Hologram dudes, how was it done?

Originally posted by Chorlton

I find your post offensive and wonder what YOU will think when it becomes clear that you and your followers are completely and absolutely wrong?

Thanks for your post Chorlton and I assume that you have read the FDR digital data for the Flight #77 I wonder if you would care to comment on the altimeter incident, specfically:

How did Hani set both altimeters sitting in either the left or right seat in one second?

How did Hani know the current Reagan International field barometric pressure setting?

Both altimeters were turned in the proper direction to set the pressure on the first attempt. How do you account for a first time hijacker performing that feat?

Why did Hani set the altimeters at 18,000 feet anyway? What was the purpose? He was going to crash into the Pentagon.

I would appreciate your input on this particular phase on #77's descent into the alleged crash into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by johnlear

How did Hani set both altimeters sitting in either the left or right seat in one second?

How did Hani know the current Reagan International field barometric pressure setting?

Both altimeters were turned in the proper direction to set the pressure on the first attempt. How do you account for a first time hijacker performing that feat?

Why did Hani set the altimeters at 18,000 feet anyway? What was the purpose? He was going to crash into the Pentagon.

I would appreciate your input on this particular phase on #77's descent into the alleged crash into the Pentagon.

You know these are all great questions John, and I have to agree with you on this. If the information from the FDR is legit then Hani Hanjor was not only trained in a 757 but somewhat of a stickler for procedure.

reply to post by johnlear


Well, lets examine your position on the matter Mr. Lear. You are convinced that we should assume Chuck Burlingame is in fact alive. Which by default would implicate him as well in the conspiracy.

First of all, April Gallop. Question one: Why should April Gallop's claim weigh more heavily than the overwhelming number of eyewitnesses's who witnessed flight 77 impact the Pentagon? Furthermore (maybe you're not aware) -- but April Gallop has acknowledged that her own statements have indeed been taken out of context by the likes of CT'ers Jim Marr's (no surprise there really.) Here's a direct quote from April Gallop --

"I was informed by the representative from the Army (whose name i will leave out) that it was a plane that hit the building. When that seed was planted, that it was a plane that actually hit the building at a time I am in a hospital bed, it added to my fears, anxieties etc.. So yes, I became fearful of riding planes, jumpy when hearing them ....Jim Mars distorted that comment for his gain."

Are you also implying that Chuck Burlingame wasn't in the aircraft that day? Or that the five hijackers weren't on that plane either? Or that the phone call from passenger (and victim) Barbara K Olson to her husband on the ground placing Burlingame in the rear of the aircraft never happened either?

Let's face it John, your implying that Chuck Burligame is a direct accomplice in a mass murder of historic proportions (quite the charge I'm sure you would agree.) What evidence (even circumstantial) do you have that would lead anybody to believe that Burlingame would voluntarily conspire to murder not only his passengers & fellow crew members, but scores of innocent victims on the ground in Washington DC?

Some educated guess work from an extremist pilot regarding an altimeter reading into atmospheric pressure? No movement on a steering yoke? Call me crazy, but it seems to me the last thing an experienced pilot would want to do is jeopardize the steering of an aircraft, even during a struggle. If somebody reaches behind you from the back seat of a car and places a box cutter to your throat (or to your fellow passenger up front) -- would it make any sense to start jerking around on the steering wheel?

None of your claims (and that's all they in fact are) are grounds to place the blood of all of those victims on this mans hands. Let alone, take his status away from him as a victim on that day.

Simple rule of thumb here: Before you go and start implicating somebody as a mass murderer (let alone faking their own death) be ready to start replacing your speculations with some hard evidence. Until you can do that; let's at least honor those who are in fact labeled victim when it comes to September eleventh.

While I'm at it, here's a follow for Mr. Lear.

From what I gather you are under the impression that the orchestrator's for these events (9/11) were hell bent no doubt on providing a near perfect cover up after the fact. Logically that would be a key component of the plan itself.

So here we are: Planning phase, initiation phase and ultimately the cover up phase. Makes sense to me. As for the latter, to pull off your conspiracy according to near perfection; the cover up phase would hinge on suppressing any & all undesirable witnesses's and evidence to implicate you as the perpetrator.

Evidence of course being the key idea here.

So I'm wondering, what makes you believe that the information from the flight data recorder hasn't been tampered with as well? Assuming that it was (or wasn't) -- what sense does it make that the conspirators wouldn't comb over a key piece of evidence such as that, while doing so eliminating (or altering) any sort of data that would even hint at something fishy going on?

Let's face it, other than the plane itself; that info found on those little black boxes would be essential when cover up time rolls around (pretty important detail I'm sure you would agree.) Experts would be assessing the data and subsequently expertly manipulating it before it got into yours, or anybody else's hands.

So explain that one if you would. Going further, why are you so convinced (I'm assuming you are) -- that the phone calls aboard the flight had been fabricated (placing Burlingame and co pilot not even in the cockpit), yet the black box data hasn't?

And again, assuming that you are correct that it is indeed authentic; what sense does it make that such a key piece of evidence such as that wouldn't have been forged in someway to eliminate all and any nagging questions that may arise from it?

