Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

The real jets by remote control being "easier"- etc argument is absurd. Get yourself a copy of "CNN Remembers" or "Why the towers fell"(PBS) or download(takes a long time but i have downloaded every archived full resolution video of the event I can find) the "LIVE" videos. NO PLANES- No wreckage- no impact- no luggage flying, fuel splattering-NOTHING. Nothing but the image of a plane disapearing into a building like sliding a photo of an airplane behind a photo of a building. The videos are FAKE. I have some theories on how it might have been done,as I just posted, but I think HOW it was done is not as important as the fact that 19 jerks from Saudi Arabia did not fly jets into the buildings. FAKE VIDEOS FOLKS. I explained it to a friend of mine who "demanded" that I know exactly how the scam was pulled otherwise the official story had to be true this way : A man and his young son are at a magic show. The magician gets his pretty female assistant to get in a box on a gurney and spins it around- showing her pretty little toes wiggling out the end of it. The magician then pulls out a big handsaw saying "I will now slice her clean in half.... BEHOLD!" The young son exclaims" Oh my god daddy- stop him!!! He is going to saw that pretty lady in HALF!! " The father calms his son- saying "everything will be ok son- dont you worry" The magician then saws the box-woman and all- in half- spins the gurney around to show the crowd her smiling face in one box- and her toes wiggling in the other. He then of course proceeds to put the two halves back together and the assitant pops out of the box unharmed. Was it necessary for the father to know how the fake box with the wiggling toes was made to know that the magician did not saw a woman in half and then reconnect her? NO! It is common sense!!! What the magician(Illusionist) showed the audience wasnt possible- so therefore there was no need to be concerned for the pretty lady at all.The exact same is true for 9/11 Illusion. The fact that what we were shown "live" is simply not possible is truly what matters- not every detail of how the illusion was performed. If you truly want to spend time trying to find out exactly how the hoax was pulled off- thats fine. But in the meantime , while you are debating holograms and such, they are most certainly preparing the next hoax. If your motive is to awaken people to what happened to try and thwart the next attack, my suggestion is to focus on pointing out to as many people as you can that the "official CT" is completley absurd and physically provable as false!

Originally posted by jfj123

So then you have no idea if a medium was used or not. YES or NO?
[edit on 24-1-2008 by jfj123]

Are you asking if they were hermetically sealed self-projecting holograms? If so, again, I have no idea. I was not there to ask.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Laser beams are beams of light. Do you understand how colors are naturally or unnaturally refracted and reflected out from light beams?

If not, you can learn something about colored laser beams at this website:

Dude.. I build lasers for fun or profit! If you don't believe me, you can buy one from me.. Any colour you choose. But i must warn you, they are expensive, due to custom build. Or maybe i can make a picture of myself holding a laser, shining it's beam over a newspaper with todays date and anther photo of it's insides?

But unlike you seem to believe, there is NO WAY to change it's colour.

The colour (or wavelength) is determined when a laser is built!

Lasers emit only one colour of light - they are monochromatic.


There are some green lasers that use an IR laser first, which then powers a green laser. But to explain how this is done would take a thread of it's own..


Well, there is one way to change the wavelength of a laser beam..

But you need a space craft, travelling very fast (a few percent of the speed of light would be usefull). This would change the wavelength due to doppler effect.

[edit on 24/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars

 

I think he/she find's it frustrating because you are the only one that can't see through it. I am concerned for your eye sight. Please make an appointment ASAP.

When I want your snide advice, I will ask for it. Are we clear on that?

No we're not clear. It was not snide advice. I'm being very serious. As far as I know, everyone can see through the holograms except you. That indicates you may have a problem with your eye sight. Seriously it's not something to screw around with. One of my friends lost one of his eyes because he waiting too long to go into the doctor and his only initial symptom was poor eye sight. So I take something like that very serious.

On a side note, are you ever planning on answering my questions?

