The Hologram Theory is dead

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
oh btw mods ban me if you like - i have no time to spend in a forum that tolerate such rubbish as Lear spouts - it tantemount to holocaust denial




posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I find the hologram suggestion loony enough for a warner bros cartoon

(Although the context of the event is distinctly more tragic in nature)

Holograms are created with good old photons are they not?
These photons have to obey the usual behaviour of light and are subject to the normal things that interfere with light like smoke for example?
Can anyone deny the abundance of smoke and dust in the area after the first tower was hit?
(for that matter the normal level of atmospheric pollution in the area would have posed a considerable problem by itself)
Anyone who's watched a laser light show with fog for effects will realise the point here IE any light beam in that area would be seriously attenuated and visible in the way it reflected/refracted from particles in the air with a corresponding degradation of that perfect image which would give the game away.

There's a very good reason that the planes looked so realistic and it wasn't laser technology - they actually were real.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Hello robert z, back in black, we see.


Is this a personal insult? Would you like to clarify what you mean by this comment?



Nothing you’re saying is weakening the hologram theory. It is my understanding that none of the 9-11 films show holograms. Yes, that’s right, the holograms weren’t caught on camera. The images we see are all CGI inserted fakery.


Would you care to explain how holograms could be made visible to the naked eye of people on the street but made invisible to the photo-receptors of digital cameras? You are now turning an absurd theory into an even more absurd theory if that is possible.



I personally don’t believe there were holograms projected on 9-11, but I am absolutely certain there were no planes.


So what how do you explain the cartoon cut-out shapes of planes in the buildings that appeared at the precise millisecond and the precise millimeter where the CGI images were shown to hit the buildings?

Do you not understand the implications of your theory? For your theory to hold up under scrutiny, the CGI animation would have to be created ahead of time and then overlaid with live video feeds so that the computer image would be shown entering the WTCs at the precise moment the REAL holes in the buildings were created, and the exact location. And all this had to be done from multiple angles?

See, what your CGI theory and hologram theory BOTH fail to explain is how the simulated planes matched up in TIME and SPACE with the exact REAL holes in the buildings.

This is especially problematic for WTC2 since WTC1 was already burning and pouring out smoke which means any faked videos would have to use the live feed with the CGI on top of it.

And if you think nobody saw the planes enter the buildings, and you think holograms were not used, what did the people see?

Maybe people would stopping laughing at no planers if you could explain how your theory is even remotely possible.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


One second, one second. You are saying that it is not a lie when someone says there were "zero witnesses" to airplanes or holograms?

Of course theres no question about the importance to keep asking who did it and why. Theres also no question of the importance to keep a wide open mind.

But thats not the specific issue here.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


John,

I respectfully suggest that the sci-fi scenario you state as a fact fails to address the points I raised in my initial post. I would respectfully request that you change your posts to reflect that these are your opinions and not fact, as making false claims as statement of fact are against the TOS of ATS. It causes confusion for people, especially new members.

So please explain for everybody how the holographic images could have possibly been synchronized to the precise millisecond to show that vertical tail fin breaking into WTC2 within the tiniest fraction of a second after the wings? Or how the explosives meant to simulate the wing damage went off is millionth of a second after the nose explosion, and remarkably at the exact instant that the holographic wings were shown to penetrate the walls?

Next, please explain how the holographic image could have been placed in a position accurate to the millimeter of where the explosives were set to go off making the cut-out shape of an airplane.

See John, it is fine to come up with unlikely theories. I personally disagree with how you state these theories as fact because it does nothing but make the truth movement look foolish.

The fact is there is no way for you to explain even the simplest questions of how the holograms could have been timed and placed to match precisely to match the timing and location of the alleged explosive charges.

Even the most advanced technology must work within the real world physical parameters involved. There is more evidence that Santa Claus exists, or that the Easter Bunny hid colored eggs in my front yard than the evidence for holograms.

As I said, the hologram theory is officially dead. The only thing left are people like yourself who fail to admit you are wrong.

Thank you for your input to this thread. I appreciate it.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
robert z

I agree with you on the hologram theory, but at the same time you have to try and understand where Wizard and John are coming from. I do believe the hologram theory is part of the disinformation out there, but I believe John Lear and Wizard truly believe that no planes were used and that they are honest in their intentions.

