Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hologram dudes, how was it done?

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
John, I was referring to all the September Clues videos that someone posted a link to, not ALL 9/11 videos. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I like being able to have a discussion with someone, not see eye to eye, perhaps, but still be able to go out a grab a beer with them. You seem like that type of person.

This topic needs more discussion and less arguing.

So, thanks for responding...and not attacking me




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

There are quite a few videos of
1) Witnesses who saw the plane
2) different angles of the plane hitting.

And the people who question intelligence because we do not believe this extremely ridiculous story, thats all they have and in truth its Psych 101, when you doubt your own intelligence you tend to question others.

The fact point to an airplane, the is NO and I mean NO shred of evidence that planes did not hit.

I am not sure what Mr. Lears actual purpose is here on ATS to get such "Rock Star" treatment as he does. But I have heard nothing but extremely ludicrous theories which are being told as fact These are theories that are easily proved wrong, and the fact that you actually think holograms were there as I watched it live on all televisions. Why? Seems to be an awful lotta work doesn't it. A simple, spike of our drinking water where 1000's died or something that could ACTUALLY be covered up would have caused just as bad as a reaction, if this was needed to go to war or what ever reason the boogie man did this.

I am disappointed in the treatment ATS gives John Lear and to be honest it makes the people who do believe in truth, not want to post to this site and as you can see by the everly increasing ridiculousness of the threads here. It makes ATS a not so welcome place for truth and science, where perhaps REAL conspiracies could be found, but are be swamped over by the ridiculous.

Can any say Disinformation?

A very disappointed person here =( I've been here for almost 4 years and have seen a great thing turn into a joke.



[edit on 26-9-2007 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The footage at the Flight93 scene shows that there is no plane wreckage at all there. This is enough to show that something was fabricated by the government.
It doesn't matter exactly how the buildings were impacted, just that they were, and were by the american govt or some part of it.
As a result 1000's of lives have been lost and still there is no action by anyone to weed out all these people from under their stones.
People say that America is the land of the free and are always spreading the word of freedom around the world but in reality you are more under control than any communist country ever was. You do not even know who is pulling the strings and why as these people are not even elected or known by anyone.
I would have thought an election would be a good time to bring this all to a head. But I can't see it happening.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   


But there was a C-130 flying around the Pentagon and near Flight 93s crash site. So just because it was not seen at the towers does not mean it was not there.


The mystery of the C130 has long been explained - it was a Minnesota
Air National Guard plane leaving from Andrews Air Base enroute back
to Minnesota.




Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [New York Times,


www.cooperativeresearch.org...



Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon,


Tin foiler are notorious for taking ordinary events and blowing them up
into some vast conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IrvingTheExplainer
 


Like I said before, the news outlets playing with the broadcasts, or some other party interferring with the broadcasts, if it did happen, doesn't prove that the planes were fake. That would only prove that they played with the broadcasts to later sows the seeds of diversiona dn disinfo. The other footage et al from that day takes care of the rest.

Even IF the broadcasts were manipulated it's a MAJOR fallacy to declare that it proves no planes were used.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by ShiftTrio





There are quite a few videos of
1) Witnesses who saw the plane
2) different angles of the plane hitting.

And the people who question intelligence because we do not believe this extremely ridiculous story, thats all they have and in truth its Psych 101, when you doubt your own intelligence you tend to question others.



Thank you for sharing ShiftTrio. I would respectfully suggest that you do not doubt you own intelligence. You have a right to question me and others.


The fact point to an airplane, the is NO and I mean NO shred of evidence that planes did not hit.


The facts are that there is no evidence that a plane hit. No remains of two 6 ton engine cores, no fuselage or wing parts, no center wing plank section, no vertical-horizontal stabilizer empennage parts. No oxygen bottles, no hydraulic cylinders, no wing spars, nothing that would indicate that a plane of any kind ever impacted the World Trade Center. So actually in regards to your statement there is NO shred of evidence that planes hit the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon or crashed at Shanksville. As far as the World Trade Center please show me one single piece of aircraft wreckage in the footprint of the building.


I am not sure what Mr. Lears actual purpose is here on ATS to get such "Rock Star" treatment as he does.


I came to ATS to exchange ideas. The rockstar treatment has nothing to do with my weird ideas; the rock star treament is because I am so handsome and I play a little keyboard.


But I have heard nothing but extremely ludicrous theories which are being told as fact

No, they are being offered as opinions. You may have missed that.


These are theories that are easily proved wrong,


Actually not. They can be debated to kingdom come but not proven wrong.


and the fact that you actually think holograms were there as I watched it live on all televisions.


You were watching a previously fabricated video inserted into the news programming.


Why? Seems to be an awful lotta work doesn't it. A simple, spike of our drinking water where 1000's died or something that could ACTUALLY be covered up would have caused just as bad as a reaction, if this was needed to go to war or what ever reason the boogie man did this.