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

So then you have no idea if a medium was used or not. YES or NO?
[edit on 24-1-2008 by jfj123]

Are you asking if they were hermetically sealed self-projecting holograms? If so, again, I have no idea. I was not there to ask.

No, I'm asking what the medium the hologram was projected on to. You see, all holograms require a medium for projection. Think of it as a movie screen but 3-D. This is one huge problem with projecting a hologram into the air such as what has been described on 9/11. There is no medium and there needs to be.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Question

 

FYI,
I can see right through the freakin things !!!! Good post !!!!

How many is that on your side stating they can see through the "freakin' things"? Now let us consider this. You and the other poster are on the oppostion side, and want to win your points argument. Apparently, none of your side cares what has to be done to do that.

Why should anyone else take at face value what you say you can see, compared to what anyone else states he, she, or they state cannot be seen?

Look at the rude way you and your side approached it. I have no incentive to see what I did not see. All the rudeness you, or anyone else can muster, is not going to change that.

reply to post by OrionStars


Lets make this very fair for you. Let's simply take a vote to see who see's what ok?

I can see through the holograms. So that's 1.

Would everyone please review the 2 pictures and honestly tell us whether they can see through the holograms or not???? I would greatly appreciate it.

reply to post by OrionStars


Regarding your other statement, I don't have a side. I am simply posting factual information and request everyone else, regardless of point of view, do the same.

reply to post by jfj123


In the one video, it was a residential living room chair which showed no transparency though the hologram, and lights were on. They reflected off the furniture in the room. It looked to be any well-lit living room on any night.

At the trade show, at least two different animated holograms were suspended in mid-air inside a round openly visual container. The holograms could be seen from all sides by viewers.

As for the logo and "mouse" costume, I did try to see the background colors of other objects. They did not "bleed" through the holograms at any point.

At the trade show, what they used could have been projected upward from the bottom of the cylinder below them. At the home, it could have been directly aimed at the chair. There was no way of knowing because it was not shown or explained.

Did you view the videos at the link? If so, did you see any medium shown or explained?

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
The real jets by remote control being "easier"- etc argument is absurd.

Yes, it's very absurd indeed.

Tell me.. How could the use of holograms be better for pulling off such a conspiracy, as opposed to the use of a remote controlled jet?

I mentioned the reasons why it would be better to do it by remote control of a "drone" aircraft. What are your reasons for believing holograms would be easyer and more effective?

If such a technology existed, it would still present many problems and would be MUCH less convincing and effective in general. Not to mention the cost involved.

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Get yourself a copy of "CNN Remembers" or "Why the towers fell"(PBS) or download(takes a long time but i have downloaded every archived full resolution video of the event I can find) the "LIVE" videos. NO PLANES- No wreckage- no impact- no luggage flying, fuel splattering-NOTHING.
Nothing but the image of a plane disapearing into a building like sliding a photo of an airplane behind a photo of a building. The videos are FAKE.

I watched ALL of those videos and more. I even talked to serious and well known researchers of the CGI theory.

Some of them believe the things that flew into the WTC were Global Hawks.

If it was true, this would be one reason for using CGI on the "live" footage.

Another reason i can come up with would be, that they used different planes - like a cargo plane, without windows (which was also mentioned), so CGI could have been used, to cover this up and make it appear as a passenger jet.

If the conspiracy was true and CGI was really used, holograms are the LEAST likely reason for it.

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
I have some theories on how it might have been done,as I just posted, but I think HOW it was done is not as important as the fact that 19 jerks from Saudi Arabia did not fly jets into the buildings. FAKE VIDEOS FOLKS.

I would much sooner accept fake videos than holograms.

I've even seen one video, where it seemed it really was a Global Hawk that hit the WTC. But i can't find it anymore.. If anyone knows where it is, i would be greatefull if you'd point me to it..

Another interesting thing i wanted to mention is, that if i post comments under 911 conspiracy videos on YT, they are immediatelly posted.
But if i use the words "Global Hawk" in the post, it's not posted and i get a notification, that my comment is "pending aprooval".
Then i tried writing "*lobal *awk" and again it was pending aprooval.
Then i tried writing "**obal *awk" and it was posted immediatelly again.

