The Hologram Theory is dead

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:33 AM

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 ,

to quote hitler ,

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.

to quote bush

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

— Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

but i guess even a blind dog can lick his genetelias ,

the blind dog being the ppl of the Us and genetalias the goverment ,

all this talk of land of free and the brave is more or less just propaganda bs ,

sorry for takin a piss out o you ppl who dont realize that it was an inside job,

so what are you preposing then ,

holograms hit the buildings?

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:03 AM
So on a clear and beatiful sunny morning with thousands of people on the street a hologram that emits sound was animated into the north tower where explosives where designed to cut a hole into the building that coincide with the shape of the hologram of the first plane.
THEN every news crew pointing cameras at the towers after the first hit, potentially millions or a couple of billion people could have been looking at the towers via television, practically everyone in New York looking at the towers.
Helicopters flying with cameras on the towers.
All in turn watched a hologram fly into the second tower.

All the news crews and news channels around the world are in on a hoax, demolition crews, cops, firemen all part of a cover up.
3D artists, special effects crews and sound engineers on top of the technicians to perfecyly aline projectors (a projection cant hang in mid air it needs to reflect from something) lazers and what not are all in on it too.

Not one single person with a conscience, not one single person with a tiny ounce of guilt, not one single disgruntled employee of any of the above mentioned have come forward to spill the beans.
Not one teaboy at CNN or something who over heard anything, not a single ounce of evidence.

A HUUUUGGGEEE gamble that everything would play out perfectly and fool everyone AT the scene and everyone seeing it on TV live (except those that deny everything before they've even built a conspiracy theory).

Isnt it much safer, easier and use less resources and people to just do 2 old planes within 10 minutes of each other plow into the buildings at 4-5 am when witnesses where few and far between and harder to see, not to mention no cameras would have got there in time.
But no lets do it in front of the world eyes and hope it all goes well.

Do I believe the official 9/11 story, no, do I believe their is definitely a government knowledge as to what really happened, yes.
Do I believe this story of holograms, definitely not and when I read things like this I think "oh my, these people are crazy" I then bundle ALL 9.11 truthseekers into the same group and so do others.
This is why people laugh and redicule these stories, It seems to me that all the thought provoking valid points made and questions asked are tainted with the stink of comic book fantasies.

Well done Mr Liar, you just helped push me more into the 'I dont know and I no longer care' group.
How can I get on the payroll like you? Ive got a whole load of magical stories to help push the 9.11 conspiracy theorys further down the toilet.

[edit on 15/10/07 by eagle32]

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:47 AM
One thing that I always thought was suspect was if you look at the impact areas of WTC1 and WTC2 it appears as if the exterior columns had been precut horizontally across in sections of 3 (for the most part) and as well the impact holes are much larger the the fuselage of the planes. I personally think the hologram theory is much to extreme however, I believe the impact areas could have also been pre-wired ready to blow up the plane touching the surface of the towers, which either way explains why they went in so smoothly. The explosion could have been set-off either by a proximity device mounted on the aircraft or by whatever that emitting flash from the aircrafts underbelly was.

The human senses are not designed to pickup milliseconds and centimeters, so I am at a loss as to why several people keep using that as a benchmark. But check out those water fountain displays in Las Vegas or the controlled demolition of any building or of an annual fireworks or pyrotechnics display. Getting something like that to work out would be possible for a professional in that field.

Another possibility it that missiles were sent into the buildings fitting with a GPS device and then over-layed (graphically prior to live airing) with the aircraft, the parts pre-planted (most of those items truly do look staged). Eyewitnesses seeing an object flying overhead at close to 500 knots are not going to really be able to make out what it really it, that is 500 miles and hour or 8.33 miles an minute or .1388 miles or 732.86 feet a second (if my math is correct, math is not my bag
). Image tracking something in live time ~1,000 feet over your head moving at ~733 feet a second, it would quite a blur.

Also, about the noise, remember the government just happened to be running Tripod-Two and several other "training operations" (BTW nice name considering the layout of the WTC complex, heh, just like the 7/7 "coincidence"), they could have had jets and other aircraft flying through the area, perhaps even stealth craft, this would be very visible, especially since we are talking about sonic noise, the human ear is not capable of picking up the exact location of where it is coming from, they only hear it being bounced around buildings and such, and in NYC there are no shortages of buildings.

Remember the first plane hitting video did not come out until weeks later (or was it days?), and in one of the videos that was released by a private citizen that person is now uncooperative and it seems as if he was floating in the air while video taping it because there is no way he could have caught that footage while standing on the ground, CNN purchased the video from him and he was told he can't say anything about it, he is a jeweler in California... and also CNN supposedly hired some special effects firm that is associated with government PYSOPS military bases just months prior to 9/11... why would CNN need them for, eh?

Then there is also that little documentary that shows how one of the aircraft showed up out of nowhere and skipped about ~200 feet in distance and in time.