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty

Simple rule of thumb here: Before you go and start implicating somebody as a mass murderer (let alone faking their own death) be ready to start replacing your speculations with some hard evidence. Until you can do that; let's at least honor those who are in fact labeled victim when it comes to September eleventh.

Thanks for your post illuminati. The title of this thread is "Hologram dudes, how was it done."

I would be happy to answer any questions relating to the hologram that the perps used in the mass murder of 911 in which, in my opinion, Chick Burlingame was an accomplice.

Any questions relating to Chick himself or questions which do not directly relate to how the holograms were projected would be better addressed in a new thread, maybe, "Chick Burlingame? Mass murderer or hero?" or maybe you could address your questions in the questions for John Lear thread.

Thanks for your post and although, I to, am guilty of straying off topic, lets both try to do a better job of staying on topic. Thanks.

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty

While I'm at it, here's a follow for Mr. Lear.

Please check my post above. Thanks

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for your post illuminati. The title of this thread is "Hologram dudes, how was it done."

I would be happy to answer any questions relating to the hologram that the perps used in the mass murder of 911 in which, in my opinion, Chick Burlingame was an accomplice.

OK John I'll bite, how was it done? From appearing on the horizon until dissappearing into the building, take us through the hologram process if you will.

for spelling

[edit on 10/6/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

OK John I'll bite, how was it done? From appearing on the horizon until dissappearing into the building, take us through the hologram process if you will.

for spelling

[edit on 10/6/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Including sites of the ''projectors' and sites for the power sources and how the correct imaging was done from outside the imaging area





[edit on 6/10/07 by Chorlton]

reply to post by johnlear


Well now that was great big dodge away from the question now wasn't it Mr. Lear? Furthermore, you yourself brought Burlington's name up before I myself did in this particular thread, or lest you forget?

..and thank's for your post John!

Aside from that, let's let the issue of slandering the character of Captain Burlingame with no real justification whatsoever slide for just a moment. However, I would really like to get your thought's pertaining to what I mentioned in my last thread regarding the flight data recorder (again, you brought that point up as well Mr. Lear.)

...And don't worry, I'm eagerly awaiting your response, because it ties right into where I'm headed with the hologram theory anyway.

reply to post by johnlear



Howdy Mr. Lear.
I was wondering if I could get your opinion about a few things reguarding Holograms vrs TV fakery.

Here in this youtube video we focus only on the towers collapse not the planes at all.



After it loads if you put it on pause and goto time frame 5:50 (3:22 if viewed directly here) You will see a clear crisp picture with the empire state building in it and in the back round the tower collapsing. Now if you will take it back to 5:40(3:14 if viewed directly here) you will also see the tower collapseing from almost the same angle...Judgeing from the height of the buildings and the backround I would say the shot at 5:40 is just a wee little bit further out than the shot at 5:50. The biggest difference is dissapering reappering empire state building. But also if we focus on the middle of the youtube screen we can see the buildings on the left and right hand screen of both shots change signifigantly...(just in case you dont know if you keep you left mouse button clicked you can track the youtube cursor from 5:50 to 5:42 and back and forth and so on to compare the two shots in still frame)

So this footage here can not possibly be hologram related can it?

Also if you look up the 1994 USGS for shanksville you will find a strip mineing scar in the EXACT location of the flight 93 crash..minus the crater in the dead center. There are photos online and what not.

My point is Which of the two illusions is easier and safer to orchastrate in you opinion? TV edits or holograms?

Also I would like to know if you have spent any signifigant amount of time looking into tv fakery as opposed to holograms?






[edit on 6-10-2007 by titorite]

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

OK John I'll bite, how was it done? From appearing on the horizon until dissappearing into the building, take us through the hologram process if you will.

I am going to include my opinion of how the whole 911 operation was managed. It may take a while so please know that I am wokring on it. Thanks.

Originally posted by titorite

Also I would like to know if you have spent any signifigant amount of time looking into tv fakery as opposed to holograms?

Thanks for the post titoite. I wonder if we are talking about the same thing? Holographs were only used to project holographic images of the 2 Boeing 767's crashing into the WTC towers. Nothing else as far as I know was holographed.

The TV shots of the 2nd airplane crash into the south tower is probably CGI for these reasons:

It does not look real as it is black with no definition other than silhouette.
The flight path is not believable.
The north tower exactly hides the south tower in several of the TV shots probably to hide the view of the crash looking west to east which would reveal discrepencies in the crash scenario.

In answer to your question TV fakery, in my opinion was used along with holographs to create the WTC crash myth.

reply to post by johnlear


Hey, I've got a question! Seeing as how all of the other points made in my prior three posts have purposely avoided by Mr. Lear.

...Onto the 'hologram' theory. This comment here --

Holographs were only used to project holographic images of the 2 Boeing 767's crashing into the WTC towers.

But how could a hologram account for a four to five ton jet engine flying out of the south tower, bouncing down Church street and actually cracking the pavement while doing so?....In front of a street full of witnesses's lets not forget.

Was it fired out of the south tower by a super-secret cannon at the exact instant the plane (whoops) hologram struck?