I think Wizard argues for CGI, and John will argue for Holograms and maybe some CGI on television.

Now, as ludicrous this is to us, they firmly believe this. So The question is why? After engaging with people who believe this for some time now I think it comes down to a few things.

One of those things is the plane entering the building, 'like a knife though butter' as someone put it. They see this as physically impossible and then they reason that there are to many columns that look intact for them to believe something physically passed through.

But since we have never seen a plane at that speed hit a building of this sort, I think it is unfair for anyone to say the plane couldn't go through as we saw, but they firmly are held to the conviction that it couldn't.

I think it helps to try and see it from their point of view.

I totally disagree with the theory and I do believe that some of the movement have been caught red handed such as the WebFairy who is actually some grandmother from Chicago who started some of this.

See her duplicity exposed here:
proxyblahblahblahblahblahblahblah.com...

She has been responsible for a lot of what we see today in terms of CGI fakery and other types of ideas concerning NO Planes.

However some people really believe this and not everyone is 'crazy' or 'disinfo' on it.

Does it anger me? Yes, I feel it is a hurdle that slows down our search for truth. But we have to deal with it.



[edit on 14-10-2007 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I am sorry to say that you simply cant debunk something on the grounds that "I say it isnt possible and therefore it is not.".

John posts pictures with the actual specifications of the boing and the hole in the face of the building and they dont match up. The hologram theory wont be dying before you explain that one. I agree that its not as obvious as the pentogon hole, however it remains to be debunked.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

However some people really believe this and not everyone is 'crazy' or 'disinfo' on it.

Does it anger me? Yes, I feel it is a hurdle that slows down our search for truth. But we have to deal with it.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by talisman]



I understand where you are coming from talisman. I also understand that thousands of hours of legitimate research and digging up trails of the 9/11 cover-up can be destroyed in 10 seconds by official story believers holding up ludicrous truth movement theories as indicative of the entire truth movement.

You see, things like the hologram theory only push people further into their belief of the official story, and make the likelihood of any progress in uncovering the truth even more remote.

For anybody who claims to be the Chosen One who was smart enough to uncover the ultimate government plot and conspiracy involving futuristic holograms, one would think that they would also be smart enough to understand that stating this theory as fact will only make it harder to convince people of the truth.

I personally am not sure about whether people actually believe this theory or not. I wonder how many people act like they believe the hologram theory just because they want to feed into their own delusions of grandeur, acting like they know a big secret that nobody else knows.

I also understand that some people probably sincerely believe the hologram theory. However those that are sincere in their beliefs and desire to understand the truth should be able to logically analyze the hologram theory and see that it is fatally flawed, as pointed out in my original post in this thread.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Now, as ludicrous this is to us, they firmly believe this. So The question is why?

because there is little evidence supporting the official story. Something happened, there is no denying that, so the question is what?

While Johns story may seem ludacris to you, the official story is equally if not more ludacris than anything i have ever heard.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I am sorry to say that you simply cant debunk something on the grounds that "I say it isnt possible and therefore it is not.".


Really? I was under the impression that 99% of the arguments put forth by the truth movement did exactly this. I think this is pretty much the position Craig Ranke takes regarding the cab driver story, right?

In fact, it is exactly what John tries to do in the example you put forth below:


John posts pictures with the actual specifications of the boing and the hole in the face of the building and they dont match up. The hologram theory wont be dying before you explain that one. I agree that its not as obvious as the pentogon hole, however it remains to be debunked.


IIB did a great job of debunking these photos put forth by John. The holes in both WTC1 and WTC2 match up precisely with the shapes of the planes. The attempt John made in his photoshop presentation to say otherwise has been shown to be flawed.

But for the sake of argument, say John is right about the photoshop analysis he did.

So this means his argument is that the futuristic holograms created images of planes hit precisely to the millisecond that a series of explosives went off, including timed explosives to simulate the nose, wings, and tail entering the building at different times, but that they screwed up and did not plant the explosives on the outside of the WTCs to reflect the proper size of the plane?