BTW, it is not possible for a steel buildings to "pancake" (the steel girders, truces, angle irons, braces, brackets, supports, and their massive steel core would stop prevent that from occurring, the building would tip over before that could ever happen) this "pancake" theory can only happen to adobe, concrete, and brick buildings, unless you were to break all the welds and remove all of the rivets, bolts, etc., and then shake the crap out of the building that may be the only exception. Heck, I doubt even a properly build wood building could "pancake" collapse, laff.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by RexxCrow]

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:09 AM
Oh something else I always wanted to confirm is if either or both planes hit on floors that were vacant? That would make much easier to explain how charges were placed there without others noticing, not to say they could not have hidden them within the walls or even put them exterior. Regarding placing the explosives withing the building this could have occurred throughout the night and early morning hours. During the day they could have been crawling around voids and vacant areas, they could have used vacant areas and floors in-which only they had access to, for storage of their equipment and such. Employees were complaining about the noise and dust within the WTC's weeks prior to 9/11.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:10 AM

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?

The videos show the plane entering the building in a precise, cartoon-like cut-out hole in the sides of the buildings. If these were holograms instead of planes, how could they have possibly been projected to be moving at such an incredibly high degree of accuracy so that the image matched EXACTLY with the location of the explosives.

I have no idea if there were holograms or not, but all the WTC footage clearly show that in the moment immediately prior to impact, you see a bright flash coming from underneath the nose. You can see this from every angle, on both planes. It was examined in the 9/11 documentary 'In Plane Site'.

Now, IF these were holograms, could this be the signal to trigger the explosion? Like a detonator charge thing. Therefore you get your exact match with the hologram because the 'spark' would rig itself to the nearest detonator charge?

I'm just throwing the thought out there, I don't have anything to back this up. In all honesty, I think it would be pretty far-out for the whole thing to be done by holograms, but hey maybe they're practising a dry run for Blue Beam!

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:22 AM

Given that 9/11 was a bright and sunny day, how was the integrity of the "hologram" maintained under direct sunlight?

These were largely unpainted/silver finished planes and on the stills of the attacks before they hit the buildings you can see sunlight reflections on the fuselages. Since when did holograms cast reflections of sunlight?

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:24 AM
If we consider the kinetic energy of an object of about 100 tons mass moving at 500 knots it's soon apparent that no explosives at all are required to inflict the damage observed. It was the equivalent of tons of high explosive. The random nature of damage to building columns is probably related to the banking attitude of the plane as it adjusted direction which resulted in certain columns being struck with a rigid backing of the building floors concrete slabs behind them - those columns would only suffer severe distortion while unsupported columns (between floors) were severed as observed. The rectangular sections coincide with the prefab steel panel sections used in the building construction IE they failed at the joints .

Can no hologram theorists explain how the amount of smoke and dust in the air after the first tower was struck would even make the use of any sort of projected optical illusion a practical possibility?
Unless the new undisclosed whizzbang laser holograph technology is immune to opaque matter suspended in the medium (air that is).

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by RexxCrow
Image tracking something in live time ~1,000 feet over your head moving at ~733 feet a second, it would quite a blur.


Junk assumption.

People go to airshows and that happens all the time.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by RiotComing

It could also have been the special electronics and instruments inside the composite nosecone. Certain electronics 'flash' when aggravated properly. I'm unsure what's underneath there.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by RexxCrow
Image tracking something in live time ~1,000 feet over your head moving at ~733 feet a second, it would quite a blur.

The problem there is the witness' attention is drawn to the source of the sound and distance the apparent sound source lags the aircraft is a function of altitude and speed. Sound at sea level travels at approx 1100'/sec so the plane would be about 1 second's travel ahead of the apparent sound source at an altitude of 1000' and directly overhead. So it's a distinct possibility for the plane to not be clearly observed if a very short time is available to locate it visually. It does not logically follow that the plane does not exist though or were all those air shows I attended faked too

[edit on 15/10/2007 by Pilgrum]

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 05:45 AM

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by RexxCrow
Image tracking something in live time ~1,000 feet over your head moving at ~733 feet a second, it would quite a blur.


Junk assumption.

People go to airshows and that happens all the time.

Yea in a wide open airfield and are mentally prepared and physically adjusted to experience jets flying over their heard vs. not expecting this in a metropolis setting just having your morning coffee. Big difference.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 07:24 AM
I just don't understand why they would use holograms when they can just use real planes. For this reason, I just can't get with this hologram theory. Of course, 9/11 was an inside job. That's a given. But what would a no-plane and a yes-plane event have required?:

- a plane-full of duped passengers and pilots.
- A remote-controlled flight take-over.
- Planted explosives in the towers to coincide with impact.

- Astronomically advanced hologram technology.
- Hugely advanced sound-effect playback, positioning and amplification.
- More than perfectly timed explosives, positioned perfectly within the walls of the towers.
- CGI videos prepared before the event, showing planes hitting towers in exactly the right places, at exactly the right angles, from exactly the right directions as the prepared holograms and planted explosives.
- Planted plane-parts falling to the ground, or among the rubble.

