The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I definitely believe there was something wrong with the official story of 911. A great many things. Too many to name them all.


Finding the intact passports of the hijackers, when all else was a pile of burned ruins, for example. And the building 7 question.


I think it was, in all probability, and inside job. Who was responsible, or involved, I don't quite know...


But the 'holograms' theory takes the biscuit, IMO, and tarnishes all the other, legitimate questions with the same brush......bringing ridicule on detractors of the official story.




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



60 seconds John?
The fuel went down vent shafts, lift shafts and set light to everything including metal. Aluminium will burn, and burn well. Its melting point is a mere 660 degrees

From your own country
www.osha.gov...

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
* Reactivity
1. Conditions contributing to instability: Contact between aluminum powder and ignition sources may create a severe explosion hazard. Because it is strongly electropositive, aluminum corrodes rapidly in contact with other metals.
2. Incompatibilities: Aluminum is an extremely reactive metal. Contact between aluminum and acids, caustics, combustible materials, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and strong oxidizers should be avoided.

If you want to see what damage even relatively small explosions can start check out the damage done to HMS Sheffield in the Falklands war, then multiply that how many times you want adding of course, all the flammables in the building of whicj there were an awfull lot.

Simple logic would state that my idea is far less ridiculous than your 'holographic projections'

Nice try, no banana



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by Chorlton





Simple logic would state that my idea is far less ridiculous than your 'holographic projections'.



Thanks for your input Chorlton. I would respectfully request that you don't attempt to confuse my 'holographic' airplane images with your suggestion that an instantaneous fuel explosion or 'tons of paper' burned up two 6 ton engine cores, and an entire associated airplane including its 159 foot wingspan and asscociated wing attach point forgings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers and associated empennage attach point forgings, the wing plank center section, the hydraulic retract cylinders which operate the landing gear, the landing gear struts, all the oxygen tanks and the 'virtually indestructable' flight recorder and voice recorder.

Thanks.

And thanks again for your input.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Im not attempting to confuse anything John. Im simply stating that my scenario is far more believable than your conspiracy theory and associated Holographic projection on such as ascale as you suggest.
AFAIK Moving holographic projections are not even possible at the size and clarity that you suggest.

Metal DOES burn, thats a proven fact.
But thanks for your time and sense of humour.




[edit on 27/9/07 by Chorlton]

[edit on 27/9/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
So, sorry to interupt you two but, John.

What evidence, that you can show us here and now, do you have that the aircraft were just holograms?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Just bunk. To sit there and claim the "planes" that hit the twin towers were freakin' holograms is to display an amount of ignorance about science and technology that pretty much discounts anything else coming from you, John.

Obviously, when something big like this happens the woo crowd automatically starts in on the conspiracy theories, since they don't believe anything could be as it seems. Too mundane, too boring....must have been something extraordinary, lol. Was 9/11 not outrageous enough on its own that you have to invent 3rd grade holographic airplanes to "spice it up a bit" lol.

John, please give us some insight into you inside knowledge of advanced holograms that has led you to believe this outlandish bs.


On a personal note, I think people who make this kind of hay out of something as serious as this have personal issues that need to be dealt with professionally. John, you should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by myowncrusade



What evidence, that you can show us here and now, do you have that the aircraft were just holograms?



Thanks for the interruption myowncrusade, Chorlton needs some time to regroup, tend to some major wounds and have his afternoon cup a tea.

Regarding evidence for the holographs it is entirely circumstantial.

This is a military projection on what they expect to have coming on line in 2025. I think it is operational now.



There is not a shred of proof that there were any planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, no wreckage, no engines as I have pointed out in detail.

So everybody must have seen something...and I propose it was a holograph as described in the above military outlook.

Thanks for the post and your input.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I'm siding with John on this one, and I think some of you guys are being a little harsh here. Almost personal.

I know some of John's opinions tend to be a bit "out there" by most standards but this one seems to ring closer to the truth to me than any others.

I don't believe planes were used to bring down the towers either, now whether or not the images we all saw were holograms I don't know...a lot of eye witnesses claimed they just heard explosions, even a series of explosions...but judging from the impact holes and lack of any significant wreckage in all of the alleged plane crashes it really makes me wonder what exactly was used.

I mean a charred passport and bandanna from one of the terrorists is found intact but not any real plane parts?

please.


[edit on 27-9-2007 by lee anoma]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
This is a military projection on what they expect to have coming on line in 2025. I think it is operational now.


Wow.

Ha, so I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility after all. Looks like the concept seems to be something the military sees as practical. I had no idea.

Guess they're as kooky as John, then?


Usually by the time something they are working on is public knowledge it's already been in production long before.