And that the holographic images were projected with such amazing accuracy that they created an illusion that planes hit the WTCs in the precise location, down to the millimeter, and at the precise angle and orientation to match the pre-planted explosives that made the holes?

You do understand that these are the implications of the hologram theory, right?

No, the analysis that John did is faulty, and despite his efforts, the hologram theory is dead.








posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
jprophet420

My point there is to suggest that because something looks physically impossible or goes against what some of us might expect, it isn't enough to make a huge leap in logic.

I'll give you an example. Vesna Vulovic She was a Yugolsavian Stewardess, she survived a 33000 FT drop *WITHOUT* a parachute.

Not only did she survive the fall she also survived the bomb explosion. It seems there was a bomb on board her plane, (Terrorist ATTACK),

So she blew up in a plane at 33000ft and no really knows how she survived. Some thought it could be she was in the tail section, but she says no-one knows. Its all theory.

The point is what I would expect NOT TO HAPPEN, did happen.

To me that sounds physically impossible. It really does. Now do I make the next leap in logic and assume Aliens came and transported her?

Or that she was a hologram? Do I evoke these explanations because it doesn't fit with what I would expect?

You can read about her amazing story here.
www.damninteresting.com...



[edit on 14-10-2007 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Im not intersested in truther methodology, as I am not a truther. Im not interested in the debunking of any CT other than the one presented in this thread.

The attempt John made in his photoshop presentation to say otherwise has been shown to be flawed.

please cite your source so that I may continue this debate;

respectfully, JP

PS, I would like to see one debunking the pentagon (I feel that falls into 'what they said hit didnt hit and therefore it was something else' category).



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Im not intersested in truther methodology, as I am not a truther. Im not interested in the debunking of any CT other than the one presented in this thread.

The attempt John made in his photoshop presentation to say otherwise has been shown to be flawed.

please cite your source so that I may continue this debate;

respectfully, JP

PS, I would like to see one debunking the pentagon (I feel that falls into 'what they said hit didnt hit and therefore it was something else' category).


I direct you to the John Lear Hologram Challenge Thread. I believe it is in the John Lear forum.

Look for posts made by IgnoranceIsntBliss, who very precisely debunked the photos and analysis presented by Lear.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
wow, just wow.

after reveiwing the thread (i 'threaded' ignorances posts') i saw what you meant, however im not sure how the plane in his picture was scaled. Although it might seem 'cheesey' to use a photo editing software to make the final judgement (as in Johns post), it is highly accurate. if you can count the pixels of the span of the building, and know the dimensions, you have it scaled perfectly. While the wings are set at an angle to the plane, the wingspan accounts for this.

What got me about the evidence he posted, is the lack of steel melting fire. I dont think steel temp had anything to do with the collapse, as the floors underneath the impact zone would remain intact, however it deals a blow to the 'intense fire' arguement. /OT



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
wow, just wow.

after reveiwing the thread (i 'threaded' ignorances posts') i saw what you meant, however im not sure how the plane in his picture was scaled. Although it might seem 'cheesey' to use a photo editing software to make the final judgement (as in Johns post), it is highly accurate. if you can count the pixels of the span of the building, and know the dimensions, you have it scaled perfectly. While the wings are set at an angle to the plane, the wingspan accounts for this.


I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Think about this. All the analysis is based on a presupposition that the plane entered exactly perpendicular to the building. What if it was just turned at even a small angle as it hit the building? How would that affect the pixel analysis?

What is more telling is that John did not even try to account for this possibility, nor did account for the columns were pushed inward.


What got me about the evidence he posted, is the lack of steel melting fire. I dont think steel temp had anything to do with the collapse, as the floors underneath the impact zone would remain intact, however it deals a blow to the 'intense fire' arguement. /OT


Wrong on two counts.

First, the steel does not need to be melted to explain the collapse of the building.

Second, it has nothing to do with the intense fire argument. There are dozens of photos and videos showing the intense fire from different angles all around WTC1. The area near the impact holes on both WTCs did not have intense fire because the momentum of the planes and the jet fuel went to the opposite sides of the building. Ever see the video of the fireball coming out of the opposite side of WTC2?

And if you do not think there were intense fires, to what do you attribute the massive flow of black smoke coming from WTC1? Where was all that smoke coming from?



