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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Hear I am with questions again. I still do not understand how the alleged planes could be flown in as accurately as they supposedly were. What atmospheric conditions were present that day and how much air turbulence were the planes especially the second one being flown through. The second plane just happened to be at the right altitude and angle to miss a collision edge on with a horizontal floor that wouldn't have been " sliced" or " battered" through. The sound question is an easy one. I don't know how to direct you to a source but transmission of sound using light has been around for years. I used to collect electronic magazines and had an article with schematics but unfortunately had to downsize. Maybe the particle beam weapon has the useful side effects of image and sound projection as side effects. There were also theoretical plans using projected sound as a destructive force. Johns ideas work for me and have all along. Thankyou again.




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Alright, so your entire argument rests on the damage created by the plane. Because of this one area, which you feel isn't right, we're all to throw out any concept of determining the probability of what happened based on all of the evidence, and reason. We're to massage or outright reject all other evidence and reason to make the plane didn't hit theory work, because the plane damage is debatable at best. Even more, we're to avoid all other hard questions that arise while doing the above, and then determine with absolute certainty that theoretical scifi "DEW" weapons and so on did it, yet we don't even know whether they even exist, and then if any do which types exist and then if thos etypes could have even done it and related things like power requirements to do whatever type of damage you're vaguely suggesting.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Why do it? To control damage. To take the bodies and souls of people really on the planes. To hid evidence.

How? Didn't certain illusionists make the statue of liberty disappear before?

Possible? Yes if one knows the true extent of military know how. The whole 911 affair is looking more and more like an occult ritual whereby all the participants 'got something' for being in the production.

Then there was the crimes against humanity that just got in the way.


I think Zorgon is onto something pertinent when you consider his recent excursions into the (presumably) failed Nazi movement.

Wasn't it Hitler and his cronies who pointed out to the rest of the world that if you are "going to lie, lie big. People will accept a big lie easier than a small lie."

I, like foofstarr, do not believe most of the no plane conspiracy. But, considering the information that I have had shared with me in the last several months, what John claims is completely possible and plausible.

To me, i enter the debate when people act rude. I generally side with the underdog. I am an American, afterall.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Alright, so your entire argument rests on the damage created by the plane. Because of this one area, which you feel isn't right, we're all to throw out any concept of determining the probability of what happened based on all of the evidence, and reason. We're to massage or outright reject all other evidence and reason to make the plane didn't hit theory work, because the plane damage is debatable at best. Even more, we're to avoid all other hard questions that arise while doing the above, and then determine with absolute certainty that theoretical scifi "DEW" weapons and so on did it, yet we don't even know whether they even exist, and then if any do which types exist and then if thos etypes could have even done it and related things like power requirements to do whatever type of damage you're vaguely suggesting.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss It's probably a good thing I don't have any authority here at ATS, because if I did I think I'd have to redirect all of the no planer posts from the 911 Conspiracy forums over to your little thread here to quit mucking up positive and productive collaboration because this stuff stinks.


Yes with a statement like that you are most certainly correct... "It's a good thing I don't have any authority here at ATS"

But if the 'stuff stinks' I have to wonder at your motive to 'shovel more manure' on the pile by starting this thread?

Oh yes I recall it was because you didn't get a timely response in the other thread... So instead of it going away, you are in fact focusing a LOT of attention on it


Well as John said... I too have to thank you... had it not been for this thread I would never have have found those videos and have the stills of an 'airplane' going half way into a building with no hole... I mean it just merges with the building...

So now it looks to me John is onto something with these holographic projections...

Also the issue of the sound...

WHO heard the sound of the plane? New Yorkers on the Street? Has anyone ever done a study if you can hear a plane on a busy New York street at that time of morning?

And if they did... from what direction? I would think a simple speaker system hidden somewhere could produce the sound... wouldn't need much high tech for that... and it all happened so fast... Are there video clips that have the sound of the plane, TV footage?

Thanks for bringing this to my attention... Now I have to see what I can find on Holograph projectors and beam weapons


[edit on 2-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisssWe all might as well go spend our time trying to convince that their (anybody) "God" isn't real, or athiest that "God" is real, and the rest like Global Warning etc, because this is your faith and you're sticking to it without any compromise.


So what is wrong with someone sticking to their idea or 'faith' as you call it? Seems to me you are just as inflexible on your side... you are so sure you are absolutely right that if you had the power here you would move people with 'unorthodox ideas' away from the thread.

If one did not have the faith of their conviction, then what would be the point?

