Hologram dudes, how was it done?

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Let me ask you a question;
What do you think pushed all this steel "INWARD"? Even along the leading edge of where the wings hit?

This is proof positive why you didn't see the planes bounce off the sides of the towers upon impact.
2PacSade-

Youre wasting your time mate.
These people simply dont understand physics let alone Mass and Momentum.
I believe that nothing will convince these no-planers and the holograph projection people or anyone from even considering for one solitary second that it was actually done by terrorists.
It was worth a try, but they have their tin hats on and cant see logic when applied to Mass+Momentum
Nice try though

Originally posted by Chorlton
Youre wasting your time mate.
These people simply dont understand physics let alone Mass and Momentum.
I believe that nothing will convince these no-planers and the holograph projection people or anyone from even considering for one solitary second that it was actually done by terrorists.
It was worth a try, but they have their tin hats on and cant see logic when applied to Mass+Momentum
Nice try though

I might believe the official story if there was any actual hard evidence and official reports to support it. But so far i have seen more evidence against the oficial story. Most reports like NIST and FEMA have stated the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

Also remember the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building not causing much damage to the center core.

Oh, i would reather wear a tin foil hat then a special ed helmet.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I think people are applying the 'hologram' theory to a few too many places. I buried my grandfather and grandmother at Arlington National Cemetery (Grandma before 9-11, Grandpa after) in front of side of the pentagon that was hit.

I think the pentagon was the most likely candidate for the use of holograms because of the risk factor for error. Look at an overhead view of the pentagon and where Arlington National Cemetery is. The cemetery would be a perfect location to prject an image from.

Side Note: Arlington is a private cemetery that only allows direct descendants of people buried there to visit their loved one's gravesite. My father has a pass because he is their son but I can never go out to the grave site. I can only take the public tour like everyone else.

Click on the link in my signature for an article abot the military's original ideas for the use of holograms.

This is a photo I pulled off Arlington's website. Notice the pentagon in the background. My Grandparents plot is to the right and a little closer to the building.


My opinion is that planes hit the towers with minimal explosives involved. The buildings were severly damaged from the impact of the planes and all that was needed was a catalyst to create the fall. A small number of explosives in the correct location would easily cause the building to fall in the desired manner. Especially when you know where the initial damage will be located. The entire building WAS NOT rigged with explosives.

A hologram/missile/explosive was used for the pentagon. The light poles could have been knocked down using planted explosives. Bringing the light poles down at the correct moment would be about at hard as a the setup up for choreographed Fourth of July fireworks show. Not too hard if you have military explosives training and a computer running the timing of the event so that is all synced up to look real.

reply to post by Spoodily


Interesting angle Spoodily, Thanks for posting! The Pentagon hologram idea I had not thought of but actually makes more sense than the twin towers. Still I find the concept impracticle and difficult to believe.

Did anyone here on ats actually see the planes hit the towers? Does anyone know anyone who did? And I dont mean just reading eye witness accounts, I mean actually talking to the people that saw it happen?

There were some 50 people several floors above me in our building in
Linden NJ who watched the second plane crash into the South Tower.
My boss come downstairs to where we were and told me & my partner
what had happened. Many of my fellow co-workers are still too
traumatized by what they saw and don't like to discuss it.


Also worked with several other who were standing outside WTC 7 and
watched as AA11 (the first plane) smashed into North Tower

The no-planers are little more than tin foil wearing mental cases - notice
how these loons are nowhere near NYC....

Deny deny it never happened
i once watched a scifi show from the us i quoted "if we cant see the monster it cant see us"

if you dont see john lear for what he is i feel sad for you - i used to repect this site

GROW UP america

forget conspiracy - you got hit now be constructive - JL is disinfo he makes you either lie down or fight

WRONG on both counts -its about resolution and making a difference


Dont listen to me - im a brit

reply to post by infinityoreilly


I dont' know but I seriously thing that as far as conspiracy theorys go that is way insane and WAY too much thinking. Does it hurt?

reply to post by jasonmod


Hello jasonmod, I'm considered a newbie here, and have been slapped with a couple of penalties, how do you get -333 points?

I started this thread because on numerous threads here on ATS this hologram idea is thrown in on a regular basis. And your right, I started thinking what would it take to fool New York. Something way out of the realm of normal beliefs about what is posible.