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 



Ok first of all posting a reply to this may well lead people to the assumption I therefore support or believe in the hologram theory. Decide what you may.

Second I am simply pointing out whatever is written here by whomever is simply opinion and suggestion, there is no fact, there is no definition, there is no proof. This is a forum and words have little to do with any real evidence proof or ability to prove facts.

I feel despite whatever the subject, be it god, atlantis, aliens, civilisations of life thriving on the moon and mars, or the conspiracies of 911, I feel there is really no suggestions that can be described as false, dead, or otherwise completely impossible.

Why ?

Because none of us really know and none of us ever will. We may think we will, but hmmm I like to keep open to all ideas.

So the first things I want to raise is

Is the building a perfect airplane cut out shape from the impact ?
Is it ?

What is a perfect airplane cut out shape? And how often do we fly planes into buildings to assess and investigate the shapes they make in the buildings exterior ?

So there is no perfect shape and the assumption that the shape is perfect of an airplane impact is an entire assumption based on no history or record of proveable data of airplane impacts onto buildings.


Next is the how could explosives be timed to within the millisecond?

Is this such an impossible thing? Is there nowhere in the world where timings are to the millisecond? In computer gaming sprites turn into animations with millisecond timing. Ping and latency is determined on game servers by the millisecond. Fireworks displays and demolition, detonations and pyrotechnics are timed to the millisecond. Movie special effects are timed to the millisecond.

Is it so impossible to suggest that an explosion cannot be timed and matched to a pre determined image reaching a pre determined point and they go off at the exact same time?

So that in itself is not an impossibility

The real intrigue is if such a holographic technology exists and is capable, if it indeed is as advanced enough to be right before our very eyes.

Temporal and spatial ? You make it sound very complicated its not.

Its simple maths - time speed and distance.

Are you saying its impossible for me to work out how to set a firework off at the exact same time within milliseconds that object A reaches point B given the set speed and distance to travel of object A to reach point B ?

Of course holograms did not cause damage to the building - they are holograms - they would disappear into the building. Oh wait a minute rewind that video footage again as the plane blends into and disappears into the building and is then consumed by fire


All I am saying is none of what is said disputes or even debunks - the POSSIBILITY - sorry for caps its to emphasize the point - the possibility of not just the holographic theory - but any theory.

Its entirely a matter of opinion not to believe or disregard an idea. But to be truly open you have to consider all of them no matter how far and how beyond your routine logic.

I for one think 911 was entirely predetermined and planned. The fact no plane has ever been shown to what i consider evidence of a plane impact at any of the 3 sites involved makes me think - is it possible there was just noooo planes at all.

And holographic tech exists. The question is partly what you have raised in your initial issues with the idea here - is it that good ? Can it really be that good ?



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I read the first few post and am the floor cracking up. I have heard this theory of a hologram for a while and a never took it serious because it is so rediculous to fathom given todays known technology.

I am not an expert, and my response if from common sense and personal experience.
From what I am aware, there is no present technology than can project a solid 3-D holographic image in open air, that can be captured via CCD sensors or film, nor naked eye. If someone is proposing that there is such a device, it is definately outside the current realm of publicly known technology or other worldly.

Go get the best know holographic representation you can find and the best video/still camera you can get your hands on, film it and tell me what you see...

Probably nothing useful.


To the OP that questions that it is impossible to get lights to synchronize with explosions, quite the contrary. Ever been to a rock concert? This alleged hologram would be a projection, following a predetermined trajectory and velocity. With those variables, it is not that difficult to syn it up.
As for blowing out patterns with explosives, milliseconds apart. Ever watched a gunfight on TV? Every bullet hole that you ever see on tv or movies is called a squib. Pretty much a small explosive device, these are implanted pre-made holes and filled over in walls, cars and other structures to get shot up. They are all carefully timed to go of as scripted. This is scaled up in quarrys when they are blasting off rockfaces etc, each area is timed to go off in succession dependant on how they want the cut.
So technically speaking, if such a holographic device were possible, it would be a very simple matter to time it so that it would blow a hole on cue, when said holograph reached a certain point.

