It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

www.maxwell.af.mil is the place that is trying to connect...
Anyone know anything on this??


Yup sorry about that Its what happens when you link directly to the secure page at Maxwell AFB... Might have to get a Mod to remove the link so that it won't automatically 'ping' everyone
Its to late for me to edit it...

I guess I won't be able to post direct links to official sources anymore ... hmmmm





posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Let's drop the hologram thing for a minute. Maybe it's not holographic.

I am not a big 911 CT as I've posted before, so I don't make a habit of looking at the films in picky detail.

Would you say that the images of the planes were brighter than they should be?

If you had a good recording of the planes, and could analyze the bright and dark areas on the planes, could you say that the darkest areas of the planes were no darker than the background? That is, the darkest areas on the plane were slightly brighter than the sky behind it? It would take measuring it - your eye is really good at compensating for relative contrast. Case in point - your monitor. The blacks you're seeing on there aren't any darker than the reflection of the screen when the display's off. But if you turn off your display and look, it looks light gray. When it's on, it looks deep black (if adjusted correctly). Why? Your visual system will adjust your perception of "dark". The screen can't emit dark - so your blacks can't be darker than the reflection when it's off.

Conversely, the planes might look like they had normal contrast, but if you analyzed the darkest areas and they were brighter than the sky behind them, it would tell you something.

Did the planes have specular reflections? That is, are there recordings where the planes reflect a sun glint into the camera? That's one of those impossible tricks.

Did the planes leave a reddish-brown trail, even if faint?

Did anyone get a good closeup recording of the sound? Is there a hissing, frying or buzzsaw background noise? (it might not be possible to pick it up under the turbine noise)

edit: I'm not sure that repeated compression wouldn't get rid of the little brightness details you'd need to look at - you'd probably have to work from high quality originals. They're probably compressed too, but not as many times as junk on youtube.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
it's-a-block-buster-show and 2have the 'grace' 2speak 2a real-live-human-person with their freedom/liberty~0f~mind 2remember as the soap unfolded..... 2remember that there-was-no-jet-noise as they stood-right-there-at-the-WTC,after looking-up, after hearing the explosion and seeing the smoking-hole from the 2nd attack of the war-of-minds, called Wag-the-WTC................Fascinating~Indeed

4sure there was nothing but a 'Hologram' there and it had very, very poor audio quality...............2many-things could have gone wrong with 'live-assets'
[planes/missiles] .......... n remember a-lot of the people who did the planning of this 'operation' didn't even 'know' what they were feeding their expertise into !

so it was
[1] Controlled-Demolitions
[2] Holograms
[3] Edited TV Feeds
[4] Mass-Mind-Control



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Would you say that the images of the planes were brighter than they should be?


Couple things about the photos and videos of the second plane.

1. The "pod" object that appears to be on the bottom of the second plane. People say its just a light effect of the belly fairing but the size and shape of it does not change as the plane moves.

2. The infamous flash just as the nose hits the tower.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Oh, and another point, if it flew between the viewer and a light source you would sort of be able to see the light source behind the plane, as if the plane were translucent.

Just blue skying here. It's probably not do-able.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Oh, and another point, if it flew between the viewer and a light source you would sort of be able to see the light source behind the plane, as if the plane were translucent.

Just blue skying here. It's probably not do-able.


There are the videos that the plane at times looks like it has 1 wing or no wings at all.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
What would be sweet is if someone with access to an original recording could say if the plane's darks are brighter than the background behind the plane in all cases.

That would be a giveaway. Still, on a surface that big, you should also be able to hear the "rip" unless you covered it up with plane noise.

Is it true there wasn't any turbine noise? If not, there wouldn't have been anything to cover it up. You couldn't have missed it. It would have sounded like a chain saw on something that large.

Also, was the "plane" to scale visually? Did it look like the appropriate plane but maybe not big enough?

And was it "crisp"? Did it smear any on the trailing surfaces like the back edges of wings or empennage? Maybe the text on the plane smearing on the trailing edges? Or was there any evidence of the sharp edges "crawling" a bit? Another thing that repeated JPEG would obscure, unfortunately.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
What would be sweet is if someone with access to an original recording could say if the plane's darks are brighter than the background behind the plane in all cases.


You would really ruin the day for the people that still believe the official story if you could show anything wrong with the photos or videos.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
What would be sweet is if someone with access to an original recording could say if the plane's darks are brighter than the background behind the plane in all cases.