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty



Illumination. Here is the video of your engine.



If you will stop the frame on 1:20 (0:09 if viewed directly here) You will see the engine has landed underneath some scaffolding. The scaffolding is intact and undamaged. The engine is also lodged inbetween a bunch of poles. The ground is not scared from metal scrapeing along concrete. The sidewalk does not appeare to be cracked.

The engine does not look like it crashed at all. It looks as though it has been placed there.

How did the engine avoid the scaffolding and the poles to land so neatly IN THE SHADE

And how did it get placed there without anyone noticing, by an organisation who made so many other cock-ups in their supposed cover up?

Is this the smoking gun that proves the perpetrators actually had 3 brain cells?

Edit: perhaps it hit the ground and bounced there?

What about the other bits of debris lying in the street? Were they also dropped there by the invisible man?

[edit on 6-10-2007 by Essan]

titorite

You see right there is one of the major problems with the CGI theory that is out there. Killtown also always suggests evidence of a plane was physically planted etc.

But then the question would become,

"why on earth plant evidence when you could just CGI the evidence in"?

That is one of the major problems with CGI.

The problem I have with the hologram theory is that it opens a Pandora's box of many other fringe theories that could eventually lead to there being no 9/11 at all.

Once you eliminate the planes for example, then you could just about eliminate anything and pin it down to clever technology etc.

I think we should give an ear to everyone's theories but at the same time we should apply Occam's razor and not muliply the problems.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by talisman]

reply to post by titorite


I just love how some average Joe out there on his computer somewhere, can sit there & firmly believe somehow that the airliners that slammed into the towers were in fact holograms, yet at the same time; throw the 'rolling eyes' icon at me for doubting such a claim.

That's classic right there. Thank's 'above top secret dot com' -- for the life of me, I don't know where else I could find such individuals to get into a posting debate with.

...And to answer your question poster, the engine did in fact crack the street surface among other damage and screams of...

LOOK OUT!!!

DUCK!!!

...and

Holy-s!....INCOMING!!!!

See?




Aside from that (as with the downed lamp posts over at the Pentagon)...And as the above poster already pointed out; It's not a simple task to just plant such objects in the middle of crowded streets. Especially with reporters at every corner, first responders, plus the fact that every citizen and his dog was snapping off pictures there in lower Manhattan.

The other poster really has the answer to all of your dilemmas here (no really, he does) -- 'Occam's Razor' google that.

Essan, Talisman...

Hello.


First I would like to say that I do not know how something like that could be placed there without people noticeing. Personaly I think people probibly did notice. Would you believe a new yorker that said he/she saw MIB plant the engine?

I am looking at the bigger detail here. If the engine was a flameing peice of debreis from the crash how did it land underneath the scaffolding? Essan suggests it bounced. TO follow this logic it would have to bounce inbetween all of the poles but under the scafolding. Thats kind of a magical bullet path, No?. All this and no people were hit. It was reported the debries hit one person though. In the arm in fact. A peice of flameing debries that just flew through a building at 500+ miles an hour hits a person in thier arm and the metal did not even pierce the skin. This is part of the offical MSM reported line.

Talisman you ask why didnt they just CGI the evidence too? Well I invite you to follow the instruction in the post I made above at 2:34..the instructions I gave to Mr Lear about the video link I posted. I don't have an answer for your question other than to offer you prespective. My guess would be that the evidence was planted to make the illusion convinceing. New yorkers may not of seen the plane crash but they can tell thier grandkids they saw the plane engine.

I do apply occums razor to this. After ruling out pancake collapse and every other 911 theory TV fakery is left. And consider this from the conspiritors end. You plan to do this with an offical story line. Then you throw out a few misleading clues for the inquisitive to chase, a back up CT story. Meanwhile your method of how you will execute the plan will not only work but if anyone figures it out, it shall sound so outlandish as to be riddiculed by people that believe either the first or second story.

Let us never tolerate outragous conspiracy theories Eh?

Originally posted by johnlear
I am going to include my opinion of how the whole 911 operation was managed. It may take a while so please know that I am wokring on it. Thanks.

Well that sounds like a whole new thread right there, I'll be waiting.

Thankyou, InfinityO'Reilly, over

reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty



Mighty fine photo you got there Illumination.. Did you edit the lines or or just use the photo from another site? Anyways. CAn you point out to me the scaring of metal on concrete this engine would of left behind? Weather it bounced or skid thier should be a trail somewhere very close and leading directly under it.. unless it just came to a full stop upon impact of landing underneath the scaffolding.

Inbetween poles, underneath scaffolding, traveling at 500+ miles an hour (as fast as a bullet) without hitting a soul....this does not sound the least bit strange to you Illminatiat?

PT Barnum I suppose.

Also applying Occums here... the side walk was most likely already cracked before the engine made its way there. And despite the forward motion of 500+ miles an hour it did not hit the building and it has landed verticaly with out messing up the pavement by scarping along the ground..(Accept for the possiblity of thet winter crack being a crack caused by impact)

Google is your friend aswell as mine...I use it daily to find out whatever froggy fact I think is suspect in my skeptical mind....I hope you do as well.