Yall seriously need to stop reaching on 911. Them towers came down. I saw it with my own eyes. The big question is not how they came down, it is why did they come down. I could go through a thousand questions to ask, but it all comes down to common sense and your personal belief.
You all don't need proof for what you already know in your spirit. If you feel that there was no underhandedness and that the "terrorists" did it, and truly believe that, then why are you seeking out the knowledge by being on this site? Follow your hearts. Raise your consciousness and that of those around you.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
How could the explosive have been timed so precisely to match up with the image of the hologram to the millisecond, including having the explosives that made the hole from the tail fin go off literally milliseconds after the wings were shown to penetrate the WTCs?

Further, and probably more importantly, how could the holograms have been projected to the millimeter to show a plane entering the buildings at the EXACT, PRECISE location that the explosives were set to go off?


Nice work


I'd like to make it even more perilous:

In addition to Robz examples, I'd like to add to that:

1] How did they manage to 'spit' the monster fireballs out the other side with perfect timing?




2] And launch the 'engine' and related debris out with perfect momentum and angles coinciding with the planes speed and impact angles?
Note the smoketrail from the engine:

CLICK THIS ONE:
www.erichufschmid.net...
It shows the shooting engine in high-res!


When you add those in with my other argument, which I've posted in multiple threads yet not one single person has been able to answer it (be sure to click the first link):

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In the first video of interest the cameraman was on W. Broadway, which was right in line with where the the plane debris was ejected from the opposite side of WTC2. At around time 7:00 the impact occurs. You can hear pandemonium and loud noises as if large things are crashing down around him. Then, as he turns back, you can see plane debris that had apparently landed and killed a pedestrian.
911blogger.com...


www.lib.utexas.edu...
As we've all been covering inother recent threads, other large bits of plane debris were found including a 'still smoking' engine that landed on a street corner not too far from our above cameraman.


While I haven't done an advanced analysis on the raw source video presented above, it does seem to debunk the "MIB Flashy Thing" Theory for how they placed the plane debris on the streets, once and for all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...[/im]

It's case closed. But, if you insist...

For those of you claiming only 4 parts were found, here's some more tidbits from none other than Killtown's website, all WTC related:
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...



Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Nothing you’re saying is weakening the hologram theory. It is my understanding that none of the 9-11 films show holograms. Yes, that’s right, the holograms weren’t caught on camera. The images we see are all CGI inserted fakery.


I see nothing can shake your faith in No Planes.

But since you're obviously right, tell me, how in the world could they prevent every 'rogue' citizen with a video camera from capturing it?

Ok, say you're a conspirator: You have to assess how to ensure getting away with your crime: You consider that you might be able to get away with these mumbo jumbo technologies... But there is one problem: If one single civilian just so happened to get a recording showing no plane whatsoever, you're busted. Even a 10 year old would be clever enough to realize that's not the way to go.

You're suggesting that every camera and tape produced from that day is faked. Sinc etey're faking all of these tapes, why not fake the tapes of the video cameras at the Pentagon to "show" a plane, thus "proving" that one hit there? Why release tapes that look more like a missile than a Boeing? And, again to the 50th time, why not also produce some fake NTSB/ec reports to put the icing on their fabricated event?

No Planes is about as real as Aesop Fables.

Ok, I'll be fair, I won't say that it's impossible, however, considering the difficulty in producing the observed effects to 'near' perfection, in conjunction with the decisions they'd have to go thru in consideration of my statement to you above, and so on, I'd say there's a about a 0.002% chance of "No Planes" being what happened.


[edit on 14-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
oh noes not another thread about the hologram theory...

please please PLEASE watch this video

September Clues

clearly shows that what we saw on the media isn't entirely real



IgnoranceIsntBlisss




TextBut there is one problem: If one single civilian just so happened to get a recording showing no plane whatsoever, you're busted.


but what if that one single civilian turns out to be just another person behind the coverup? The video I linked also questions the amature videos of the planes. With the technology we have today, its not very difficult at all to draw a plane flying into a building.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by balon0]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The engine in high res, that is powerful evidence. I haven't seen that used previously and it does ask of the no plane theorists a very difficult question to be sure. They might claim the pic is fake.





top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join