Now just one thing can you prove your version of events that day beyond a shadow of a doubt?



And the MIB planted the aircraft parts on the streets of NYC.


No it was more likely the Army logistics team... the MIB wouldn't be able to do that and not be spotted..




posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So what is wrong with someone sticking to their idea or 'faith' as you call it? Seems to me you are just as inflexible on your side... you are so sure you are absolutely right that if you had the power here you would move people with 'unorthodox ideas' away from the thread.

It isnt a mtter of faith is it? Its more a matter of common sense, logic, and probability. The No planers are basically conspiracy theorists and will see a conspiracy in everything, no matter how impossible the idea. They will then go about weaving a web of improbability to show how their idea is the right one, however warped those ideas are.
Is it possible that 11/9 was a setup job? yes its possible.
Was it, given the widely available evidence, probable?. No it wasnt, because there is insufficient evidence to show otherwise.

The one problem the no-planers have, the really shocking thing is, that if they really do think their own government planned and executed this they must consider their own government even worse than the terrorists who did actually do it. What an appalling thought?.



Now just one thing can you prove your version of events that day beyond a shadow of a doubt?

There doesnt need to be a shadow of a doubt. Mereley sufficient evidence to show that it is probable, whereas for the no planers there is no evidence at all, mereley speculation.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

How? Didn't certain illusionists make the statue of liberty disappear before?



Oh come on now... in the event that you are being serious in making such a statement all one needs to do is look at the word "illusionist". The difference in such an "illusion" is that the "illusionist" has control of perspective over the audience, and is able to fool them by directing where they see the trick being performed. The difference is there were people all over the city who witnessed this event and there is no way it could be an "illusion" or "hologram" since there was no one way of fooling everyone with the same perspective. No good illusion can be perpetrated from a 360 degree viewing, nor with people in higher elevations or street level elevations.

Whoever posted about why didn't they just use truck bombs or whatnot has brought up one of the most valuable thoughts and posts in this thread. Why do something that will be on video and leave wreckage in the streets for people to actually be able to analyze and look for discrepancies in case they made a glaring mistake? It would be much easier to blow it up from the bottom and leave no trace of anything. That would satisfy the curiosity of people who think the building could not have collapsed from the top down don't ya think?



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   

The weapons exist that can make this happen. They are not theoretical. Have you looked at Tom Beardon's website? That is just one example of a "weapon" that could accomplish this same feat in more than one way.

Please provide evidence that these weapons do indeed exist and on the scale necessary to do what you claim they can.



I guess the previous poster was correct. Copperfield really DID move the Statue of Liberty, since there is no way sleight of hand tricks could do it.


You don't see a difference between what David Copperfield can do and what John Lear is claiming?

Do you think David Copperfield uses advanced hologram technology to CLOAK the statue of liberty? Even if he did (he didn't), it's a static/non-moving, quiet, object.

Again to create a believable hologram, one would need to make it
Solid and not see through in ANY way.
Highly detailed
Moving at near mach 1 speeds
Associated sounds
be able to interact with a real, stationary object
be able to interact with explosives in a real, random way in real time.
be able to interact with explosives not just as it entered the building but as it traveled through the building so the explosives that went off first couldn't damage the next, closely spaced explosives or it would throw off the damage pattern and make it less believable.

And again, keep in mind that if one bird or one piece of debris flew through the hologram, the whole thing would have been ruined and the conspirators would have been found out.

So please show me the technology that could accomplish all of this. The most advanced free floating hologram technology can't come even close to what is necessary to pull this off.
I would like a real answer not something like:
We don't know the government really has
or
Who knows what is really out there.

If you can't prove what is out there, you are doing nothing more the speculating and that means we could also speculate the flying gremlins did it using explosive poo balls since there is the same amount of proof of this.

Please also keep in mind that the hole in the side of the building is the right size for a 767 to fit.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
The Purdue Univesity's video is self-promoted as being a "High Fidelity Visualization" that "had to be eloquent to the none-expert user".

Apparently.

Here we see light-weight aircraft aluminum cutting through steel core columns that are re-enforced by the weight of the struture above.



This "Visualization" was based largely on mathematics and not physics. It's a physical representation. Not what really happened. At the very least, it a "best guess" theory.

If you believe this video, you should go buy the official 9/11 Commision Report. You'll love that. It's chalk-full of nonsensical scenerios and half-assed guesses.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Oh, and before anyone responds tyring to take up for how scientific the video was ...

