The John Lear Hologram Challenge

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Mister Wizard says it’s gonna be zero. Zero relatives of 9-11 passengers suing the airlines.
Those five 9-11 families that litigated were related to people who perished as occupants of the targeted buildings, not as passengers of any planes.Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

It was 'Force Majeur' so I doubt the relatives can sue.

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


O.K. Now I see the difference. Got it.

Originally posted by Chorlton
[It was 'Force Majeur' so I doubt the relatives can sue.

Chorlton, welcome back!!! Long time no hear!

The ‘force majeur’ seems to only be applying to the actual 9-11 plane passengers. Indeed none of their kin are suing. Or is that because they’re either still alive, died prior to 9-11, or never existed? It would require a lot of chutzpah (balls) for Ted Olson or Chick Burlingame’s relatives to demand reparations, but only from the airlines. It’s a safe bet that they got/are getting nice checks in one way or another from our Federal Reserve Bank.

The real victim’s families — of people trapped in the buildings on 9-11 — are the ones the airlines still have to deal with directly. Per 3-Oct-2007 AP report, a spokesman for American Airlines, whose plane crashed into the Pentagon, said the company is "committed to working with families toward settlement."

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Chorlton
the wings probably began to fold

You obviously didn't see the video

:shk:

Found this right here at ATS

In the ATS Content Archives (thanks to that U2U reminder )

Holographic projection. The Defense Weekly article describes a quasi-information warfare/psychological operations program that was first discussed by the Air Force after Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War.

This involves projection of a three-dimensional holographic image to act as a decoy. The Pentagon spoke openly about its use of holographic projections during discussions of its non-lethal weapons program back in 1994. Since then, the program disappeared, most likely becoming a black project.

The article concluded by stating that the U.S. Army's JFK Special Warfare Center and School disclosed back in 1991 that it was looking to develop a 'PSYOPS Hologram System' with the capability to "project persuasive messages and three-dimensional pictures of cloud, smoke, rain droplets, buildings, flying saucers and religious figures.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Holograms 3 Planes 0

Originally posted by MrPenny
Now, in the case of the WTC, they would have to figure a way to get the charges planted on the exterior side of the beams. I don't know how that could happen without serious and noticeable disruptions to everyday business.

"Window cleaners have been much like the glass they clean: transparent," says Richard Fabry, publisher of an industry magazine.

Invisible Window Cleaners!!!

As I examine the event with my risk anyalasis point of view I find the idea of Holograms to be to risky to be viable. Especaily considering how much easier TV fakery is to use. One might wonder about the REAL wittnesses and what they might have to say. Well Oklahoma City had a City full of real wittnesses when the local stations reported the recovery of a second and third bombs. But when the deal was done it was only Tim McVeigh with his fertilizer bomb. The psi op research was already done and it seems that it doesn't matter what a large minorty of people claim to see when weighed against what is reported nationaly.

The whole September Clues video series has the whole thing locked up solid in my opinion. Everything they cite can be seen on our video recordings of the day. The high speed backround pans, The arrogant numbers and faces painted into the CNN footage, everything, everything is neatly wraped up and pointed out and you can take it to the bank with your own recordings.

Holograms could fade in and out. Could distort under smoke. TV editing is flawless and has taken 6 years to get any real notice. Hologram planes have gotten more attention sooner than the idea of TV fakery. But if a windshear blasts a heli-copter with a holo projector then the image drasticaly changes and the illusion is ruined. With TV fakery you can edit out the choppers if you like... I see it as a control issue. Holo projectors leaves unknown variables out there. TV fakery givers the Treasonous Sons of *!+#%s total control over what is seen and how it is seen.

reply to post by titorite


So that means they'd have to have every cameraman for every news network as direct insiders. This would also require many others in the top. Why not just crash the planes?

[edit on 4-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by zorgon

Still need an explanation for that

This is indeed an interesting shot of something never caught on video before, plane(hologram) entering one of the twin towers. Notice how the wings are somewhat swept back as if it's beem made to pull up while banking to the left at 500 mph.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Chorlton
the wings probably began to fold

You obviously didn't see the video

:shk:

Yes I did.
You obviously dont understand how things break up.

reply to post by infinityoreilly


Your photo there is one of the most telling. The plane is in that far but all around it the laws of crash physics are being ignored. And when we pay attention to the left wing where it connects to the body of the plane we can see where the buildling itself "re-appeares" undamaged for about two frames. Then the explosion happens.

