It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Here is some information about one of the most advanced "floating hologram" projects.


The Heliodisplay creates a particle cloud by passing the surrounding air through a heat pump, which in turn cools the air to a level below its dew point, where it condensates, and is then collected to create an artificial cloud. The particle cloud is composed of a vast number of individual micro droplets, between 1-10 microns in diameter, too small to be visible to the naked eye, held together by surface tension. The focus and illumination intensity of the projected image can be controlled by changing some of the cloud's properties, enabling a sharper and brighter image.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Obviously this is nowhere near advanced enough to create a solid, moving object that can interact with solids which would be needed for a fake plane hologram.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
There are just too many box columns that weren't severed,

I could swear that before you were arguing that the plane shouldn't have 'melted thru it like a razor blade' or whatever, but now you're complaining about where it didn't happen? Surly I have you mixed up with someone else...

Originally posted by johnlear
The fact is that it is totally impossible for an airplane the size of a Boeing 767 to crash into a building ‘like gliding through butter’.

You can't have it both ways John.


or broken or breached in any manner such that the fuselage including a wing and tail of a Boeing 767 could pass through.

I have posted your image of the Flight 11 impact into WTC 1. I also put some yellow lines through the box columns that the wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizer did not breach, penetrate, cut or other ‘glide’ through. Just makes you wonder how in the heck that airplane got into the building?


I take it you have the designs blueprints and diagrams etc for the wings and the tail of the Boeings? I'll bet you've been going crazy waiting for me to challenge you to show us the dimensions, densities and etc methods comparisons between the 2? No wonder you've been counting the hours. I'm guessing you did all of the complex calculations with your supercomputer banks and engineering staff to proof that the tail fin should have also punched thru the side of the building. I'd also be anxoius for my challenger to prompt me to bring forth such heavy debate artillery.

Anyways, I've already indirectly answer your tailfin and related concerns:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
They really didn't "glide thru like butter". For the most part, they battering rammed their way thru pushing the prefabbed steel assemblies in with them. There are some spots that did 'slice', on one of the buildings:

There's an interesting difference between oru other example:

As you can see the one that was more horizontally 'leveled' (sorry if I don't speak pilot) was the one which 'sliced' towards the ends of the wings. The other one was more vertically positioned during the final impact. That one didn't 'slice'. This makes sense because at that angle it would seem to require much more force as now it's trying to cut thru the structural integrity with the floor slab interconnections etc. Where there were no floors it was able to slice much further outwards towards the wing tips.



Moving on,

That is why there was essentially nothing left but ... 30 foot columns of steel.
...
Controlled Creative Demolition (CCD) was used to insure that no box column, length of steel, girder or any other piece of steel exceeded 30 feet. This was to insure that all of the pieces would fit easily on Rudy’s trucks to be shipped to China.


So, Mr. John, can you tell all of us the lengths of the pre-fabbed exterior column sections?

What is this "CCD"? Links/sources, please? Perhaps some photo and video exmaples of this so-called method/technology demonstrating similar aftermath charateristics (as in pre-wtc-collapse).




Do you know where that was?


There were too many things the perps couldn’t account for like where were the airplanes?


Um, yeah. You've already been shown plane debris including a steaming engine on a populated street corner. If it weren't for them damn MIB:




Why did almost every piece of steel look like it had been cut?


Sorry. Really. You could have just thrown your findings in without my first calling it out. I can't imagine how many backflips you've been doing in anticipation of me requesting your power requirement calculations for all of these space beams or whatever it is that you're proposing did it (what ar you proposing?).


[edit on 30-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
First off, I am completely new to posting on ATS and just came across this thread. The failed logic in John Lears response on the 2nd post just amazes me. He clearly mentions the plane has a 5 degree diehral but then still draws a straight line to show the plane wouldn't fit through the hole.