No, actually this was the most effective way to fabricate a "New Pearl Harbor". Spiking drinking water would hardly have been as effective. As a matter of fact I see the proposal of spiking drinking water as 'silly.


I am disappointed in the treatment ATS gives John Lear and to be honest it makes the people who do believe in truth, not want to post to this site and as you can see by the everly increasing ridiculousness of the threads here.


Many share your opinion and disappointment.


It makes ATS a not so welcome place for truth and science, where perhaps REAL conspiracies could be found, but are be swamped over by the ridiculous.


Conspiracy like beauty; it is in the eye of the beholder.


Can any say Disinformation?


Disinformation.



A very disappointed person here =( I've been here for almost 4 years and have seen a great thing turn into a joke.


Thanks again for sharing. Your input is very much appreciated.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Dear Mr. Lear,

I'm hoping that you could respond to my posts in this thread before making statements such as "no physical evidence" or any of the rest? Surely if anybody here can answer my challenges and etc it would be you? I'm hoping the talk-over-everybody-as-if-they-didn't-provide-evidence/debunking/hard-questions that I keep seeing the no planers resort to could come to and end, and surely you have the asnwers?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ShiftTrio






The fact point to an airplane, the is NO and I mean NO shred of evidence that planes did not hit.


The facts are that there is no evidence that a plane hit. No remains of two 6 ton engine cores, no fuselage or wing parts, no center wing plank section, no vertical-horizontal stabilizer empennage parts. No oxygen bottles, no hydraulic cylinders, no wing spars, nothing that would indicate that a plane of any kind ever impacted the World Trade Center. So actually in regards to your statement there is NO shred of evidence that planes hit the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon or crashed at Shanksville. As far as the World Trade Center please show me one single piece of aircraft wreckage in the footprint of the building.



ok, no evidence that a plane hit except for the dozens of videos that SHOW a plane hitting the tower. After the collapse of 110 floors right on top of each other, and the months of cleaning up.. how do you know there was no airplane wreckage that was cleaned up? Were you a rescue/cleanup worker? were you there to witness the cleanup workers removing all of the material from ground zero? Am i asking you questions i already know the answer to?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by hikix





ok, no evidence that a plane hit except for the dozens of videos that SHOW a plane hitting the tower.


Thanks for the post hikix. You mention dozens of videos as if there were more than 24. In fact I think there was only about 6. There was the Naudet Borthers video, then there were the fabricated videos you saw on television, then there was the one shot from below the south tower with a person in the left foreground lower left. Just above his forearm is a video screen on which you can see a video of the airplane penetrating the tower seven or eight hundred feet above.

Then there is the longshot of the crash into the south tower which doesn't show the trees obscuring the apparent shot which are actually there. Then there is the video that is taken from the north facing south that shows an object diving and then allegedly penetrating the south tower.

I count about 6 videos all of which are suspect for various reasons. Maybe there are a couple of more but I don't think more than 10.


After the collapse of 110 floors right on top of each other, and the months of cleaning up.. how do you know there was no airplane wreckage that was cleaned up? Were you a rescue/cleanup worker? were you there to witness the cleanup workers removing all of the material from ground zero?


I am quite certain that had there been any of the airplane wreckage like wings or engines that these would have been shown over and over and over on television to prove that an airplane crashed intro the WTC. But there were no such videos. And there were no such airplanes.


Am i asking you questions i already know the answer to?


I am certain that you are asking questions you think you know the answers to.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by may_be_true
My question is not how but why....

Why would some shadow operation which, by default would have had to given up on 5-10 thousand lives


they didnt give them up they sent them to live with the greys. its the only way they could hid that many people dissapering.

as for johns court case. i dont doubt it, but there is also a law suit aginst god.

www.ketv.com...

so by that logic god is real and we are all doomed to hell for not believeing well im christian. no disrespect john lear but that is my opinion..

[edit on 15pmu112007 by DaleGribble]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Even IF the broadcasts were manipulated it's a MAJOR fallacy to declare that it proves no planes were used.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


Prove no, suggest yes. I at least buy some of what the broadcast manipulation crowd is shouting, something is wrong there.

Your angle, that the fades to black and the perfect nose out stuff is disinfo by the perpe"traitors", well thats a possibility too. Away of planning ahead if people come sniffing around looking for the truth.

No FBI or NTSB reports from the crime scene, like the actual pictures showing the serial #s on some airplane parts and then the specs and serial#s of the planes we were told hit the buildings. Maybe more disinfo tactics, like the Pentagon surveilence video, built in safeguards to hang the CTrs when they get to close to the truth!

Keep posting and maybe will see the day, later



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Alright after having my challenge ignored since the first page, over and over, I figured I pose it directly to Conspiracy Master John Lear:

The John Lear Hologram Challenge

I hate being too much of a nuicence but this madness has to be answered, or stopped.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   
9/11 WAS an inside job. But the planes were NOT holograms. Come on people, why has "September Clues" slipped past our third-eyes? It's obvious DISINFORMATION to discredit this whole area of research. Stop feeding the troll.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
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.