Here's another picture to show how wrong the video is:



Compate this image from the video to any image of the actual puncture hole that you can find on the internet.

Scientific. Let's say it together kids ... SCI-EN-TIF-IC.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
But if the 'stuff stinks' I have to wonder at your motive to 'shovel more manure' on the pile by starting this thread?

Oh yes I recall it was because you didn't get a timely response in the other thread... So instead of it going away, you are in fact focusing a LOT of attention on it


Um, that thread had to have been at least the 10th one over the course of the year where I spotlighted the same hard questions and had them sidestepped and ignored despite repeatidly bumping them deeper into the threads. You people see hard questions and then post at an increasing rate to sidestep them as if they never existed. This goes back to the Killtown crew bombardment of ATS, and even he and his minions did the same thing.



Well as John said... I too have to thank you... had it not been for this thread I would never have have found those videos and have the stills of an 'airplane' going half way into a building with no hole... I mean it just merges with the building...


I'm still waiting for everybody to explain to us what a 400-500+mph Boeing was "supposed" to do...



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm still waiting for everybody to explain to us what a 400-500+mph Boeing was "supposed" to do...




Yeah, i think the whole world is waiting. Seems that the Boilermakers are no better at conspiracy busting than any of the rest of us.


The problem here is "unprecedented". Nothing like this ever happened. We do know that a bomber going much slower won't topple the Empire State Building.

On the morning of 9-11 i was a teleservices trainer for America Online. I didn't have a class that week, so i was pretty much just goofing off at work. My wife (and LVN) was off that morning and called to ask if i knew anything about what had happened. So i pulled up CNN.com and started watching.

I didn't think anything of it more than, say, a big pileup on the highway. It was an accident to me, much the same as the recent bridge collapse. Then the second plane hit and it was obvious it was purposeful. I figured it was some McVeigh type.

But, like everyone else in the land, i never expected to see the buildings topple. That was the last thing i would have expected, and honestly was completely stymied when both buildings went. I think the average person considered the WTC to be more robust than that, considering its location and the occasional squall or hurricane (along with modern technology). But when i see the collapse, it also doesn't appear to be a typical demolition.

Regardless, if that fuel caused that much heat damage, why was there a lady standing in the hole (unburned) and a dead lady with her legs dangling over the edge right next to her (the legs untouched by fire)? Where was this heat emanating? If it was hot enough to ignire a fire that caused that much weakening throughout the entire construct, why were there people on adjacent floors still alive? Would their lungs not have cooked in such an environment? Yet, they were still left alive to attempt an escape of one form or another (no matter how grim it was)?

So then we have some footage of a plane that seems to be magically infusing with the side of the building. No glass fragments, nothing until it disappears. How does that happen?

Some say that a bug flying into the theoretical vapor cloud would have blown the whole illusion...have you considered the well known ability of energies to remove insects? Simple acoustics is enough, but electromagnetics would likely be even better. Besides, if you slam a water droplet at 500 mph into a bug, would you not expect the relative surface tension to remain consistent? While that is creative thinking on these persons part, i am sure someone smart enough to develop such a technology, not to mention such a plot, would have thought of it as well.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss



I'm still waiting for everybody to explain to us what a 400-500+mph Boeing was "supposed" to do...



Ignoranceisntbliss, with all due respect. Please try and follow along here.

The 400-500+ mph Boeing wasn't supposed to do anything.

It wasn't there.

Calling ingnoorantisntbliss! Calling ignoracneisntbliss!

Testing 1, 2, 3.


The Boeing 767 wasn't supposed to do anything because it wasn't there. It didn't exist in physical form. It only existed as a hologram!

Nothing crashed into the World Trade Center Towers. It was a scam. It was a hoax.

It was a PsyOp.

And thanks for the challenge.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
wow JL i guess your mind is made up on that one


May I ask what you personally find is the most compelling evidence for the holo-planes theory other than the hole? I can't buy it if its based on the size of the hole in the towers, since that could imply a number of possibilities.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So what is wrong with someone sticking to their idea or 'faith' as you call it? Seems to me you are just as inflexible on your side... you are so sure you are absolutely right that if you had the power here you would move people with 'unorthodox ideas' away from the thread.


I've generally always opened up with simple questions, and then watched the no plane delusionists do their typical irrational 'thing', like any 'good' disinfo agent caught redhanded trying to sow the seeds of subversive divisions and defeatism, or Bush apologist rationalizing the latest scandal.


If one did not have the faith of their conviction, then what would be the point?


