The Hologram Theory is dead

balon0

www.nineeleven.co.uk...

Review the link on just ONE item from Sept Clues. The video is a fraud and that is just one item.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


IgnoranceIsntBlisss, your last post is a good one. I like your style!

IIB:

…how in the world could they prevent every 'rogue' citizen with a video camera from capturing it?

Answer: They didn’t. Surely there are countless imagery recordings showing no planes, only explosions or smoke or whatever really happened. But any photographers with such ‘plane-less’ pictures would have simply shrugged them off as being ‘no good’, as in incomplete, as in taken ‘too late or too early’ (to show the Boeings). After what was shown on TV no one would have had any interest in their ‘deficient’ work. It being considered hopelessly inferior since devoid of the most important aspect of the 9-11 attack, those hijacked passenger jets.

IIB:

You're suggesting that every camera and tape produced from that day is faked.

Answer: No. The only fake pictures are the ones showing something, the ones with airplanes and exaggerated explosions!

IIB:

And, again to the 50th time, why not also produce some fake NTSB/ec reports to put the icing on their fabricated event?

Answer: Because the 9-11 cabal cannot chance corrupting hundreds of career bureaucrat investigators into conducting a mock investigation of this size (four 757/767’s at one time!)

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wow...

Amazing, that grown up people really believe it were holograms.. Ive read strange things but this is just the most stupid of all..

Just one question, were and when did they plant all the explosives? Placing a large amount takes alot of time. Everyone who walks there, and works at the WTC would have seen that.. But offcourse everyone who works there was also in the coverup? This kind of lameness prevents the real truth to get out.. The only question that should be asked is: who is responsible, the who the why is not important at all..

Thanks for reading 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?

from the video, it did enter perpendicular. to say it didn't is to agree the videos are fake.

reply to post by Pazzzzz


Pazzzzz:

You’re obviously new here. Look before you leap (to conclusions). A lot of good brains have thought about this.

First, there were no real planes crashing on 9-11. Second, for those who insist they really did see airplanes, there’s the hologram theory. So far, it’s the only fair explanation available to accommodate ‘eyewitnesses’. A more radical school of thought is that CGI trickery only was used to simulate the crashes. But that would mean some folks might be lying, and that is indeed purely speculative.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wizard_In_The_Woods

You believe CGI was used by the News Media to fake the Planes. Could you explain as to why this CGI was never used to show a Plane striking the Pentagon?

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?

Case closed? Only if your mind is also.
A modern computer would be able to synchronise all events quite easily, let alone one from 30 years ahead of us. Eliminate any lag issues and you would be laughing.
I think at the end of the day you need to understand that IF this was a setup, it was done by a powerful group of people with technology that is not available to us yet. It's not just a matter of "it couldn't have been done because of..." because you need to allow for this.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


That was a nice picture of the plane engine.When it's cropped it doesn't show anything.



Wow, how did it land upright underneath scaffolding?Where is the rest of the engine if that is from a Boeing?
I'm not saying I'm for or against the hologram theory.I'm still researching holographic technology.

Article

Holographic projection. The article describes a quasi-information warfare/psychological operations program that was first discussed in the Air Force after Desert Storm. Holographic projection involves projection of a three-dimensional holographic image in project decoys, or even an "angry god" (religious imagery) above the battlefield.

The Pentagon had listed the holographic projections openly as part of its "non-lethal" weapons program. But since 1994, the program has disappeared from view, evidently now a "black" effort, says DEFENSE WEEK.

Edit:typo


[edit on 14-10-2007 by citizen truth]

Originally posted by talisman

You believe CGI was used by the News Media to fake the Planes. Could you explain as to why this CGI was never used to show a Plane striking the Pentagon?

I can only guess.

There was less of a potential airplane crash site clean up problem at the WTC’s.
The twin towers were turned to powder. In the ensuing mess, average normal citizens (not us ATS weirdos) wouldn’t expect much in terms of plane wreckage. The planes vanished into the buildings, and then later the buildings disappeared.

At the Pentagon, the damage was minimal — compared to the size of the structure. Had they shown the impact on TV — faked of course — and allowed the whole plane to get swallowed by the walls in WTC-fashion, then us viewers would have later expected to see wreckage INSIDE the remaining Pentagon complex. Here, the ‘crime scene’ was never vaporized like at the WTC’s.

But I may be over analyzing. In the cabal’s defense, this is getting really odd, they did want to relatively minimize loss of life (within their own crazy set of parameters). A real Boeing 757 would have done more damage at the Pentagon than what was shown (which is opposite in the case of the WTC crashes). Realistically simulating an actual crash would have necessitated a bigger explosion — at the building itself, not just on TV.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by robert z


That was unnessesary you twurp.
1
2
3
4
5

Wizard, NTSB:

You declare they can't chance corrupting "hundreds of bureaucrats", but if the NTSB aren't in on the conspiracy, then why haven't any of those hundreds of employees come forward stating that no plane parts were found and that no crashes / etc even happened?
You can't have it both ways!/b]

It amazes me that with your infinite imagination you seem to come up so short on reason and IQ. It really makes me wonder...

Cameras, normal people, professional cameraoperators:
So people would look at their video showing no planes but an explosion and assume that it was "incomplete", not worth looking at? Talk about grasping at straws.


You people don't have a leg to stand on, nor any shame, or respect for those who died.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Because the 9-11 cabal cannot chance corrupting hundreds of career bureaucrat investigators into conducting a mock investigation of this size (four 757/767’s at one time!)

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So hundreds of career bureaucrats wouldn't wonder why they didn't get to investigate at least Flt 93 and Flt 77? So no investigation was done and nobody(career investigaters) has come forward to say "hey there was no ivestigation of the 911 aircraft"?

