Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hologram Theory is dead

page: 64
16
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
hey guys, ask yourselves this. why holographic technology? it be much simpler to use a real plane! now you gotta put yourself in the bad guys shoes and rationalize their thinking for this. maybe they had no choice but to use a hologram because they could not rely 100% on a real airliners physics, flightpaths etc to crash where you want.
second and think about this one. if you are a expert on building demolishing had a building wired and set to blow, but out a nowhere a commercial airliner suddenly crashes in to the building would it not compromise the detonation of the bomb in some way.(wiring, pancake effect)keeping in mind that the buildings collapsing was the main objective cause if the buildings remained standing, thats evidence isnt it?
so the bomb expert at the blk ops center told his bosses that if you want the building to come down from a plane hitting it"we gonna have to fake it". AND FOR WHAT: PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA BASED BRAINWASHING FOR THE MASSES FOR GEO POLITICAL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COLONIZATION(oh and for baby israel offcourse).




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
what i'm saying is in order to understand the truth we have to look at 911
in the sense that it was all JUST FOR SHOW. whether you witnessed it first
hand or on television. it was all in reality JUST A SHOW
A SHOW FOR OUR SHOCK AND OUR HORROR.
it was a psychological attack on you and me and everybody around the world sitting in our living rooms even more so for the people in and around the towers at the time.the plan was simple, MASS DESTRUCTION BROADCASTED LIVE ON MASS SCALE executed DECEITFULLY USING SMOKE LIGHTS & MIRRORS so that the whole world would bow out of the US and its allies way as it prepared for invasion.as for the hologram question, it is illogical not to think of the possibility.it's funny how or
maybe(ironic?) that possibly a real plane striking the building may have
hindered the actual detonation(blast than collapse pancake effect) of the
towers which was probably their intention anyway (hence the hologram theory) cause if it was packed with explosives then it was all meant to be reduced to nothing(including evidence).to conclude the question of the planes may be irrelavant when you start to see the real motivation behind 911 that we are all victims of psycological warfare and propaganda and because of it war ravages on abroad with untold murders and abuses.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The biggest problem with the hologram theory is that it's not possible. I really don't know why this "theory" won't just go away????? Anyone who knows anything about holographic and laser technology knows this is simply absurd !!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Maybe the reason some people believe in the hologram theory is because they look at videos like this and have a hard time coming up with a better explaination.







[edit on 10-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by jfj123
 


Maybe the reason some people believe in the hologram theory is because they look at videos like this and have a hard time coming up with a better explaination.







[edit on 10-6-2008 by jmdewey60]


The problem is that they don't understand how holograms and lasers work or they wouldn't fall back on that as a possibility. It's unfortunate that this CTs has spread without the possibility of it even being real.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
OK, so there are limits on what can be done with holographic projection.
Most of what would have been going on, in this hypothetical situation, would have been within those limitations.
For one thing, the theoretical projection would only have to be 3-D in one aspect, that is, it would have to have been seen from more than one narrow viewing field.
But, what you were looking at, or thought you were seeing, only had to be two dimensional, from your particular, point of view.
Another limitation is having it appear in full color.
Well, take a look at the frames I posted above.
Do you see any color?
Another limitation would involve movement.
Only the projection itself moves, but what is in the projection does not move.
These are a few of the points that I found, pointing out limitation of holographic projection, but what we see in the 9/11 videos seems to go right along with those limitations.

Interesting that they would use a plane like this to demonstrate a holographic projection.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Research, development and testing is also taking place in another
related aspect of electrochromatic panels, namely, the attachment of holographic projection devices capable of causing image size distortions, such as distorting the "size" of the aircraft "observed" by ground observers.
For example, with this technology a black traingular aircraft, for example,
could be seen to be three or four times its actual size to the ground
observer.

This is a quote from a forum, that was written in 1999.
www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg24069.html
When I say that a hologram was used at the towers of the WTC on 9/11, I do not mean that there was nothing there.
There definatly was some sort of aircraft running into the towers, just not a hijacked airliner.
I think it looks like a stealth fighter.
That is from watching that video, taken from a helocopter and shown on NBC's Today Show.
If you watch it on youtube, it looks like a blob.
In a good quality version of the video, you can make out the general shape of the thing.

Once it gets close, it levels out some and you can get a better idea of its real profile.
It changes from an orb-like appearance, when it is in a steep dive, to something a lot flatter than an airliner.



[edit on 10-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Here's a pic of UA175 a moment before impact:



And a pic of another UA 767 to compare the markings:



Numerous aspects of the UA175 pic go totally against any possibility of it being a hologram, the major ones being what is the image being projected onto, the subtle (and correct) colouring captured in the pic and the plane blocking the view of the dark building behind it with no change in image density.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Another limitation is having it appear in full color.
Well, take a look at the frames I posted above.
Do you see any color?

Here's a big one. If you watch the video, you do see colors however lets just say we only see 2 colors, black and white. Well lasers are basically concentrated light emitted in near parallel beams. Light cannot produce darkness.


Another limitation would involve movement.
Only the projection itself moves, but what is in the projection does not move.