Yes lets quickly forget the hologram # and possible even del this thread, as it makes us look like lunes. I believe RC planes hit it, and the real flights were grounded somewhere else, or real flights were taken control over RC. I know the flights that supposedly went into the ground/hit pentagon landed in ohio. Real planes carrying lots of jet fuel hit the buildings. There was a man saying only a bomb in one video, but what he really saw no body knows. What if he was on the opposing side of the building and just didn't say so, or no one figured that.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Tin foiler are notorious for taking ordinary events and blowing them up
into some vast conspiracy.


The only conspiracy i see is the story about terrorist hijacking planes and that people that are still closed minded enough to believe what the media tells them.

6 years and no hard evidence to support the official story.

6 years and NIST still cannot tell us how building 7 collasped.


Originally posted by 1337cshacker
I know the flights that supposedly went into the ground/hit pentagon landed in ohio.


It was not Flight 93 that landed in Ohio, it was Delta Flight 1989. The ATCs got confused when 93 and 1989 flew close to each other.



[edit on 27-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Plane wreckage from WTC or course da gubment put it there , when thousands of people around lol.. or it was photo shoped yea thats it ..

See I can do Sarcasm to Mr.Lear.




and just for sh!ts and giggles, here is wreckage at the pentagon




what the hell Ill add some more plane wreckage






of course these are holograms and fakes too, but I am sure someone will come up with something to say to keep this idiocy alive


[edit on 27-9-2007 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It was not Flight 93 that landed in Ohio, it was Delta Flight 1989. The ATCs got confused when 93 and 1989 flew close to each other.

Ah! Thanks! Makes sense now.

If your counting years until a point where someone confesses about it, just stop counting now. lee harvy still shot jfk, catch my drift?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I just got done reading about 3 hours of eyewitness and first responders testimonies. There are several first responders who recall seeing what appeared to be a jet engine laying in the street at the WTC.

I do not buy into the hologram theory. Is it possible? Sure it is. I think anything is. the real truth here is that we have no choice but to speculate and anything is possible. I just don't buy into it, but there is something about the idea of planes hitting the towers that has bugged me for a while....

Now I am NO pilot. It would seem to me that flying a plane into the a tower as large as the WTC towers wouldn't be too difficult. However, many REAL pilots disagree and say it would be very difficult especially at 500+ mph. While I was reading all the first responder/eyewitness stuff I also started reading comments that are posted on the Partiotsquestion911.com site. On this site there is a transcript with our own resident "Rockstar" Mr. Lear doing an interview with Rob Balsamo.


John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.

Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...

John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. ...

source


First off Mr. Lear's credentials speak for themselves (hence the "rockstar" treatment- love him or hate you have to respect the man's accomplishments) and for him to say it would take him a few tries to line it up really holds some weight with me. I have been in airplanes, but I know NOTHING about flying one. It would be safe to assume that if anyone would be in a position to know how possible it is, it would be John Lear.

Secondly, I have heard that the maneuvers were not able to be duplicated in a simulator before and this is first piece of "evidence" I have found to support that. I would like to know who this Check Airman is or hear what anyone who has actually tried to simulate the flight path would have to say.

Those are the two things that bug me. Did planes hit? I think so but I can't prove it. What I can prove is that 9-11 has been covered up top to bottom and even 6 years later we have more questions than answers. I just thought since everyone was debating holograms that it would be important to keep in mind the type of maneuvers the planes would have had to do, and there are MANY pilots who claim that even for the most experienced pilot it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible, and let's face it, no one can dispute that these "hijackers" were NOT experienced pilots. By most accounts they could barely fly at all.

[edit on 27/9/2007 by section8citizen]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio

It makes ATS a not so welcome place for truth and science, where perhaps REAL conspiracies could be found, but are be swamped over by the ridiculous.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by ShiftTrio]


Your input here is respected. This is the reason I started this thread to bring in the "science" part of the hologram idea. Have we seen the model # for the most powerful hologram device you can buy on the open market? Not yet, but I still hold out hope someone will bring the info here, namely the ones who believe it was holograms.

The burden of proof is theirs to produce.

I appologise to all who think this discussion hurts the movement, but the hologram theory needs to be taken on in this way, because if your going to say ""they" flew airplanes into the buildings so "they" could demo them" without showing proof, and denie someone elses take on it without discussion its hypocritical.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
John, two questions:

1. How do you feel about the video of the first tower being stuck when the firefighters were running a drill. They all heard a loud noise overhead then the cameraman panned up to show a plane fly directly into the tower? How was that fabricated?

2. Do you REALLY TRULY believe that holograms were used? Or, are you just saying that COULD be one of the many things that happened that day?





new topics




 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join