You shouldn't need faith to have certainty, unless you're dealing with something which cannot be proven, like "God" for example. You really can't prove such a "thing" exists, or doesn't. The same goes for human CAUSED "Global Warming", which with current human sciences and understanding we can not even precisely determine how much humans are indeed actually CONTRIBUTING to it.

But people can attempt to disprove certain aspects of a "god" with the religious doctrines that are associated; Or you can disprove many of the Global Warming Alarmists arguments wrong. And when you do the arguments are ignored, rejected, sidestepped, etc and the original idea and attitudes of the faith based person are hardly shaken. In fact, all to often, challenging a biased subject's faith only arrouses their ideals even further and as absurd as it may sound you can strengthen their original faith despite putting it to shame.

This is because mindsets and memories and so on are physical structures inside the brain, and these structures get stronger as their excited more... In general anyways: Practice makes perfect. You'd think that it would always mean that people would always be modifying their understanding of whatever concept is in question... HOWEVER, when people attach irrational religious-type CONVICTIONS to ideas, they go thru a process of Confirmation/Disconfirmation Biasing when engaged in 'exciting' their brains associated regions of the mindset in question. Information that agrees with the original convictions is 'propped up' aka mroe heavily "weighted", and that which does not agree is dismissed/discounted or RATIONALIZED to make it fit with the conviction. That last part is usually relevent at about that 'real time' moment, and then it's discounted shortly thereafter, basically blocked from entering long term memory.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.google.com...
Politically biased people were brainscan tested in a relevent context to what we have here, and Dr. Drew Westen described their discounting processes as "twirling the cognitive kalideoscope" 'to get the desired results' (despite staunch contradictions directly from the mouths of their favored leader who was in question. You see, it wasn't something that was debatable (like what we have here), it was Bush / Kerry saying the contradictions themselves.
www.google.com...

So here 'whoever' came up with these interlocking half-baked farce theories, and no matter what evidence or aspects are presented, it doesn't deter you no matter how unrealistic or improbable (steaming/smoking jet engine on the open public street corner, etc). Now that 'you've' been directly challenged on this one issue, despite being driven even further intot he realm of improbability, you're all becoming even more convinced as if I challenged Bush supporters who believe that GOD put Bush into power (I've had people tell me that actually lol) or whatever.

You're not convinced that the cartoon damage was correct, therefore you're absolutely certain that it wasnt a plane. Nevermind that we're talking about high speed objects smashing into buildings at angles, etc. Nevermind that you're basing your convictions on the effects from something that has never been observed before (kind of like "GOD"), and also involving unproven fantasy weapons. Nevermind that there's only been a vague description at best from your camp of what we should have expected. Nevermind all of the directly contradictory evidence and accounts etc. But perhaps most importantly, nevermind reason, likeliness and probability.

It all starts at the moment you convince yourself of something irrational.


Now just one thing can you prove your version of events that day beyond a shadow of a doubt?


Yeah, the aircraft parts on the public open streets. Knocking down sign poles and still steaming from the catastrophe.

But I really don't have to: It's called Burden of Proof. I highly recommend all of you spend several days studying logical fallacy lists.

The best arguments I've seen have attempted to shed doubt on the way the buildings were damaged, despite there being no real way to explain how the columns etc WERE BENT INWARDS. Explosives explode outwards. It's wher ethe "ex' comes from, as opposed to IMploding. And so on.


Why doesn't it surprise me that I find virtually the same people trying to argue that micronukes were used as found in the hologram / no plane / space beams / UFO's were there at the WTC that day / etc? I figure there are 2 types of people who parrot these theories:
1) Government Disinfo Agents. I'm sure a certain percentage of those found here at ATS are these. Who? I don't know, but you can bet they're here.

2) Harcore Tinfoilhat Conspiracy Theorists. Thse types will buy into anything. They can be compared fiction novel enthusissts, that is people who's brains are hardwired for fiction and fantasy. Only here the fantasies involve the real world, even including tragedies. Now it's evolved to where these religious like convictions, that parallel UFO conspiracism of old, have been adapted to one of the most tragic days that can be thought of. Not only was it unprecidentidly tragic, but the real clear cut truth demands a unified public response to get ot the truth. Despite thes escenarios, the foilhats scream with absolute conviction that no plane were used, despite it being debatable AT BEST, meanwhile having no care or concerns about resepecting the tragety or destroying any hopes of a near-term / solid / fully-publicly-supported new official investigatory process to end the trampling of our civil liberties and the wars which ar ein the process of being expanded despite possibly a million dead Iraqi's already to show for. We're ont he brink of a potential all out world ending nuclear WW4 at worst, the collapse of the world economy and a US military draft to wage war with Iran where millions will die, but despite this most Americans ignore pretty much everything and then a portion of those who do think outside the box insist on selfishly dividing any potential for change with their outlandish theories and irrational rhetoric that defies all reason, evidence and probability.