You would really ruin the day for the people that still believe the official story if you could show anything wrong with the photos or videos.


It wouldnt ruin my day at all. The Official story was correct. I along wth millions of others around the world saw it on TV. There were many hundreds of people who were on the ground and in other buildings that watched it.
All the loopy conspiracy theories in the world wont convince me otherwise.
Mainly because all the other theories are so incredibly flawed.

If someone wanted to do something and dump it onto Al Qaeda there are lots of easier more effective ways of doing it that could have achieved far far more for Bush than demolishing two skyscrapers in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world could.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
It wouldnt ruin my day at all. The Official story was correct.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "truther". However, I am an engineer on the way to being a physicist that does oddball gubmint stuff, so it's a challenge.

How WOULD you create the illusion of a different airframe?

I'm not sure I could do one in free air projected from an offset. Certainly not with a hologram, unless you have a flying block of aerogel. (yeah, you can project a true hologram into a block of aerogel, it is very cool looking, and it's almost clear)

Maybe you could do it around another airframe, but the apparatus and the power required would be truly horrendous. I'm not sure it's practical, but the goofy engineering side of me is asking 'what if' here.

What if a certain general sat me down, gave me a cup of coffee, tapped me on the shoulders with the golden wand and said "I dub thee Sir Bottomless Pockets - go forth and make me a disguise for an airframe. I don't care what it costs, or what it weighs, or if it will even fit in the aircraft at this point. What's possible? Take up thy check and walk."

Maybe you could do it. Not holographically. This feels like one of those things you want to file a patent on just to see if you get a 'dear john' letter back from the DoD.


(waves hands around in mystic gestures) I invoke Wembley! I conjure thee to the discussion!



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chorlton


The Official story was correct.


Actually there are many holes in the Official Story. The biggest hole is the 115 ft. hole in the north tower. Of course there are several gaps in the Official story. Those are the gaps created by the box columns that were not breached.



I along iwth millions of others around the world saw it on TV. There were many hundreds of people who were on the ground and in other buildings that watched it.


The plane huggeers on the ground were watching holographs. The plane huggers watching it on TV were watching cgi.


All the loopy conspiracy theories in the world wont convince me otherwise. Mainly because all the other theories are so incredibly flawed.


That is an opinion shared by all you plane huggers.


If someone wanted to do something and dump it onto Al Qaeda there are lots of easier more effective ways of doing it that could have achieved far far more for Bush than demolishing two skyscrapers in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world could.


Please give me a f'rinstance.

Thanks for the post. Plane huggers opinions, however flawed and lacking in facts or substance are always welcome.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


John
With a vivid imagination such as that posessed by yourself Im sure that even you could come up with something so devastating as to make every US citizen sign up for the Army.

Using readily available supplies too. (unlike your totally non existant 360degree city wide Hologram).

You carry on with your No Plane hilarity. Its funny, and it keeps you off the streets.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam





It's not sensitive, and never was. But you guys are leaving out the FUN stuff. There's two sections you guys clip (this is one) but you never ever set up the context.



OK, Tom. Heres some fun stuff you say we are always leaving out. I found it on page 116. Its called Global Area Strike System:



Now heres the fun part Tom. See where it says battlefield? Do you know where that is pointing at? I'll give you a hint. The sea to the northwest is the Caspian Sea. The water to the southeast is the Persian Gulf.

Still can't get it? It's eastern Iran. Know why its eastern Iran? Because thats where the pipeline is going to run from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.

Know why its not going direct? Because the port has to be east of the Straits of Hormuz. Know why? So that it's not easy to block off the route.

This was written in 1996? You mean we knew we were going to attack Iran already in 1996?

Hey what are they aiming at? A camel?

Thanks for your post Tom.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

OK, Tom. Heres some fun stuff you say we are always leaving out. I found it on page 116. Its called Global Area Strike System:


Some of that's up already. Except the spaceborne HEL wasn't effective as they wanted it to be, so they're using the mirrors they mentioned to redirect ground based lasers. It's never smart to put the weapons you have to pour more chemicals into in orbit, when you can leave them back at Kirtland.



Now heres the fun part Tom. See where it says battlefield? Do you know where that is pointing at? I'll give you a hint. The sea to the northwest is the Caspian Sea. The water to the southeast is the Persian Gulf.


