lying and that somehow the government has this amazing technology that they've never used before or since and that they would've orchestrated this entire ordeal when they could've just flown two planes into those buildings.

If you can't see that this whole hologram thing is ridiculous then....... I don't even know what, maybe you should turn off the computer and go for a walk.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Its perfectly possible (not to mention true) that planes did in fact hit the WTC that morning.

This is the thing I always come back to, why holograms when actual airplanes will do the job.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks for your responce here Mr. Lear, it's appreciated.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

This is the thing I always come back to, why holograms when actual airplanes will do the job.


Exactly, what's the point? Why go through all this effort to fake an airplane and then demolish the buildings? Why is it even an issue? What's the point in arguing all this hologram crap when the bottom line is that planes or not we all agree the buildings were purposefully demolished in a controlled demolition.

If we're all in agreement that it was a controlled demolition than I feel this hologram theory is obviously put forward to discredit us and makes us squabble amongst ourselves.

Seriously, we need to focus on the important things.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by zysin5
One of my main questions with the whole hologram deal is about the sounds the planes made..


One of my personal issues with the hologram idea. You'ld have to match everthing up maybe not perfectly but damn close.

And IIB brings up the point of the holes in the sides of the buildings and the way the steel was bent inward. How do holograms account for that?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


The Wizard appears, kinda thought you'ld post something. So any idea what type of machine would be capable of this kind of magic? It's just incredible to try to imagine a device that could fool so many.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Holograms or not, there was no physical evidence of planes crashing on 9-11. Not in theory or in reality.


The Hologram Challenge:
What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buildings? You can add to that the 'thermite'-corner: damage in the South Tower, as well as the 'zipper cut' along the wall leading to it.

That's some pretty daunting evidence. Can you come up with any evidence that they weren't there? How about some evidence that 'death rays' blasted/melted thru the steel of the exterior columns and their cladding? If not, see my first post above for "at best".

[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
There is no way anyone is going to get me to believe that every video and every photo is fake, that every eyewitness is lying and that somehow the government has this amazing technology that they've never used before



www.std.com...

There you have it. The holograms they used, and every TV in the US had built in "flashy thing" rays propagating from them that day.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I am truly conflicted by reports of veteran pilots saying the likelihood of novice apprentice pilots trained on cessnas could hit their mark at 500mph+ by practicing microsoft airplane software. Was it holograms? I am not educated enough to know. My gut feeling is no though. Two years before 911 a 737? went missing in Africa over a 'contractual dispute'. I remember an article of how a plane could be stripped of seats and retrofitted with numerous 500 gallon jet fuel containers allowing it incredible distances. The wrong engine was found in wreckage in a widely reported popular mechanics issue that was highly scorned by most. Unusual protruberances videos of said planes. Strange flashes just before impact. Some video even shows what look like the building getting 'painted' with laser just before impact. Could it be hologram. I suppose. But the vast dearth of eyehand witnesses purport some kind of airplane travelling at a little under mach 1 hitting their marks. Just my 2cents.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
There is no way anyone is going to get me to believe that every video and every photo is fake, that every eyewitness is lying and that somehow the government has this amazing technology that they've never used before or since and that they would've orchestrated this entire ordeal when they could've just flown two planes into those buildings.


You seem to have difficulty believing people can ‘lie’.

Read the “Towers of Terror” story. Whoever wrote that is one sick puppy of a liar. Ted Olson lied about his (estranged) wife’s phone calls from AA77. William Jefferson Clinton emphatically shook his finger when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. Hillary Clinton insisted she wouldn’t run for president in 2008. Whaddaya mean you won’t ever believe each and every ‘eyewitness’ could be lying? People lie as a matter of routine — and get away with it. OJ Simpson’s still smiling, isn’t he? He cut two people’s heads off. The world is not Mister Roger’s neighborhood. It’s a raw deal planet.

You may not be familiar with my “nuke” thread. There we discuss the hypothesis how neutrons from pure fusion bombs annihilated WTC1, 2, 6 and 7. The interior furnishings you mentioned were vaporized. Technically you are somewhat correct, had the ‘planes’ disappeared entirely into the 60 or 35 foot wide space between the perimeter columns and the 47 core columns then they too would have been turned into ‘metal steam’ by the hydrogen bombs. However most of us no-planers insist that significant amounts of plane parts would have dropped down outside the building during ‘impact’.

No official NYC personnel observed anything of the kind. Which is why ‘stories’ of plane crashes were only developed gradually.

Perhaps I’m just not curious enough. If I see magic acts at a carnival I really don’t spend too much time trying to figure them out. So in all honesty, I don’t find it relevant knowing EXACTLY how we were fooled on 9-11. All the film footage of 9-11 planes — in hindsight — is poorly produced garbage.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join