I am no photoshop master but I created this pretty quickly. It is a Boeing 767 sitting on the ground rotated to show how it would fill the hole. Everyone that knows anything about planes know the wings bend up quite a bit during flight, especially with the speeds they hit the towers at. This would add even more to the diehedral of the plane. Taking that into account and looking at the below picture I created shows that the plane would fill the hole pretty darn good. And not only that, but the hole I have it filling is the exact diameter as John pointed out of the 767. He just should have drawn his straight lines as dihedrals.

[img=http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/3139/planenu1.th.jpg]

Stro



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
"I'm what you call a "No Planer". Its a tough and thankless job. But somebody has to do it, because its the truth."

It's not the truth. It's what you believe. There's a big difference.

"Many don't believe its the truth. Some don't believe it because they are simply uninformed."

Just because you've let your imagination run wilder than others doesn't mean you're more "informed" than others, sir.

"Others simply don't want to believe it."

Maybe they don't want to believe it because it's silly?

"And still others, who are part of the government who planned 911, don't want the public to even consider that the Boeing 767's were holographs simply because they have a few more "911" type scenarios coming down the line which involve similar holographs, and they don't want the public wondering whether its a holograph or not."

The government has 911 type scenarios coming down the line?? Could you please tell the class where and when so that we might avoid visiting those areas at that time? Seriously, you need to check yourself, Mr. Lear. Your allegations are a lot more silly than you might even realize.

Well, I guess I must be uninformed, because I think airplanes hit all those targets on 911. That's very clear to my uninformed mind. Apply a bit of Ochams Razor and that's what pops up. Airplanes. Flying, crashing airplanes, full of fuel, a surprise attack. Yep, no one was ready for it, it happened fast and furious, and made its mark on our world in a big way.

To go through all the trouble of using holographic technology where you could just use those airplanes is beyond my simple mind, I guess. (Or just plant a few bombs here and there and detonate them.)



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here is some information about one of the most advanced "floating hologram" projects.


The Heliodisplay creates a particle cloud by passing the surrounding air through a heat pump, which in turn cools the air to a level below its dew point, where it condensates, and is then collected to create an artificial cloud. The particle cloud is composed of a vast number of individual micro droplets, between 1-10 microns in diameter, too small to be visible to the naked eye, held together by surface tension. The focus and illumination intensity of the projected image can be controlled by changing some of the cloud's properties, enabling a sharper and brighter image.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Obviously this is nowhere near advanced enough to create a solid, moving object that can interact with solids which would be needed for a fake plane hologram.



While perusing the annals of commonly discussed science (the stuff you find in Discover Magazine, et al) you may not find the technology needed. However, Mr. Tom Beardon might disagree with you on this. Creating a minor temperature drop and creating a cloud of water droplets is well within the theoretical confines of a Woodpecker Grid (read "HAARP" if you want the American rendition) type of technology. This would fit nicely with some other concepts i have pondered as of late, as well.

To create a temperature drop is a simple matter of removing ambient electromagnetic energy from a specified locale. Voila, you have your cloud. If you can control relative air pressures you can control directional movement and speed. One would think that the government has an old Cray laying around somewhere that would be able to help process the algorithms for the controls, no?

There are very likely other concepts that one could think of that are well within the known realm of science, but I am not sure I am allowed to speak on those.
But use your imagination....i bet that if you can think of a way it is being done.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I find it totally confounding that, in providing an insight into WHY holograms might have being used, John has offered up the explanation of planes being 'expensive'. That's funny... because those great big buildings which the planes crashed into... you know, the towers themselves.... they weren't cheap, and the instigators had no qualms about reducing them to dust. Not to mention the simple issue of insurance covering losses. And certainly not to mention the huge number of put options purchased before the event that made somebody quite a bit of money. Somehow I suspect cost reduction and frugal financial management might not have been a consideration for whoever did this (and I certainly don't claim to know who did it or why).