Have a nice day.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're not convinced that the cartoon damage was correct, therefore you're absolutely certain that it wasnt a plane.


LMAO.

Before I finish the rest of your post ... I wanted to make sure you weren't referring to my video rebuttle in your "cartoon damage" statement.

Because I don't believe the hologram theory. Never said anyting about it in my prior post.

I just wanted to point out that much of the evidence that many quote from isn't that at all. If anything, it's dis-info.

So, I guess that couldn't have been directed at me .. .right?

[edit on 2-10-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

The 400-500+ mph Boeing wasn't supposed to do anything.

It wasn't there.

Calling ingnoorantisntbliss! Calling ignoracneisntbliss!

Testing 1, 2, 3.


The Boeing 767 wasn't supposed to do anything because it wasn't there. It didn't exist in physical form. It only existed as a hologram!

Nothing crashed into the World Trade Center Towers. It was a scam. It was a hoax.

It was a PsyOp.

And thanks for the challenge.


And you have NO solid evidence to prove the hologram theory.

No change there then P

Sorry John, I wish I could take this more seriously, such an extraordinary theory and such weak evidence (if any).

However... another entertaining read
and you are a wonderful "Fisherman"



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
On a scale of values of what is important we have at least three scenarios:

1.) The not implausible holographic airliner scenario
2.) The possible swapped airplanes crashing as in Operation Northwoods
3.) The actual flight numbered airliners crashing

The September 11, 2001 events might cast doubt on the hologram scenario given that building seven did not have a crash, given the ease with which the other two planes would have been projected. Building seven nonetheless collapsed without its "holographic projection," and/or alternative scenario. These things might indicate operational failure, but that is not surprising given the very implausible government cover story.

The swapped planes again are consistent with Project Northwoods, emerging with Project Gladio on September 11, 2001.

Now of all these complicated things that seem to "divide and conquer," researchers, there is something even more important than the pretext of 911, and that is subsequent events.

We should be united on the emergent issues and should oppose The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act first, because these bad laws are thousands of times worse than the events of September 11, 2001. Other legislation may as well beg the question of defining how far our nation has strayed from the Constitution.

I could agree with any of those scenarios above, but not with the results which are a self aggrandizement of power, a travesty of human rights around the world, a "war without end," and a less free and open society. Right now it is a "soft dictatorship," but the future depends on us. To me "holographic yes or no," is not as important at all.an]



well thats exactly what matters now. we dont know what the next president will be, or what they will plan, perhaps some mini nukes naturally goin off next week in Florida or somewhere else, to get rid of our civil rights.
just look at Burma, many monks are getting brutally killed just for their rights of democracy.it happens now.

as we all dont know what kind of weapons the military has (the post up with the burning tank is incredible!), we only have our TINY conspiracy theories.

the simulation indeed has some faults, its a presentation, not specifically ´scientific´, as written before. it looks a bit like NIST.

perhaps they used an unknown weapon for the dustification, with real planes .and CD, of course. WTC 7 perhaps didnt work as they planned originally. so Silverstein´s comment came a bit ´unplanned´. (its too obvious, perhaps they had a better scenario, but it didnt work properly).

perhaps John has an idea of some recent weapon developments..(guess not)

greets (and love)



[edit on 2-10-2007 by anti72]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by nerbot





And you have NO solid evidence to prove the hologram theory.

No change there then P

Sorry John, I wish I could take this more seriously, such an extraordinary theory and such weak evidence (if any).

However... another entertaining read
and you are a wonderful "Fisherman"


Thanks for the post nerbot. Great line..."NO solid evdience to prove the hologram".. I'll have to remember that one.


Hey, don't give up. Just because no airplanes the size of a Boeing 767 coud have possibly penetratred the World Trade Center doesn't mean everybody was watching a hologram per se. Here are some other explanations for your consideration:


A sugar plum fairy dressed up as a Boeing 767.

Batman with a 156 foot cape span

Superman with an armspan of 156 feet.

A mothman with silver wings 156 feet wide.

Mighty Mouse with ears 156 feet wide.


Thanks for the post.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join