Scoff now, jaw-drop later.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


That 3rd grader pamphlet doesn't tell or show anything. The military looks into hundreds of outlandish things that never come into fruition. Even if that stuff in that "idea" pamphlet was accurate, what he showed could not have come close to pulling off the stunt we all witnessed (some of us live). And I know most will say it is an example of "if they have this, then they have something bigger and better" bla, bla, bla.

This whole thread is pointless, and will be never ending. Neither side will concede anything to the other, and no one ever settles. People believe what they believe for whatever reason they want to, and there is nothing some idiot on the internet is going to do to change their mind.

I find this whole debate stomach turning. John, kill this thread, you know as well as I do it will go no where, lead to petty arguments, get people warned/baned, and only serves to boost your own ego and notoriety among your fellow woos. Doing that on the backs of thousands of dead Americans is just plain wrong. Don't do it, just this once let it go man.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
There is not a shred of proof that there were any planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, no wreckage, no engines as I have pointed out in detail.



W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied — including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine — as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.
Source

That clearly qualifies as a "shred" of proof.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
[Don't do it, just this once let it go man.


The same could be said to you my friend. No one is forcing you to follow this thread, much less participate in it. If you don't agree with John or anyone else, and don't want to listen to them, then don't pull this thread up. It's very quite simple.

Now I'm not big into 9/11 conspiracy, and I do think this a little "out there", but hey…anything is possible. I find idea of this fascinating to be quite honest. Not that all the information in the world could convince me it's true...

While you may think John is crazy, the man does know what he's talking about. He's incredibly intelligent and we're lucky to have him here on ATS. (and no…I'm not the in the Lear fan club)

**Hey John, there's an idea! A JL Fan Club!


cj6

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I just have a quick question for Mr. Lear!
Does your hologram theory have anything to do with something I've read about the government planning to use holograms to fake the "second coming of christ"?!



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
well, it is now quite clear what john lears purpose on this forum is. i had thoughts about this for some time now, but the fact that he is now an advocate for the "no planes" theory just confirms my suspicions.

you see, a community like this has to constantly be stimulated, new ideas have to be introduced, and the more controversial they are, the more people join the discussions and this forum.

so, mr. lear has the leading role in all of this. because of his alleged fame and credibility, he can start notable discussions with just a few posts, and, like always, little to no evidence.

so, please people, dont take everything he says for granted, and its perfectly ok to say that john lear is wrong.

as he is now.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Dear John (wasn't that the name of a TV show?), thanks for your reply.

I'm a tad puzzled by your graphic...



It looks as if you measured between some 'etc' area that suits the needs of the no plane went thru the hole claim. Call me crazy, but when I look at it appears that your "A" dimension should be tilted up several degrees on the left side. If you do that there's almost exactly the 159' going by your measurement method.



It really couldn't be much closer to perfect. From time to time I too drink at the keyboard and every now and then mess up in an argument or image representation and embarass myself. We're only human.

Anyways, I'd like to show you some images and such that you may not have seen yet. My normal PC is down, so my ability to provide custom image work is nonexistent, so ignore any circles or whatever these might have. I'd like to focus your attention on where the beams were bowed inwards instead of outwards. The ones to really look for are by the woman:






Here's an even better view, but it's too long to display in here:
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

You might observe some around the edges that give the appearance of bending outwards, except thos eare merely the alluminum "cladding" covers that wrapped around the iron. They're what gave the WTC that classic look that we're all so familiar with. The beams down by that woman however are iron, and it turns out that they're bent inwards. What mechanism bent those exterior columns inwards, besides a Boeing / plane?


Now I have included an enlargement to show that the exterior girders that extend around the perimeter of the World Trade Center Tower are not broken but the area around them has simulated damage in a perfect rectangular shape, where the wing should have hit them.


Have you ever seen any images or videos from the construction of the towers? It's amazing when you do because you can see the way they used pre-fabbed sections all the way up. Those sections just so happen to match up perfectly with the "simulated" "rectangular" shapes:



Now if we're to operate under the assumption that the planes sliced thru the steel like a razor blade, and that the towers weren't constructed out of rectagular shaped sections, then obviously those rectangular shapes
would appear like some poorly pixelated 'effects'. But in truth, the towers were constructed out of rectagular sections and the impact of the planes didn't 'slice' thru but rather RAMMED their way through into the buildings' interiors. This is further proven when you review the bent in exterior columns that I pointed out above.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts



On a personal note, I think people who make this kind of hay out of something as serious as this have personal issues that need to be dealt with professionally. John, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I find this whole debate stomach turning. John, kill this thread, you know as well as I do it will go no where, lead to petty arguments, get people warned/baned, and only serves to boost your own ego and notoriety among your fellow woos. Doing that on the backs of thousands of dead Americans is just plain wrong. Don't do it, just this once let it go man.



Thanks for your post ITF and I share your concern for thousands of dead Americans.

My ego is not boosted trying to explain the facts of life to the uninformed. I find it depressing.