Well there are many more problems with the movement. Basically you're talking about projecting a giant image that, to be realistic, must look solid from all sides and interact with environmental variables on the fly.
Problem 1. To pull this off, you would need BANKS of parallel running super computers.
Problem 2. The laser projectors would need to be perfectly still because any little movement at distance would cause large jumps in the hologram.
Problem 3. Laser divergence


These are a few of the points that I found, pointing out limitation of holographic projection, but what we see in the 9/11 videos seems to go right along with those limitations.

Interesting that they would use a plane like this to demonstrate a holographic projection.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by jmdewey60]


So to sum up we have some very big problems with holographic limitations:
1. Holograms are projected on mediums in darkened, environmentally controlled rooms. As example, try using your flashlight in the middle of a sunny day and you see nothing.
2. Laser divergence would prevent fine detail from being achieved at distance.
3. Massive amounts of computing needed.
4. The projectors would need to be perfectly still. Even the tiniest bump would make the plane move in big jagged movements.
5. Remember, lasers ONLY produce light, not darkness.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Here's a pic of UA175 a moment before impact:



And a pic of another UA 767 to compare the markings:



Numerous aspects of the UA175 pic go totally against any possibility of it being a hologram, the major ones being what is the image being projected onto, the subtle (and correct) colouring captured in the pic and the plane blocking the view of the dark building behind it with no change in image density.


Very good picture. Thanks for posting that.

I wish hologram people would realize lasers do not emit light that is BLACK.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I do not pretend to be an expert on holograms.
I spent a few hours doing a google search to get a basic knowledge of where things are, as far as normal applications of holograms.
You are right about what you say jfj123.
I do not want to argue about these points.
If it was a commercial activity that someone contracted out to a private company, using known technology, it would have failed.
There is a report from a national magazine that is quoted numerous times, on the internet, about military application of holograms.
It says that around '94, it became a black op.
So, we do not know exactly what they came up with.
I have to reject both ideas, that there was no plane and that it was projected from another location.
There obviously was a plane and there are cloaking devices they had been working on for decades.
We know about radar absorbing coatings and some other details of stealth technology.
That sort of thing has been going on since the capture of Nazi scientists at the end of World War II.
There are things we are not told about.
I quoted a forum post from '99 that talks about research into having holographic projectors attached to planes.
Normally, the way military black ops works is that if we hear they are starting to work on something in particular, that means they have already been working on it for twenty years and probably have working prototypes.
As for looking at videos and photos, and comparing the planes that show up, that in itself is problematic.
The nice photo, posted above, comes from a video that I find suspicious.
It shows the plane flying a level course, as the other videos shows a steeply banking and diving course.
I see something different about the plane, in every video I look at.
There are a couple of videos that show a perfectly clear picture of a plane, that I have to imagine were added to the video, after the fact.
Bottom line is I do not think these planes were flown by who we are being told they were.
I never believed that, since I woke up on the morning of 9/11/01.
If I could prove what really happened, I would probably be killed.
The sequence of frames I posted above, are ones I made from a good version of the Fairbanks video.
I am breaking it down to individual frames.
Everything seems pretty normal except for the part where the plane is seen.
I do not think it is a fake video.
So, I have to think the plane itself has to be fake.
How it was done is obviously secret.
No one is ever going to tell us they did it.
Not unless we vote out every Republican and Democrat in elected office in the US.
That is not going to happen, so you can feel safe in knowing that the truth is not going to be coming out soon.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
There is a report from a national magazine that is quoted numerous times, on the internet, about military application of holograms.
It says that around '94, it became a black op.

Could you post that source?


So, we do not know exactly what they came up with.

Actually, we don't need to know. All we do need to know for sure is that lasers do not project darkness, only light. When you see a picture showing the plane and see dark area's against the bright sky, lasers cannot do this.


Here is some additional information about holographic technology for military use
www.defensetech.org...


study carried by Dr David Watt on Holograms As Nonlethal Weapons for NTIC, the Nonlethal Technology Innovations Center in New Hampshire.



This is a serious look at the technical possibilities for holograms. It’s a far cry from blue sky fantasies like the Air Force 2025 Airborne Holographic Projector which ”displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator” or the even more wildly optimistic “Hologram, Death: Hologram used to scare a target individual to death.”



Real holograms will not fool people at short range and they do not move, nor can they be ‘projected’ into a remote location. But they might still have their uses.



The human eye is difficult to fool, notes Dr Watt, but infra-red sensors are much less sophisticated – there is no need for the same level of colour fidelity. An infra-red hologram of a vehicle could make a very convincing decoy. Automated systems (such as missile guidance) with no humans to spot the flaws should be particularly easy to fool. However, as Watt points out the technology does not yet exist to create infra-red holograms.



Watt’s conclusion is “Fascinating, but…” –- there are just too many limitations at present. Size limits and material restrictions are a real problem


Once again, keep in mind that no matter how top secret the program is, lasers do not produce dark light so the dark you see in the photos and videos cannot have come from a hologram-PERIOD.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I'm amazed that the Hologram theory has even survived for this discussion. It's absolutely ridiculous. The Hologram theory asks us to accept the creation of an extremely advanced and astronomically expensive technology, designed specifically for the purpose of fooling us into believing we were seeing familiar objects.

