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.

 

Hollogram theory revised.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Ok, I had read a lot of the arguments regarding the validity/possibility of the planes in 9/11 being nothing more than hollograms in the following thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The arguments supporting the hollogram theory are preposterous to be honest, not just due to the "timing" that controlled explosions would need in order to make an airplane impression on contact, but also because what seems to be a misunderstanding of how hollograms actually work. Please observe the following video from the MTV music awards featuring Madonna and the hollographic images of the "Gorillaz"


www.youtube.com...

Some of the things that have to be noted.
1) Hollographic images are not the solid pictures we seem to think they are, they are a 3dimensional image projected via light. Quality of a hollographic image dissipates and weakens the farther the image is from the light source. Hence why the equipment for these images (which is actually hidden by the choreographers on the bottom of the podium so that it "looks real") needs to be nearby.

If we are to believe the assumptions that the planes in 9/11 are "hollograms" we are then assuming that this hollographic image is being projected by miles away. The problem with this theory though, is that the plane is not show from a dissipated state (transparent) to a "solid" state as it gets closer to its light source. The "images" of the planes remain solid through out the whole video. What I'm simply saying is, we should've been able to see the plane from a semi-transparent phase, to a "solid image" phase as it got closer to the building (it's "light source")

2) watch the video again, what is it that is different between the segments with the Gorillaz and the segment where it's just madonna and her dancers at the end? Light! That's right, during the segment with the gorillaz, they have a completely dark background. Why? because if there was light you would obvisouly be able to see right through these images, but if it's completely dark except for the images, the darkness ends up serving the purpose of high lighting the "shadows"

Now before anyone critiques on the use of red light during the segment with the rappers and hence make the argument that "they still look solid". I want you to take a very close look at the hollographic image of the drummer on top. The drums are covered in a glow of red light, and you can actually see the glow THROUGH the hollographic image of the drummer.

Now think about it for a moment, this was in a very controlled environment where MTV tried their darndest to portray these hollographic images as real as possible, that's why they went through such lenghts to make it dark for them to look incredibly solid. Now take a look at the way the day was in 9/11, it was day light and it was very darn bright! there is no way those planes could've been hollographic images and look so incredibly solid during day light. Add to this point #1, dissipation from the light source and you'll see a clearer picture of what it is I mean.

3) The equipment, the equipment needed to create hollographic images is BIG, it is HUGE! it simply is not something that could easily be ignored, in this video alone they needed a hole group of at least what.... 30-50 choreographers to hide the equipment from the public and make it seem like the images are real. I simply cannot see how this equipment could've been put into the towers without anyone seeing it or asking questions. Add to that the fact that someone within the govt. had to be there controlling the equipment before the explosions, and I doubt any govt. criminals would literally put themselves in the middle of the explosion just to insure the video of the plane keeps rolling.

I'm sorry Mr. Lear, but your theory simply does not hold water

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Question]




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


No response from the supporters of this theory? does that mean that we can finally bury this theory to rest? he he



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by Question



I'm sorry Mr. Lear, but your theory simply does not hold water


That quite all right Question. You don't need to apologize to me.

Thanks you for your very thorough and detailed report on current day holographic projections. It is very appreciated.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by Question
 
Does that mean that we can finally bury this theory to rest? he he


Bury? Not until all the evidence is reviewed. But that doesn't mean we can't argue against it.

I don't think they were holograms as defined in the dictionary. As your and my research would suggest, broad daylight holograms that appear solid defies the definition.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join