Rationally I don't buy it, and John Lear even admits he doesn't know too much about the science behind it. So this my attempt to end the hologram debating that goes on in other threads. Also the debate has been taken up in John Lears forum here on ATS.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Chorlton
Youre wasting your time mate.
These people simply dont understand physics let alone Mass and Momentum.
I believe that nothing will convince these no-planers and the holograph projection people or anyone from even considering for one solitary second that it was actually done by terrorists.
It was worth a try, but they have their tin hats on and cant see logic when applied to Mass+Momentum
Nice try though

I might believe the official story if there was any actual hard evidence and official reports to support it. But so far i have seen more evidence against the oficial story. Most reports like NIST and FEMA have stated the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

Also remember the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building not causing much damage to the center core.

Oh, i would reather wear a tin foil hat then a special ed helmet.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

LOL @ helmet... Anyway,

Yes, something did bend the metal in. Your also correct in saying no damage was sustained to the core of the structure. Furthermore, most, as in 90% or more, of the jet fuel caught a flame outside. The second tower hit also fell first! If they are saying a fire took it down, the first tower burning 20+ minuets longer would have fallen first. Thats assuming it could have been taken down by "an inferno", which is BS.

I debunk the hologram theory completly. The technology just does not exist for a hologram so 3d, so real looking. Any hologram will look distorted/non-existent at some angle or another.

And someone else on here with a bruce lee avatar (as much as Irespect ol bruce) said they used a CGI. This is a good theory but the people on the ground obviously saw something. That one arab guy who said it was just a bomb, now HE was the confused eye witness, he was probably at the other side of the building when the plan hit. And btw a plane did hit. I go back to my original theory saying it was a RC plane, or the auto pilot was taken over the real plane with the real people on it. If so, sad It makes me hurt that possibility exist. It also makes me hurt knowing close to 3k people died that day for no cause. Gov are murders!!

Look you guys, quit dissin’ John Lear. First and foremost he’s saying there were no planes (crashing into buildings) on 9-11. He’s scientifically stated why not. He’s an authority on aircraft — ought to be an undisputed one — and he’s said all that possibly can be said about the absence of real passengered commercial jets flying on that day. You can protest his hologram theories till the cows come home, but they are the NEXT-IN-LINE ALTERNATIVE to what might have happened. Personally, I don’t think there were any. My view is that people are flat-out lying about or only ‘imagining’ having seen flights AA11 and UA175 (not to mention AA77 and UA93).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

For good measure, I’m re-posting this comment I have just shown on another thread.

Yeah,yeah the Naudet brothers…What pieces of work!!
Here’s a fine view of their mugshots, to the left Jules (in all his charm) and to the right Gedeon (with his overpowering smile).

(What conscienceless people look like)

Leslie Raphael, a Scotsman has dissected those two jokers and their 9-11 ‘contributions’ better than anyone. Here’s the link JULES NAUDET'S FIRST PLANE SHOT WAS STAGED — A Clue to the Truth about 9/11. Read it and weep.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 9/29/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


I haven't bothered to respond to this kind of thread before but I will just this once.

The hologram idea is disinformation.

Why? Well, several people have already said why, but I'll say it again:

1. because instead of researching facts, you are wasting your time on fantasies like this.

and...

2. It makes you, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with the official 911 story look silly.

John Lear, you should be ashamed. And so you should you Wizard In The Woods. You clearly think you are pretty smart, but you are not fooling anyone.

Originally posted by 1337cshacker
LOL @ helmet... Anyway,
I debunk the hologram theory completly. The technology just does not exist for a hologram so 3d, so real looking. Any hologram will look distorted/non-existent at some angle or another.

Well yes, there is not enough evidence to prove a hologram. But there is still plenty of evidence of the official story leaving out or missing a lot of information and facts.

Thats why people need to do research and ask questions.

Again, that Raphael article starts out by telling the reader that if they don't believe what the author is proposing, they are less intelligent than they are or they are sheeple and all that other crap.

Take another tack, truthers. Stop bullying people to accept your views and maybe more people will read them and take them more seriously.

Damn it, people aren't going to believe you guys saying no planes until you actually DO prove it (using physics, ie MATH).

Can none of you estimate the forces going both ways when a plane slams a building? If not then that's just one more reason to not listen, post after post after post after of completely pointless yapping.