...and not to mention the significantly higher risk by this scenario of things going wrong, actions being timed wrong - things which the perpetrators could never afford to happen.

The hologram theory would also have surely cost more to set-up than the loss of a couple of planes.

There just seems no point in creating an illusion. Of course, I'm not in possession of the facts to say for certain how it was done. Also, I'm aware that I may have missed threads addressing the points I've made (debunking them).

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:49 AM
I have watched the videos and you, no I still think actual planes hit the buildings. From the side of the hologrammers theory, very compelling evidence. My aunt works in NYC and was pretty close to the site and she saw both planes hit the towers. She heard the roars. It took her a while but she woke me up, by phone, and told me what was going on. I turned on my tv, and moments later watched as the second plane hit. Got another call from her saying she was getting out of the city as soon as possible and She would call when she got upstate to other relatives homes. I commend the original thinker behind the hologram theory but, I just can not think that no planes were used.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:58 AM
I would guess that at this point if we wanted to crash a plane into a building to see what would happen and simulate the Twin Tower event the No PLaners would still believe the hologram/coverup theory. Even if John Lear himself got to walk up to and onto the plane we were going to crash, watch it take off and hit the building, he would claim he was "manipulated" in some way and he only thought he got to walk on board it. Nothing at this point will change his mind or his followers. What would it take for John to say "OK, there were no holograms"?

Maybe John should start writing Sci-Fi movies?

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 10:21 AM
Hi Wizard,

Im not new to ATS, i just havent post alot, but i read alot. Did not look into holograms, cause imo its to far.. All the people on the ground, the way the plane goes in.. how does explosives go off in such a precise manner, that it would appear that it was an aircraft. There are alot of videos from alot of angles of the second plane hitting the tower. Why would they risk using a new technology? Using real planes is way better and way safer instead of holograms..

So thanks for reading but i just dont buy it..

I will read and look into the hologram stuff and maybe post back later..

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by 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.

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 10:25 AM
And Wizard,

Please explain this: how would they plant all the explosives without noticing it.. it would require tons of tnt? Just through the elavator doors? Common, just common sence says hologram theory is dead..

Just like another one said here, using planes is foul proof, and cheaper then using sound acoustics that has to be perfect during the flight over new york etc/?

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 10:26 AM
While I enjoy Mr. Lears dedicated work, I find the discussion I had with him yesterday on this thread pretty strange.

I was opposing the "not witnesses theory" and not the "no planers" or "no holograms" theory and he acted like I was opposing one of the latter.

I had described how I dont think a friend of mine who was in new york that day was lying, and how I oppose the absurd "theory" that there "were no witnesses".

His response did not go into that but feigned that I was opposing his stuff, which I clearly wasnt.

Its here on the first pages of this thread to read and for all to see. And it is strange. Check it out.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 10:48 AM
Just a question or 2 for those that support this theory.

If it WAS holograms and planted explosives then please explain how the explosives punch IN a hole rather than just blowing outward, this seems to indicate either explosives that implode like a vacuum, or is that what was used?

Why did holograms which are simply light show up on radar?

When did we get the technology for 3d holograms to suspend in midair using nothing to reflect from.

As a programmer myself and a follower of the industry why have I never come accross this technology instead of still needing a chunky headset to produce virtual reallity.

I still think its nonsence and a story made to help ridicule sensible possibilities seem like the ideas of madmen.

This should be read before making any conclusions.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by johnlear

This alleged engine turned out to be a CF56 which neither Flight 11 or Flight 175 had. Flight 11 had CF-6's and the airplane that allegedly hit the south tower had Pratt & Whitney's. The exact model of which was: Engine Model: JT9D-7R4D.

I would respectfully suggest that if you really can prove the above claim you should immediately fly to Washington D.C. and schedule meetings with the Justice Department, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and the FBI to make them aware of this earth-shattering, world-changing revelation. If this evidence is made public it might create such a stir that you could single-handedly put an end to the war in Iraq.

In fact, Senator Reid represents your home state of Nevada. As one of his constituents, and as an internet curiosity who used to have his own page in Wikipedia, perhaps Sen. Reid would make arrangements to fit you into his schedule with your smoking gun evidence that no planes were used on 9/11.

With such significant and easily defensible evidence that you have, it is almost borderline treasonous if you do not go the Reid with this information. Or at the minimum, perhaps you should call a press conference and invite all the major media outlets to announce your ground breaking discoveries.

As always, your input into this thread is greatly appreciate!

P.S. Please keep us informed of your progress as it relates to scheduling meetings with the above mentioned parties. This may be what the Truth Movement needs to jump-start a new investigation into 9/11.

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yeah but the weird thing was that the flashes occured before impact, therefore, no aggravation or reason to set anything off. It's one of the real mysteries of 9/11 for me, to which I've never found an answer.

new topics
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in