Or, for a tiny fraction of the effort and expenditure, just use familiar objects.

As mentioned earlier, the simplest explanation is generally the correct explanation -- that planes freshly loaded with jet fuel were highjacked and driven into the buildings. The buildings already existed, the planes already existed, the highjackers already existed... all that was necessary to bring all of these elements together was motive and action.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I think my hypothetical scenario has a better chance for success than yours.
I guess if you want to believe what Bush says, at all costs, then you would have no reason to think there was any visual deception going on that day.
No good reason to stretch your imagination very much in order to find an alternative solution to some of the problems involved in trying to figure out 9/11.
No need to argue against crazy conspiracy theorists.
There are some ideas out there that I think are ridiculous, coming from the CT's, but I have a fundamental agreement with them, that it was not done by hijackers.
So, we will never fully agree because you are of the belief that there is this angry Muslim army who wants to kill us all.
If that is so, I would rather take my chances with possibly being killed by a terrorist, than to live in a police state.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I'm amazed that the Hologram theory has even survived for this discussion. It's absolutely ridiculous.


No, what's so amazing is that so many -- practically everyone -- still believes real planes crashed on 9-11.

When there was nothing, absolutely nothing found on the ground to support the physical presence of actual aircraft.
All we have is intangibles -- 'eyewitness' testimony and really, really crappy video. In everyday life, this would never 'fly'. If you told a cop (police officer) you saw something, the first thing he/she would say is SHOW ME. As in show me where you saw whatever happen. And if at that location nothing were to be found, well, then what? It would be the end of the discussion, that's what!!

But for 9-11 these 'normal' rules don't apply. Everyone keeps defaulting back to the official idiocy of hijacked jetliners. Maybe it's the same majority who keeps fighting the development of public transportation in this country (and crybabies about high gas prices). Yeah, people get the government they deserve alright, in this sense we are indeed the truest of democracies.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
you shouldnt get confused about detais of details first.

1. a hologram ´theory´makes sense. just think of a plane scenario, IF
THEY MISSED THE TOWERS. unthinkable.
it was a ´sure´ job
2. hologram tech is MUCH MORE ADVANCED THAN ANYONE KNOWS
3. events with holograms (disappearing planes etc) were witnessed before



[edit on 12-6-2008 by anti72]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I'm amazed that the Hologram theory has even survived for this discussion. It's absolutely ridiculous.


No, what's so amazing is that so many -- practically everyone -- still believes real planes crashed on 9-11.

Those are called rational people.

The hologram IDEA is simply NOT POSSIBLE. How anyone can still believe it is after all the evidence against it, is beyond me.


When there was nothing, absolutely nothing found on the ground to support the physical presence of actual aircraft.

Except aircraft WRECKAGE.

Lets break it down very simply.
Can you turn on your flashlight on in the middle of the day and use it? NO
Where are holograms always projected? Darkened locations.

When you see a so called holographic display, it's always projected in a darkened area because lasers ONLY emit light. When you see dark outlines within the holographic projection, that darkness comes from the surrounding environment and NOT from the lasers.
An analogy on a very basic level is: Ink jet printers typically have 1 or a set of color cartridges and a Black cartridge. Put a black piece of paper into your printer feed and try to print white text....Well you can't. Printers use the lack of ink to make white text just like holograms use the lack of light to create darkness for shadow, outlines, etc...

We've seen decent photos and video that show enough detail to prove holograms were not involved.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
you shouldnt get confused about detais of details first.

1. a hologram ´theory´makes sense. just think of a plane scenario, IF
THEY MISSED THE TOWERS. unthinkable.
it was a ´sure´ job
2. hologram tech is MUCH MORE ADVANCED THAN ANYONE KNOWS
3. events with holograms (disappearing planes etc) were witnessed before



[edit on 12-6-2008 by anti72]



Please read my last few quotes and you'll realize that the hologram theory is BUNK. Sorry but it's simply not a possibility. You can't stamp "top secret" on something and make all principles of optics and physics stop.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Here are some cropped-down frames from the same video that I captured the flattened-out plane from.









As the plane passes the South-West corner of tower two, it blocks off light coming into the South facing windows and it creates a dark spot that shows up on the North wall.
I am posting this to show that I think there was a plane.
So, I am not trying to say there was a remote projector making an image in the air, while there was not anything there.
What I am trying to say is, there was a plane, but it was using a cloaking device (by holographic means) attached to it.
The object of doing this is to not make a plane appear, where there is none.
The object is to make a highly maneuverable and controllable military plane look like an ordinary commercial passenger airliner.
The military's ability to do something like this would necessarily have to be a closely guarded secret because that ability would be worthless if it was known, to the enemy.
In this instance, we are the enemy.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


´´You can't stamp "top secret" on something and make all principles of optics and physics stop.´´

right. and because of that, Judy Wood raises good questions about some of the main physical phenomenons of 911.

we dont have to´discuss´here the possibilities of a direct energy weapon.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join