It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
Here is more 911 footage, which I think is largey unseen by most people.

It is on a dutch website:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:28 PM
just a theory but it could explain the flashes right before the planes hit


posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
Wait a minute ... people survived the plane crash and are hanging out of the opening, but, 6 ton engines didn't?

Your pictures to prove the bent in beams should take out Chorlton's theory of the explosion and burning melting away Titanium.

I respect Chorlton's views on politics, not so much the closed minded look on the universe, but hey, our differences between each person make things interesting. So I am not trying to bash the C-man (woman? I can't remember), just want to make that clear.

20 years ago there was 3D hologram gaming in a local bowling alley (didn't use smoke/vapor either), I have no problem with thinking the military with their income could develop something like that pamphlet, and most likely had it 10 years ago. That doesn't mean I full support the hologram only theory.

I find a lot of those beams are actually bowed out. I find the plane outline in the image needs to be dropped down to match the hole where the engines and body impacted, which, aligns it more with Mr. Lear's line ... but also, why would the right wing make a nice cookie-cutter slice, but the left side leave beams intact, if not a much larger rectangular shape?

I am sure there is a way to rig explosives to create that sort of damage, but, you would have to think a little bit to figure it out.

The one video of the plane dropping from above and turning and adjusting just before it hits is quite unbelievable ... and easier for a hologram or the use of a computer controlled flight ... though that still seems quite an amazing feat. It seems that the maneuvers, and the lack of the black boxes makes a huge statement FOR the hologram theory.

Mr Lear,
did you watch that video on the other thread that this one came from? How easily is it for a 767 to pull off that maneuver and adjustments in that time frame? Since I have never been in a plane, I am curious to a pilot's take on it, not some chap that has never held the controls of any aircraft

I do not subscribe to any particular theory, but I consider them all, that is what having an open mind is about. The energy beam theory/using vibrations to turn the steel to dust sounds a little out there, but, definitely plausable, and could explain why most of the steel and concrete vaporized, while most of the aluminum survived ... different resonant frequencies. I just don't figure a 2 billion pound building falls from a quarter million pound object hitting it. 1/800 of its own weight made out of weaker substance, well, that isn't too much.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:48 PM
The video clip I linked to above, although it doesn't actually show any aircraft (I don't think).....does allow you to hear it's approach, and the reaction of the people, as well as debris falling to the ground.

This is one clip I haven't seen before tonight. Might be worth a look into for anyone wanting to separate truth from fiction regarding holograms.

It is the first time I have seen it, as I said, so I don't have any conclusion to offer regarding it. Maybe others could see something in it, however.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by Old Man

Did anyone notice that red garbage truck with the words Manhattan Demolition and a picture of the twin towers on it in this video - it occurs between 9:22 and 9:30 -

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by OpenMind88

Funny you should mention that.

That's what someone else said on another forum (where I got this vid from).

Maybe it was you!?!?

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Old Man

No - not me - I just was intrigued to see it just show up there in the video and in slow motion - don't get it! I would think that the videographers purposely slowed it down but it was just strange to see it in the midst of all that was going on that day.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:24 PM
Everyone should watch "September Clues"! Look it up on Google video, very interesting and more along the lines of the truth.

Mr. Lear, have you seen this video that I'm talking about? Hopefully you have.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by sawzaw203]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:52 PM
I just saw a piece of what I believe is debris from the 2nd plane fly and fall blocks away and almost tag the film guy. Did anyone know what type of debris it is? From the words the video guy used it sounded as though it took someone out. I heard him say "that guy is so f-ing dead,man".

Anyways on topic here. I personally dont believe the hologram theory, but I also know next to nothing about holographic technology. Where are we at commercially with this? Add 4 or 5 generations to that and that would give a general idea where the military is.

Is it possible to project a 3d object in midair on a clear sunny day and mix the sound effect to track this moving picture? How many different levels of physics are we talking here?

Im not totally opposed to the idea but could someone point me to real science that they are working on or have created that even begins to emulate what is being proposed with the no plane theory? Thnx

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:56 PM
Since the other thread died just as i posted, I'll post this here:

As far as I know the No Plane'rs contention is 'now i made be wrong here', and I don't wanna put words in anyones mouth, but from the research I've done, here is what i believe thier theory is

The only shots non eyewitnesses saw ON 9/11 were those on the television, namely the now famous "nose-out clip", and many other clips of the television logo and banner covering the second planes approach.

This was a CGI plane, covering a cruise missile or what have you. No holograms used.