Also, John says that there is zero physical evidence of the planes themselves. In saying this however, hasn't he contradicted his own theory? Let's come back to the world of reality for a moment, and assume that the bulk of the remains of said aircraft were largely within the towers following impact. Let's also assume that some sort of energy weapon was used to bring down the towers (not necessarily a theory I subscribe to), pulverizing the structure, AND everything in it. Why would such a weapon obliterate the towers but selectively leave the aircraft remains intact? Does logic not suggest that the DEW in combination with the collapse of the towers would have reduced the aircraft debris to fist sized pieces, thus negating the chance of finding any large and easily identifiable evidence in the debris?

It's all very simple really. Why, why and why? Why would ANYBODY, regardless of their agenda, regardless of the technology on hand, and regardless of past or future operations, choose to use holograms to create the ILLUSION of planes hitting the towers on S11, when it would have been easier, more practical, more realistic and more effective to crash real planes, piloted remotely. Take a step back and pretend that it's YOUR job to plan this. You can use real planes - remotely controlled - which will provide the initial impact, fireball, and damage to the towers, followed by a demolition generated by an external energy weapon. Alternatively, you can use holograms to represent fictional aircraft, but this would mean that both towers would need to be rigged with an extraordinary amount of explosives in advance, and be timed, placed and synchronized in a way that simply defies belief. All while avoiding the countless thousands of people who worked in the buildings daily. All without arousing the suspicions of people who worked on the floors which were hit. A tad risky and unnecessary, wouldn't you say?

What, Mr Lear, would your choice be?

And John, I'd LOVE to hear exactly how you think explosives were rigged up in the towers to simulate not only the impact, but the resultant explosion and ejection of debris from the towers. Easy enough for you to say that "they were probably rigged up by demolition experts", but come on, that is a TREMENDOUS amount of energy being released there, which would have required a massive cross section of the towers to be rigged with an absolutely enormous amount of explosives - a task which would prove to be an impossibility given the number of people working within them every day.

So... I'd love to hear an intelligent response to my post (and others which address similar issues), but if any of your previous posts are indicative, I expect to be disappointed. Please, prove me wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I am not saying i support Mr. Lears theory. I am merely trying to red hat a little here, as i have a decent imagination.

I would think that a better question to start with is what do you have to gain by not killing those plane fulls of people. Where would they have gone?

Then you see that Zorgon has been finding tons of unaccounted for fruits and veggies going to the ISS...makes you wonder, huh?

There are many, many threads out there. Sometimes they cross and if you catch it you get a glimpse behind the curtain. Maybe we can get a glimpse by asking some more relevant questions.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   

I would think that a better question to start with is what do you have to gain by not killing those plane fulls of people. Where would they have gone?

Then you see that Zorgon has been finding tons of unaccounted for fruits and veggies going to the ISS...makes you wonder, huh?

There are many, many threads out there. Sometimes they cross and if you catch it you get a glimpse behind the curtain. Maybe we can get a glimpse by asking some more relevant questions.


So do you believe that instead of killing the plane passengers, they moved them ALL to the International Space Station?

Why would you kill thousands in the building but none on a plane? That would be a contradiction.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidstate Let's come back to the world of reality for a moment, and assume that the bulk of the remains of said aircraft were largely within the towers following impact.


Stop right there. Us no-planes are saying the bulk of the aircraft would have been OUTSIDE the towers. Somewhere on the streets of NYC and in plane sight for everyone to film during the 90 minutes before the first tower came down.

Why do you think it would be so difficult to simulate the plane impacts with explosives? There were plenty of empty offices at the WTC’s, weren’t there? So space wouldn’t have been a problem. And naphthalene IED simulator devices — used by the military for practice — are mass-produced and readily available.

For good measure, here are two stills from the ‘documentary’ of the Naudet ‘brothers’. This may have gone forgotten, but the Naudets (in this case Gedeon) somehow managed to also film flight UA175 flying into the South tower. After having already earlier recorded the first plane, AA11, crashing into the North tower. To me, the explosion looks pretty real, the plane does not. But everyone can decide for themselves.