But it is my duty, to God and my Country.

I have tried to think of reasons I should be ashamed of myself as you suggest. I came up with very few but here is the list so far:

I’m ashamed that during the starting lap of the Reno Air Races 1968 when I was flying a B-26 and got off the runway late and didn't know I could cut across the deadline and join up with the pack. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

I‘m ashamed I didn’t check the security of the extra oil feed tube in the rear engine in the O2-B I was ferrying to Viet Nam which vibrated loose causing me to lose the engine and forcing me to land at the Philippines Iron Mines strip in the east Philippines Islands. There was no excuse for that.

But most of all I am ashamed for falling asleep at the controls of a Boeing 707 flying from Taipai to Singapore and waking up 322 miles left of course having penetrated 5 zero to unlimited restricted areas west of Clark AFB and Subic Bay. I never got caught because it was New Years Day 1977 and all the radar controllers were asleep also.

But those are the only things I can think of being ashamed of myself for.

As far as your suggestion to “Don't do it, just this once let it go man,” I’ll leave it to you to cut and run. Not my style.

Thanks for your post and your input it is always greatly appreciated.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is kinda cross posted from the thread this spun out from, but I feel it has some merit here too. Other than everyone skirting around the question OP posed (more or less), why on earth do we have a thread about holographic technology, and spectacularly manage to not actually discuss that technology.

This is the first I've read of this theory, but I feel I need to chime in. The logistics of creating a holographic representation of a plane that appears 100% real is mind boggling right now. And I'm not just saying this from the 'thats crazy sci-fi!' standpoint. I'm saying this from my personal opinion and the fact that I am in the final year of my Masters of Engineering degree in Cybernetics. I am more familiar with Robotics, AI and Virtual Reality than I am Holography, but feel I can comment from atleast a vaguely informed engineering standpoint.

Imagine that you could create a holographic representation of a plane. A representation good enough to fool the eye, one that from all angles appeared to be a soild object. Can you imagien the power requirements for such a device? Did anyone notice a spike in power usage anywhere in NY coinciding with the times eyewitness saw the planes and saw them collide with the buildings? Can you imagine the size of the device in question? It's not going to be small and would probably have to be roof mounted, and undoubtedly would leave evidence atop the building on which it was deployed. Anyone found anything suspicious on top of a NY building?

But then maybe they really did do this with technology decades ahead of 'cutting edge' technologies, maybe it was built into a van and projected the images through the sunroof whilst running off a generator harvesting some form of cold fusion.

My opinion though? Probably not.

Thus ends the cross post, I'm sorry if this has all been covered before, but as I said, i'm new to this line of thought...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Ok, I will start by saying that I've always been a skeptic concerning the no planes theory, but I've kept an open mind. The fact that no convincing planes wreckage was shown, including the black boxes, is supporting. Also, I am quite convinced that there wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. So why if they used planes on the WTC, they did not do the same with the Pentagon? I also think it is quite in the realm of possibility that they have the technology to project convincing holograms/sound, though I base this on close to nothing.

On the other hand, I have another problem with the no planes theory. Where are the people that were on those 3 planes (including the Pentagon)? If no planes were used, but at the same time real flight numbers were given, than where are all those presumably dead people?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Lest we not forget that many components of modern aircraft are actually magnesium alloy. Magnesium burns like an incendiary device. And we have oxygen... That's a great accelerator. Also notice that the wings on a 767 are swept back, so the impact would tend to increase the swept angle thereby narrowing the actual span by the time of impact.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by Vector J





But then maybe they really did do this with technology decades ahead of 'cutting edge' technologies, maybe it was built into a van and projected the images through the sunroof whilst running off a generator harvesting some form of cold fusion.

My opinion though? Probably not.

Thus ends the cross post, I'm sorry if this has all been covered before, but as I said, i'm new to this line of thought...



Thanks for the post Vector J. About 20 years ago it was my information that the government had a 100 megawatt generator the size of a picnic ice chest so its unlikely that power generation was a problem.

As far as a van and sunroof, unlikely. More likely the holograph transmitter is in an E-4 "Doomsday" Boeing 747. They probably have a couple of stations just for holographic projections.

As a matter of fact the E-4 that was seen over the White House was probably the airplane that had the holographic projection transmitter. That plane probably projected both the World Trade Center Boeing 767's then went over to the Pentagon and projected that one.

It would be my opinion that the alleged Shanksville airplane may have been designated to hit Building No. 7. But, I theorize that something went wrong, possibly with the holograph projector. Whatever went wrong the Shanksville airplane had to be accounted for without having crashed into building No. 7, thus the phoney crash in the field at Shanksville. Not able to project an image (for whatever reason) into Building 7 they had to control demo it anyway and take their chances that nobody would notice the gigantic screwup.

Thanks for your input Vector J it is greatly appreciated.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join