(The first impact was never show on TV on 9/11, although Bush says otherwise)

Now to the eye witnesses, I believe the No plane folks believe there were large commercial aircraft flying past the Towers as the missles or what have you hit. Remember the large plane seen circling over manhatten(vey small and hard to see in the NY clips, same as the pentagon but much easier to see.

Now anyone who knows anything about eyewitness testimony, especially during times of stress, stickups, murders, ect. There have been studies, and eyewitness idetification is pretty sketchy at best, I'll leave it at that.

The media interviewed supposedly interviewed only thier people, and even some of them didn see a plane. There are also a couple strange characters who had some pretty solid info in interviews just after the collapse, like that one guy in the Harley shirt, talking about why the buildings collapse, was like he was reading from a script.

Many people said they saw no planes hit the buildings, but they were pushed aside, and only those who fell for the fly by (thats how you get the jet sound), missle hit, as being a real plane crashing into a building were interviewed. Again, most if not all had affiliations to the media, the couple that weren't could have easily been stooges. A good illusionist always has stooges and plants in the audience.

BUT only until Sept 12 did we see for the first time the first strike and other clear shots of the second impact, most all of which have problems accordinding to the no plane folks. I agree that the Micheal Hezzerkani(sp?) footage looks very suspect, and at first someone else was credited for that piece of film, but now it's said to be his, but he can't say where he shot it from, because the angles and such don't line up.

The planes melting into the buildings is what bothers me. I mean slowed down the plane is in to the Tower almos all the way to it's tail section before we see any damage to the building.

Again I've read alot of the No planers stuff, and I don't think they say it was holograms. They claim tv fakery with CGI, and false/planted, or just plain confused witnenesses.

**But here's the sad thing. EVEN if it was no planes(I haven't really made up my mind one way or another), it IS makeing alot of people stay away from the 9/11 truth movement. If they would just keep that stuff under thier hats, and go with the CD/prior knowledge which can be better proven and won't scare people away from the movement thinking we're a bunch of nutters, we'd get alot more done, and get the true criminals even if for LIHOP.

I mean they nailed Capone on Tax Evasion. Sometimes you gotta go in through the back door and do things you don't want to just to see justice dealt. Sheesh for all we know they have disinfo guys planted in the movement.

I wish the LIHOP and MIHOP supporters, and the Planes and No planes people would come together, and figure out what is the best way to bring these criminals to justice. Because in the end that is what we ALL want yes?, and after they're rotting in thiers cells we can comtinue the argument. They have us divided right how, and isn't that the NWO's mantra? divide and conquer

I say we get the people we can get in any way with concrete evidence that is out there to prior knowledge. Sheesh arrest Gulliani for destroying a crime scene. Anything, any arrests made will be a step in the right direction

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:45 PM

You're standing in a NYC moments before the events unfold.

You hear a loud rumbling that sounds like some kind of plane.

You then hear a massive explosion in a building above you.

You look up, you see that the WTC has a massive scar on it - what was that you wonder.

Confused, you run for cover passing by a TV showing the news:

"Planes hit World Trade Centre"

You instantly agree with the TV - "no way, it was a plane!" you say.

Minutes later another explosion rocks WTC - "another plane" you think.

Did you EVER see a plane?????

I think this scenario could explain many so-called eye-witnesses on the day.

Trust me, people NEVER look up.

No-one would have seen the first plane anyway (except for that oh so convineintly placed camera crew huh - lucky they were there

The second plane would have been the most important and there is just as much to say it was a hologram compared to saying it wasnt.

It's not ridiculous to think that something very odd went on that day. At least keep an open mind

[edit on 27-9-2007 by srsen]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:13 PM
I love how after I issue a solid rebuttal to Mr. Lear's answer, he responds to others while skipping over me, and then all the No Planers arrive to talk it up as if there's no doubt. Human beings truly are amazing creatures
If only I could be a space alien who visited here and was able to observe in awe human behavior, decision making and cultural dynamics. That would be priceless

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:53 PM
I don't see how you arrived at your graphics, John.

Originally posted by johnlear

That distance is approximately 121.4 feet or about 37.6 feet short of the wingspan of the Boeing 767. In other words either al the explosives that the demolition experts set didn't go off, or they got lazy and underestimated the persistence of the American public. But the simple fact is that a 159 feet wing does not go into 121 feet hole except in a cartoon. Which is what this is.

To my eyes, American 11's wingspan is clearly visible.