A weird angle your taking here Wizard.

And just to play the devils advocate on the "holograms are dead" thread, something I dug up on the net.
100megsfree4.com/farshores/jd0505.htm

My mom listened to Art Bells radio show all the time, so this ones for you Maura O'Reilly

An interesting story about cattle mutilations and other strange things leading the author to try to explain it as a hologram that is able to physically interact with other matter it comes in contacted with.

Just a story, but it kinda creeped me out.

I checked out the NTSB.Apparently they only offered assistance.

NTSB

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

We know how far people get with the FBI.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You declare they can't chance corrupting "hundreds of bureaucrats", but if the NTSB aren't in on the conspiracy, then why haven't any of those hundreds of employees come forward stating that no plane parts were found and that no crashes / etc even happened?
You can't have it both ways!

IgnoranceIsntBlisss:

For whatever reason NTSB employees are not rioting that they were denied the opportunity of four 9-11 plane crash investigations. Why they are not protesting is not relevant. The important fact is they aren’t and there were no and will be no NTSB reports on those incidents.

Citizen truth has just researched the answer for us.
NTSB:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

Has this ever happened before? When TWA 800 blew up, was the entire investigation turned over to the FBI also? Was there ever a plane crash above the continental United Stated where the parts were not compiled in a warehouse and laid out in fuselage pattern? (No, never.)

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/14/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your input Skyfloating. A friend of mine, my sister, my friends Mom, my boss, the guy who works with me, a friend of my friend, a the guys in the office, my brother, the guy who lives next door, the hot dog man, the pizza guy...they are all the same. They all saw a holograph.

Sadly, thats as far as I get with this post.. What a joke.

Thanks for your input.

sheesh..

Originally posted by johnlear
At this point I don't really know how the sound was played. There may have been speakers in windows along the flight path or it may have been a speaker in another craft. It may have also been a part of the holograph. Remember what Arthur C. Clarke said, "Technology sufficiently advanced looks like magic."

So it's a rational concept that they can make holographs of planes fly into the towers, with unknown hologram tech. at just the right time when the external explosives shaped in a manner to form an explosive hole the same shape and width of a plane crash, BUT it's unknown how they created the audio apart from considering they used super speakers on windows? Surely they had satellites capable of sending down subconscious audio in the range of frequency that humans can hear, and that is how they did it. Or perhaps they had implanted the sounds in the minds of the people there, via an organised mobile phone ring tone..


Yet ! And heres the good stuff -

That there were real planes hijacked by people who are disgruntled at the US, and flown into the towers, is IMPOSSIBLE.

Ok.. That is all.. It's clear now.. ta.

Occam's razor tells me that it's much more plausible that a group of guys hijacked a plane full of terrified people and crashed it. This is all very possible and certainly could happen.

Now, let's assume thousands of pounds of explosives miraculously were hidden in a building without anyone seeing them put there. Holograms produced by technology we don't seem to have were synched perfectly with controlled demolitions of the explosives that no one knew were there. Computer generated images were added to videos using CGI technology we don't yet have (Anyone with a brain can spot CGI in a Hollywood movie with a huge production budget). The company that produced this CGI, and all its workers, haven't yet come forward and said anything about it. Unless the government has an in-house CGI staff we're not aware of

So, it boils down to what could happen with 100% plausibility versus what could happen if we allow non-existent technology to exist and thousands of people to be lie about it.

I submit to everyone that John Lear is, in fact, a hologram.

I mean... sure, I can see him. I can hear him. I can read what he's written. I can see the effects of his opinions on people in this forum. And there are countless thousands of individuals all around the world who have first-hand experience of him (yep, even physical contact!).

But, guess what? All of that evidence? What you've seen and heard yourselves? It counts for NOTHING..... there is no John Lear. He is a hologram. Designed to fool your senses and your sensibilities.



Absurd?

Originally posted by zerbot565
blasts can be seen before the plane hit the building ,

I assume that you are referring to the stills from video where there is a bright spot on the building just before the nose of the jet hits the building. I haven't seen anyone bring this up so... Could that be a result of video interlacing?

From Wikipedia:

The interlaced scan pattern in a CRT (cathode ray tube) display completes such a scan too, but only for every second line. This is carried out from the top left corner to the bottom right corner of a CRT display. This process is repeated again, only this time starting at the second row, in order to fill in those particular gaps left behind while performing the first progressive scan on alternate rows only.
Such scan of every second line is called interlacing. A field is an image that contains only half of the lines you would need to make a complete picture. The afterglow of the phosphor of CRTs, in combination with the persistence of vision results in two fields being perceived as a continuous image which allows the viewing of full horizontal detail with half the bandwidth which would be required for a full progressive scan while maintaining the necessary CRT refresh rate to prevent flicker.

Because modern computer video displays are progressive scan systems, interlaced video will have visible artifacts when it is displayed on computer systems. Computer systems are frequently used to edit video and this disparity between computer video display systems and television signal formats means that the video content being edited cannot be viewed properly unless separate video display hardware is utilized.

This might cause part of the next field to show up in the previous field. In other words, You would see the "explosion" from the nose of the jet entring the building before it actually looks like the jet is close enough to cause that explosion.

Originally posted by zerbot565
so what are you preposing then ,

that the planes where hijacked by remote controls in mid air,
passangers asking the flight captain why they are flying this close to the city and the captain only replying ,

- we re not controling the plane ,

The planes were flown by remote control from the ground, it does not matter what the people inside said, maybe they were dead already or not in the plane

Let's say it was like this : The terrorists got aboard the planes with the people, only to be killed by someone who was waiting for them , or they were killed with some poison gas later


[edit on 15-10-2007 by pai mei]