It's NOT HARD to calculate a force. It's mass, times acceleration. If a plane is acclerated (negatively) to zero as it impacts the face of a building, then you have a shear force (the mass of the plane times [~600 mph divided by the time it takes for this "deceleration", in seconds] , just make sure all units are either US or metric and the proper scale, mks or cgs) that the perimeter columns and their bolts would have to be able to withstand.

There's a limit to what they could actually withstand, and I'll actually try to find it myself if someone else will at least put forth the good effort and calculate the forces going both ways during a theoretical impact.

That's at least a place to start. If none of you can do that, then good luck continuing to try to convince people based on rambling alone.





I get up this morning and surf through here and realize that you've all been arguing about this for months. You're all horrible at making valid arguments apparently.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by bsbray11]

reply to post by IrvingTheExplainer


I agree the article is slanted from get go and tries to lead you to its conclusion rather than present facts and let you think for yourself. Somewhat like what John Lear and The_Wizard_ in_the_Woods do when it comes to expaining the actual holograghic device that they say was used. They dance around this part saying "the government" must have this tecnology but don't produce any evidence to back up this claim.



[edit on 9/29/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

I agree the article is slanted from get go and tries to lead you to its conclusion rather than present facts and let you think for yourself. Somewhat like what John Lear and The_Wizard_ in_the_Woods do when it comes to expaining the actual holograghic device that they say was used. They dance around this part saying "the government" must have this tecnology but don't produce any evidence to back up this claim.

Thanks for the post infinityoreilly. Actually its fairly difficult posting top secret technology without illegaly accessing government sites. So we are limited to what we can present.

Here is what the government was thinking about several years ago in terms of techonology they proposed to have in 2025.

Its not beyond the realm of possiblility that this techonolgy is available now.

Thanks again for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear

Here is what the government was thinking about several years ago in terms of techonology they proposed to have in 2025.

Its not beyond the realm of possiblility that this techonolgy is available now.

John,

I believe your talking about this, which i posted earlier.

Intrnational Defense Review - March 01, 2003

Sceenless holographic projection is being studied as an entertainment technology by a number of companies, and the idea of a mid-air holographic projection was cited in the USAF Air University's Air Force 2025 report, commissioned by then-Chief of Staff Gen. Ron Fogleman in 1995. The report suggested that a hologram could be projected far enough from its source to create a virtual decoy, a visable but non-existent target.

You might like to do some research on the following, sorry i can not give you more information due to classifications.

1. Daily Fefense News - August 01, 2000

Airborne laser being assessed.
The Possible collateral damage to satellites in orbit from the proposed airborne laser program is being assessed by the US Air Force, according to Defense News.

The purpose of the study is to examine whether spacecraft would be harmed by the testing of the Pentagons two laser systems: the Air Force's Airborne Laser and the Army's Tactical High-energy Laser.

2. Well there was a report i have seen about a hologram in either a EC-130 Commando Solo or Compass Call aircraft.

The Commander Solo plane can hack into and override TV and radio stations to send messages.

The Compass Call aircraft is a electronic jammer and decoy aircraft.

3. As far as the energy weapon i have seen a report of a Russian airborne laser aircraft that was missing for quit a while around 9/11.




[edit on 29-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by johnlear


Thanks for the post infinityoreilly. Actually its fairly difficult posting top secret technology without illegaly accessing government sites. So we are limited to what we can present.

Limited by what John?, Limited by sheer logic and common sense and the eyes and ears of hundreds of people who actually witnessed the event?
Or limited by posting vague insinuations that you are in possession of 'secret technology information'?
Either way you are wrong and have been 100% proven so.

You have failed to provide any valid evidence or case for your theories, other than a badly copied proposition.
I repeat what was stated previously. NO Holographic projector currently exists that could project a 360 degree hologram over such an area as you propose.
It does not exist.

Originally posted by Chorlton

Either way you are wrong and have been 100% proven so.

You have failed to provide any valid evidence or case for your theories, other than a badly copied proposition.
I repeat what was stated previously. NO Holographic projector currently exists that could project a 360 degree hologram over such an area as you propose.
It does not exist.

Thanks for your posts Chorlton. I continue to find them a great source of encouragement, information and color.

Please know that I appreciate your continued input.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your posts Chorlton. I continue to find them a great source of encouragement, information and color.

Please know that I appreciate your continued input.

Do not give up John, as you can see by my post i am doing lots of resarch on the subject. I am just having a hard time posting material becasue of classifications.