UA175 crash into WTC-2 — pre-impact


UA175 crash into WTC-2 — post-impact


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Stop right there. Us no-planes are saying the bulk of the aircraft would have been OUTSIDE the towers. Somewhere on the streets of NYC and in plane sight for everyone to film during the 90 minutes before the first tower came down.

Why would you say that? The plane didn't bounce off the outside of the building, it entered the building and tore apart as it went through it.



Why do you think it would be so difficult to simulate the plane impacts with explosives? There were plenty of empty offices at the WTC’s, weren’t there? So space wouldn’t have been a problem. And naphthalene IED simulator devices — used by the military for practice — are mass-produced and readily available.


Are there any explosives that blow things toward the explosive? Because based on photo evidence, thats what would have to happen.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I just can't understand why some people can't wrap their head around this hologram theory. It's really not that hard to understand and a very plausible scenerio. That doesn't mean that I believe the theories presented, but I certainly understand them.

I find it amusing that people who fail to understand a theory tend to fall back on personal attacks. It's kinda reminds me of this whole administration's stance on foreign policy. If they can't have what they want globablly ... make them look like raving lunatics and call them terrorists until the everyone else agrees with you.

LMAO.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I would think that a better question to start with is what do you have to gain by not killing those plane fulls of people. Where would they have gone?

Then you see that Zorgon has been finding tons of unaccounted for fruits and veggies going to the ISS...makes you wonder, huh?

There are many, many threads out there. Sometimes they cross and if you catch it you get a glimpse behind the curtain. Maybe we can get a glimpse by asking some more relevant questions.


So do you believe that instead of killing the plane passengers, they moved them ALL to the International Space Station?

Why would you kill thousands in the building but none on a plane? That would be a contradiction.


Ummm, no. I am just offering some other scenarios.

What i DO believe is that the truth is likely wierder than what we have envisioned on either side of your arguement (I really don't care about 9-11 conspiracies...it was a tragedy, and the cause of it does not change that in my mind).

Making sense is not a fool-proof litmus test. You don't really know why whoever did it could have done it, unless you believe the mainline view of "Osama did it". Lots of things don't make sense, honestly, and the majority of the public never even questions it.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

What i DO believe is that the truth is likely wierder than what we have envisioned on either side of your arguement (I really don't care about 9-11 conspiracies...it was a tragedy, and the cause of it does not change that in my mind).


What evidence do you have which makes you believe the truth is indeed weirder than what has been envisioned?


Making sense is not a fool-proof litmus test. You don't really know why whoever did it could have done it, unless you believe the mainline view of "Osama did it". Lots of things don't make sense, honestly, and the majority of the public never even questions it.


Well actually the supposed perpitrators would need a keen sense of logic to pull off something of this magnitude so you could use logic to determine whether killing 2000 + people and saving but hiding the other people, makes sense which it simply does not.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

I just can't understand why some people can't wrap their head around this hologram theory. It's really not that hard to understand and a very plausible scenerio. That doesn't mean that I believe the theories presented, but I certainly understand them.


1. Why would anyone create a giant jet hologram in the first place?
2. Why wouldn't they simply use a real jet?
3. The actual physics behind pulling off a solid, moving hologram that can interact with solid objects at the EXACT same time as explosives are set off is simply not a realistic scenerio.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

What evidence do you have which makes you believe the truth is indeed weirder than what has been envisioned?

I will defer to Zorgon. It is his information to share, not mine. I just participate.