On my monitor, each "wing" that I've pointed out is 2" long, adding up to 4". The face of the tower is 5.25" wide. Rounding off: if 5.25" = 210', then 4" = 160'. There's your Boeing 767.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Tuning Spork]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:03 PM
Unsure if this has been posted, as I've yet to read all the replies to this thread. But Mr Lear, in your first response, you demonstrate how the alignment of the hole in the tower doesn't line up with an airplane.

You, of all people, do realize that the wings on this plane flex and bend quite a bit, espedcially when making a turn as was evident with this plane as it hit the tower. This would easily account for the "bend" of the hole.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:40 PM
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I love how after I issue a solid rebuttal to Mr. Lear's answer, he responds to others while skipping over me, and then all the No Planers arrive to talk it up as if there's no doubt. Human beings truly are amazing creatures
If only I could be a space alien who visited here and was able to observe in awe human behavior, decision making and cultural dynamics. That would be priceless

Thanks for the post IIB. I belive that you posted your rebuttal last night and while I do devote a considerable amount of time to ATS I don't devote ALL my time.

My response to your rebuttal involves taking the photos you posted and pointing out where I have differences of opinion. I am not as handy as you with imagery but I manage to eventually get there. Eventually.

I have posted responses throughout the day in this an other threads with answers that don't take a great deal of work. I also am writing a reply to response to the Supreme Court of Nevada due next week over another matter plus building a treehouse for my grandson.

While you may feel that my reply to your response should take priority I disagree.

I would respectfully appreciate your indulgence as it was you who issued the challenge to which I responded and rather promptly I might add. While you might believe that you had a solid rebuttal I would disagree.

Thanks for your post and your understanding.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:02 AM
Here's my answer to the challenge, only airplanes make airplane shaped holes in buildings, even heavy concrete and steel buildings.

Case in point, a B-25 hit the Empire State Building in 1945. It left a fairly airplane shaped hole and wasn't going nearly as fast or was as heavy as the planes that hit the WTC

There you have it

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by johnlear

Dig. I just figured luminaries such as yourself would respond to post sin teh order they were recieved, unless dodging. Then the rest was about how No Planers seem to collecitvely do the same thing I pointed out... in every thread I've observed.

I really mean it tho... It would be priceless to fly here from another planet and see us crazy humans doing our 'masses' thing. Like in the South Park episode "CANCELLED", where Earth was literally a intergalatic reality TV show that was going to be cancelled (Earth destroyed) because everyone figured out they were on 'TV' and all started "acting" which made them boring and priceless. Humans are a riot.
But their thesis was aparently wrong, because virtually everybody is being monitored yet we all still act just as crazy... er wait... then again... we are a "Jackass" culture.

Anyways I hope to find some direct responses to my 2 main posts tomorrow...

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by Shadowflux

It sounds as if you were reffering to 'my' challenge... but you've seem to have added to my point...

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by johnlear

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

No John, I went to bed, t was nighttime here. I have no wounds mate, from where Im sitting its me thats shooting holes in your ideas

Regarding evidence for the holographs it is entirely circumstantial.

Thank you very much. I rest my case mlud.

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

Yes, coming on line in 2025 It doesnt exist at the moment
Waffle waffle, speculation, crazy ideas, no evidence impossible scenarios.
You are wrong. There are at present NO holographic projectors that can project images of the size and clarity needed to get anywhere near what you are proposing. and how did they rig the WTC' to iimplode in such a defined way?

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.

You point out lots of things in detail that are totally and completely wrong, One look at the Dulce papers proves that point
But 'No wreckage' Here I have to prove you wrong again, something I seem to do a lot now.
Plane wreckage? Here are pictures of it. You believe lumps of rock on the moon are Mining Bases. You believe an empty crater called Aristarchus is a fusion reactor, so maybe youll believe these pictures.
You cant live a lie all your life John.
This one above also records the movement of the WTC towers at impact, something which you have stated never happened.

Please stop posting the world according to John Lear as some of us live in reality and not your lah lah land fantasy world.
You just wont admit you are wrong. There was also the shot of the engine flying off the plane and whizzing off. In the UK we were shown pictures of various bits of the plane when the clear up was being done.

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

And your proposition is totally and utterly wrong, like most of the stuff you post.
You propose there are trees and water on the far side of the moon.
You propose people can walk on the moon without any space suits or air.
You propose the moon was towed to its present situation.
You propose things to get attention, like so many old people.

Thanks again for your post. It goes to show that some people really cant accept the truth.

[edit on 28/9/07 by Chorlton]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:55 AM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


It sounds as if you were reffering to 'my' challenge... but you've seem to have added to my point...

As was my intention.

This nonsense about planes not hitting the WTC needs to stop.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in