But tell me infinityoreilly, do you think it was holograms, tv fakery or possibly a bit of both? I personaly think it was all TV fakery because I think that would of offered the prepatrators the most control over the situation where as I think holograms could of left an unknown factor out there thus presenting a bigger risk of the two options. Also when all the TV fottage is reviewed we have multipule flight approach angles, obvious backround glitchs, and a host of other pixel issues that , in my mind, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that video editing was involved.

What are your thoughts?

reply to post by titorite



So have you taken all of the highest quality video clips available and then done extensive frame by frame analysis of the raw quality farmes, or have you just been going off of things posted here and there by others? Has anybody? I seem to keep noticing people basing their conclusions off of things like youtube videos and fringe websites etc which are about as scientific as George W. Bush.




What ever happened to Mr. Lear? Are you producing a full length/feature documentary on this or something? Been awful quiet. The MIB didn't use the flashy thing on you did they?

[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss



You ask if I have reviewed the frames myself. My own copy of the days events is only from 3 to 7 pm. Despite that yes I have analyized it frame by frame. I admit the September Clues videos pointed out the spots to look for. It is because I was skeptical of what they presented that I reviewed my own copy and sure enough the flaws they pointed out existed on my copy.

So now I ask you, have you IIB, reviewed the days events useing whatever resources availible at your disposal? Spesifical looking for the problems the September Clues videos bring up, so as to prove them wrong?

Originally posted by titorite
You ask if I have reviewed the frames myself. My own copy of the days events is only from 3 to 7 pm. Despite that yes I have analyized it frame by frame. I admit the September Clues videos pointed out the spots to look for. It is because I was skeptical of what they presented that I reviewed my own copy and sure enough the flaws they pointed out existed on my copy.

If you only own 3pm-7pm then how could you verify their 'claims'? Wasn't their entire thing about what happened exactly when the impacts occured in real time?

So now I ask you, have you IIB, reviewed the days events useing whatever resources availible at your disposal? Spesifical looking for the problems the September Clues videos bring up, so as to prove them wrong?

Actually, I did attempt to verify S.C.'s "Fade to Black" claims, but was unable to reproduce it using the Washington DC Archive.org clips. Earlier in the thread I posted one of the clips which could be relevent. Didn't prove their BLACK thing tho. Instead you can see the plane approaching from behind it, but a second before the impact it switches to another camera angle and then switches back once the fireball is in progress. Does that prove anything? No. Could have been bad luck if the switch operator didn't see it coming. And that was from the other side anyways.

Any of his other fade to blacks could have been him highlighting a frame or 2 of black that could be natural when switching cameras. I dont remember xactly. It was long ago that video came up. It was thoroughly demystified here at ATS, and even showed where the makers of it used their own trickery to make it convincing. Beyond that my video machine is fried by lighting and the Burden of Proof isn't on me anyways. S.C. never released their raw data for "peer review" that I'm aware of, and their 'fade to blacks' was from some recordings that don't seem to be widely avalible. Their biggest clip showing the plane exit seems to be a clip that few have, and until that is released in full quality for others to analyze it's futile even thinking of using that as evidence. I offered to use HLS photo enlargement software on the frames from that and the Killtown Crew couldn't come up with it.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


If you only own 3pm-7pm then how could you verify their 'claims'? Wasn't their entire thing about what happened exactly when the impacts occured in real time?

Not exactly. I am not sure if you're aware of this but thier are currently 8 parts to the Sebtember Clues series and 9 is being put together currently.

As the days events were replayed all day I do have some of the problem footage they point out on my own video. The fade to black spot is not the only problem spot. You can find alot more video at Camera planet or Livevideo or many other places. I offer this up just incase you want to continue to focus exclusivly on that one part. As for me, I went over as many parts as could with the footage I have. On my copy I have some of the backdrop glitchs and the one plane entry spot highlight a few post up on this thread where the plane melts into the building and then the plane wing dissappeares exposing undamaged building for about 2 frames before the blast.

And as far as I know everything on september clues is avilable for peer review because everything is public domain . Inculdeing the news footage of the Nose in nose out micro precision pixlel match.

Originally posted by titorite
What are your thoughts?

Thats a fair question. No I'm don't think it was a hologram. Yes the SC people bring up some interesting points about the "TV Fakery" angle that some subscribe to around here.

As far as the way the plane looks in the video frame in my last post, we're seeing something never captured on video before, so we have no file footage to compare it with.

The possibility it's faked is equal to the possibility that it's not faked. I'm I saying there is no doctored videos of 911,no. I'm just as skepticle of the official story as some of the wilder CTs.