Well actually the supposed perpitrators would need a keen sense of logic to pull off something of this magnitude so you could use logic to determine whether killing 2000 + people and saving but hiding the other people, makes sense which it simply does not.

assuming they are following the same logic tree that you are, you could be correct. I do not wish to make that assumption. The "sacrifice" of 2000 folks may not seem like too big a deal. But consider the thread talking about the "Silent Weapon". This is something I have thought was quite obvious for some time, especially considering how many Project Paperclip people we brought into America (and the Nazi ability to control their peoples using sleight of hand techniques). If you think it possible that Economics powerhouses can control America by pulling on the pursestrings, then you might consider it feasible that one of the many financial district companies and their employees in the WTC could have been a target.

All angles have yet to be considered. Motive is a funny thing in that it is not easily intuited, despite our own ego's telling us it is. Logic is equally illusory when applied to an unknown model.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

1. Why would anyone create a giant jet hologram in the first place? that is a good question. There are many reasons it would be done. Consider that they were just testing a new weapons system? Or that there were VIP's that got on that plane somehow, and the hologram is a backup. I am not saying that it is a hologram, i just think that your question betrays a lack of imagination, and wanted to help a little.

2. Why wouldn't they simply use a real jet?

3. The actual physics behind pulling off a solid, moving hologram that can interact with solid objects at the EXACT same time as explosives are set off is simply not a realistic scenerio. WOW, that is the most untrue statement i have read in this thread. Every year on New Years and 4th of July there are fireworks shows that are perfectly sync'd with musical shows. Have you never watched the explosions to Beethoven over the Brooklyn Bridge? Not only is not realistic, it happens several hundred times a year with hundreds of thousands of explosions.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
2. Why wouldn't they simply use a real jet?


People often ask this question.

Because it could not "slice" through the tower "like butter" which we've seen time and again on YouTube. The building was designed to take multiple 707 impacts. The engineers who designed the building still stand behind these statements. That is, those who are still alive.

With the design of the buildings, some parts of the plane, such as wings, should not have sliced through the steel outer shell. Rather, they should have, at least in part, been repelled and fell to the ground. Every part of these planes made it into the building, which I find hard to believe, given the design of the buildings.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

assuming they are following the same logic tree that you are, you could be correct. I do not wish to make that assumption. The "sacrifice" of 2000 folks may not seem like too big a deal. But consider the thread talking about the "Silent Weapon". This is something I have thought was quite obvious for some time, especially considering how many Project Paperclip people we brought into America (and the Nazi ability to control their peoples using sleight of hand techniques). If you think it possible that Economics powerhouses can control America by pulling on the pursestrings, then you might consider it feasible that one of the many financial district companies and their employees in the WTC could have been a target.

All angles have yet to be considered. Motive is a funny thing in that it is not easily intuited, despite our own ego's telling us it is. Logic is equally illusory when applied to an unknown model.


This means you have 2 choices:
1. Give up on trying to figure any of this out and go about your life.
2. Start at the very beginning and eliminate all improbable hypothesis and the most probable remaining hypothesis is your new starting point.

Simply apply Ockham's razor-All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one

Is it more reasonable to believe a high resolution, highly detailed, free floating, solid hologram, moving at near mach 1 speed, interacting with a solid object and explosives instantaneously, is more likely then a real plane hitting the building?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
One more follow up thought is that if ONE single bird flew through the hologram plane at the wrong time, it would all be over.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

WOW, that is the most untrue statement i have read in this thread. Every year on New Years and 4th of July there are fireworks shows that are perfectly sync'd with musical shows. Have you never watched the explosions to Beethoven over the Brooklyn Bridge? Not only is not realistic, it happens several hundred times a year with hundreds of thousands of explosions.


There is a huge difference between closely times fireworks and which include 2 variables
1. Fireworks
2. Music

and timing
Movement of the hologram
keeping the holigram solid
keeping all the details that would make up the plane, static while moving
making the hologram interact with both explosives and a building
Making debris blow into the building somehow even though explosives would blow the debris out.

The interaction with all these items, automatically compensating in real time for all unknowns related to the interaction, is highly improbable at best.

Also, my imagination is just fine. Thanks for your concern.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join