Sure, because, hey, we've NEVER had any issues in the Middle East, right? I mean, who'd ever think that the Middle East would be an issue? Those crazy peace-loving Muslims and Israelis, standing hand in hand, singing "We are the world" together. Who would have thought that would fall apart? It was worse than the Beatles breaking up. One day, feeding each other kibbi and gefilte fish around a big table, the next, shooting each other. No more "Havah Nagila" danced around the Bedouin campfires with their Hebrew brothers. No more shouts of "Do we have a minyan?" around the great mosque in Mecca. The world is less for it.




This was written in 1996? You mean we knew we were going to attack Iran already in 1996?


Sure, because you know, we have all of our battle plans done 30 years ahead of time, including publishing all the targeting info for the new super secret weapons that are going in the unclassified class project done at Air University.

Including planning for those secret unbuilt pipelines.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam



Sure, because you know, we have all of our battle plans done 30 years ahead of time, including publishing all the targeting info for the new super secret weapons that are going in the unclassified class project done at Air University.


OK. So China in late 2008?


Including planning for those secret unbuilt pipelines.



AAARRRRRgggghhhhh. got me. again.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
There are several good reasons to reject any idea of a hologram or the idea of 'No planes'.

The question that would immediately come up would be....

Well where did the passengers go then? I mean there was a hockey player and former line mate of Wayne Gretzky on one of those planes that hit the Towers. He was a scout at the time for the Los Angeles Kings and was known beforehand to be flying out that day. Am I to assume that now the Los Angeles Kings and Crew might be in on this as well???

Okay, some may argue that the planes may have been crashed out at sea or something else was done with the passengers. I think this calls for enormously complicating something and opening up for something to go wrong.

All the evidence suggests planes did crash those buildings. Eyewitness testimony, News Crew's filming that day.

Now if there is a hologram that good then we may as well argue that the World Trade Center itself was a Giant Hologram! Perhaps New York? Where does it end?

You mean they were brave enough to either do a hologram or CGI on the News in New York with millions of people but were to afraid to show a good piece of film with the PENTAGON?

If it was CGI then there is NO REASON for there not to be good film of the Pentagon Crash, same can be said if it was a hologram.

Look I believe something was up that day and there is a lot of things that don't add up. But NO Planes is not the way to go.

I recall spending a day watching Sept Clues and some other Killtown stuff and I was convinced that it was disinformation.

In almost every single case I was seeing things that could be explained with the Angle of the Camera, Compression Effects etc.

The one startling weakness in the CGI thing is the NEW YORK PEOPLE themselves, with so many people looking at both towers that day, it if was truly just a missile or something else they would be screaming about it.

I mean, come on this is NEW YORK CITY for heaavens sakes. Just head over to a Yankees Game and see if you really believe New York could be duped.

Now the Hologram theory is more clever, since the theory takes into consideration the intelligence of the people of New York City.

But really its own premise becomes its demise, if one were to argue that Holograms could really be that good then we might as well conclude that 9/11 was just some very advanced military hologram nothing happened that day.

But of course we reject this and we do so by using our common sense.

BTW common sense can't happen in isolation. It happens by being around other people. I think we all know that planes hit those buildings and for the military to use any other means would greatly complicate the operation.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Originally posted by talisman



I think we all know that planes hit those buildings and for the military to use any other means would greatly complicate the operation.



Thanks for the post talisman however I think its mighty presumptious of you to say "we all know that planes hit those buildings." That comment, in my opinion, would be made only by the less informed.

I would respectfully suggest that you would be more acurate if you had posted, "Many of us think that planes hit the building, and for the military to use any other means would greatly complicate the operation.

I only suggest that because it would be a lot more accurate as currently there is no proof, no debris, no remains of any Boeing 767 having crashed into the WTC. But there sure are a lot of plane huggers who still think so!

Thanks again for the post.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   


BTW common sense can't happen in isolation. It happens by being around other people. I think we all know that planes hit those buildings and for the military to use any other means would greatly complicate the operation.


'common sense' or the 'down-loaded'-programing from the 'net-works'



and for the military to use any other means would greatly complicate the operation.


using 'live' Planes/Missiles would a impossible feat, just can't be done and come out the way they 'programed' you on the NET-WORKS, they-got-u-in-their-net ! imo

Stella~Maris !



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
johnlear

If it is the case that they were holograms, then why the reluctance to show one hitting the Pentagon?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well sorry but some things i research are classified since i am a data analyst for the government.


LOL that WAS sarcasm
But hey every time I use that line "I know but can't tell you" the skeptics pounce all over me...




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join