Back to the images on video that show a 767 entering one of the WTCs. As the plane enters there is a moment that it seems to melt into the building without doing much damage, followed by a large hole and explosion mainly directed inward on the entry side and outward on the opposite side. Some debrie does come back out the entry point, but not much.

For this to be CGI seem implausible for me, not imposible, but as IIB states now you have a bunch of camerapeople in on it as well as video editors and everyone in between. Plus window washers(planting explosives on outside of building), and any New Yorker(I know a couple) who was paying attention at that moment.

My thoughts are just that my thoughts. John Lear and the others are free to think that it was holograms or CGI or whatever, I'm just not going to let them say what they think without pointing to other interpretations of said "evidence".

This is my opiniun, not fact.

Originally posted by titorite
And as far as I know everything on september clues is avilable for peer review because everything is public domain . Inculdeing the news footage of the Nose in nose out micro precision pixlel match.

That's a negative. If you do find the "NY GOOD DAY" Fox footage in a decent format please do let me know. That footage is basically where all their "dirt" comes from yet SC is the only place I've seen it off hand. If they can provide a hardly stepped on version that's close to the archive.org footage then we'll be ready to talk. Do they even provide and email to take them up on their "peer review" process?


In any case, even if it can be proven that there was some reatime editing going on it still doesn't prove that there were no planes. The TV Fakery/etc people keep presenting it thru- a False Dichotomy lens.
"Oh, see, there's edits therefore there's only one other explaination, no planes etc".
That's classic fallacy there. See it too often actually.
Furthermore, "edits" in the live recorded-off-of-TV tapes still doesn't prove that the news was in on it. These "edits" and things (like the beep-beep noise in SC#5; or the fade to black if actually real) could simply be "the perps" interfering with the broadcast signals to later fuel what we have here. Or they could simply be cockup artifacts from the chaotic nature of live broadcasting during a chaotic event.

I argue this because of many other factors, but in particular the plane/engine parts in the streets and the fact that this 'vast conspiracy' didn't bother putting out NTSB/etc reports to finish off the coverup campaign.



EDIT: Alright so in SC#8 they mention that only 5 impacts camera angles were aired live. Of thes eonly 2 featured the BLACK FRAMES bit. One was the NY GOOD DAY which somehow they seem to be the only one who havew, and their other BLACK "example" was actually between camera angle changes like I mentioned before.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Okay so if the video were all chromakeyed and so on to coverup all their dirty deeds that day then why was the E4-B "Doomsday Planes" still visible in DC for sure and near the WTC possible?

CNN:
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

WTC Maybe:

Google Video Link

-The No Planer / TV Fakery croud has already claimed that the CameraPlanet clip used was part of the perp's fake footage releases. Why did they allow what could be the E4B in that?
-The E4-B can probably be found in the NY live stuff.
-September Clues #6 shows what also might be the E4-B. Why didn't the chroma-keyers remove anamolous aircraft from the background?


The No Plane Challenge:
Show us some clips of the supposed impact from independent camera people, that show No Plane period.


[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss



Ok you asked to see more footage of the South tower impact? Well here you are. This vid includes every angle of captured impact (presumably)




One more thing to keep in mind. The NY good day footage is not the crux of the SC tv fakery accusation. The crux is the overwhelming varity of Clues. The back round glitchs like empire state and high speed back rund scrolling. The inablity to reproduce the battery park shot from the same angle in the CNN vid. The overwhelming number of News media related wittnesses. The multiple approach angles( differnent angles may give some preception illusion but the nose dive angle is absolute contradiction to the other approach angles). And so on and so forth. If the SC series relyed on one fact it would be suspect. But it relys on an overwhelming amount of evidence...Not just the nose in nose out shot.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What ever happened to Mr. Lear? Are you producing a full length/feature documentary on this or something? Been awful quiet. The MIB didn't use the flashy thing on you did they?

Nothing happened to him, he went out to his mine for a few days... Some of us actually have a life outside of ATS (I know its hard to accept that )

And if you read the original thread your post was an offshoot of you will see that yes he actually IS writing a full length answer...

Sorry if some cannot keep your schedule

As to comparing the videos... yes I studied it frame by frame... and the only other version I have been able to find so far from CNN which is clearer... stops (is cut off) just before the plane hits...

So if you have another better copy I would be happy to analyse it. As it is, despite Chorlton's comments... there is NO damage to the building in that video clip and the plane is already half way in...

That to me says either projection or as Titorite says 'video manipulation'... but as people saw the image without the television screen, that would leave out video manipulation in my opinion

Also someone here posted the fact that there is a video that has the sound of the airple... please be so kind as to repost the link... I seem to have missed it...

Thanks