This was one of the weirdest things i experienced there..

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
my suggestion is to focus on pointing out to as many people as you can that the "official CT" is completley absurd and physically provable as false!

Then please make a thread pointing out all this verifiable physical evidence.
If it is true, i would like to know.

Thanks!

I didn't read the whole thread, just the OP. Sorry if I'm reposting this information. Please click on the link in my signature.

This one.

"When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing"

Originally posted by jfj123
I can see through the holograms. So that's 1.

Would everyone please review the 2 pictures and honestly tell us whether they can see through the holograms or not???? I would greatly appreciate it.

If you mean that picture of a mouse and some other objects in special enclosed containers, then yes, i could see through it as well.

In fact it is impossible not to in daylight.

Light can not block other light from passing through.

In slightly darker conditions, a laser beam can appear completelly solid, and doesn't allow you to see through it, but that's because there is not enough light to see it coming through.

That doesn't mean it's not coming through, just that our eyes adjust to the stronger light - laser beam, so we don't see the less illuminated objects behind it.

I can make some pictures demonstrating this if anyone is interested.

Need to charge one of my lasers batteries first tho...

[edit on 24/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Regarding your other statement, I don't have a side. I am simply posting factual information and request everyone else, regardless of point of view, do the same.

Why do people unrealistically keep saying that?

When people take opposing views, they always take sides by their own differing views. When others join in on one side or the other, that means two groups taking opposing sides. That is without fail. You have sided with the "official" reports as have others. That is your side. Our side is we oppose your sides' points of argument.

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by jfj123
I can see through the holograms. So that's 1.

Would everyone please review the 2 pictures and honestly tell us whether they can see through the holograms or not???? I would greatly appreciate it.

If you mean that picture of a mouse and some other objects in special enclosed containers, then yes, i could see through it as well.

You are on the opposing view side. Your response comes as no surprise. That is not going to change what I saw as opposed to what you state you saw. I could care less who states it was seen the way you saw it. I did not. I do not follow opinion simply because it is easier than opposing it. I never have.

reply to post by OrionStars


I am looking at the mouse video. It is indeed semi-transparent. Actually at certain points the head fades out almost completely. I'm not sure of the medium or projector type. Also, you'll notice at the end the mouse slowly goes from semi-transparent to completely gone.

In the second video, the rotating globe is also semi-transparent.

The other 3 videos are also semi-transparent.

Thats all I get out of the videos. Sorry.

Originally posted by Spoodily
I didn't read the whole thread, just the OP. Sorry if I'm reposting this information. Please click on the link in my signature.

This one.

"When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing"

Excellent article. Thank you for posting it. As I have stated before sometime somewhere in time, what appears to be reality can actually be nothing but mere illusion. It always beneficially pays to question what appears illogical. Normally, it is.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123
Regarding your other statement, I don't have a side. I am simply posting factual information and request everyone else, regardless of point of view, do the same.

Why do people unrealistically keep saying that?

I know jfj123 well enough by now, that i know what he is saying is true.

He is more than willing to accept the theories you propose, as long as you can provide some evidence.

Besides, when two people are discussing something using logic and facts, they will inevitably come to the same conclusion in the end, regardless of which one of them was right in the beggining.

If you just want to believe something, then the above is impossible. But if you want to know and learn, you have to accept all possibilities, analyze the data available and come to a conclusion based on verifyable facts and accept the most probable of the possibilities as the most likely explanation, wheather you like it or not.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by jfj123
I can see through the holograms. So that's 1.

Would everyone please review the 2 pictures and honestly tell us whether they can see through the holograms or not???? I would greatly appreciate it.

If you mean that picture of a mouse and some other objects in special enclosed containers, then yes, i could see through it as well.

You are on the opposing view side. Your response comes as no surprise. That is not going to change what I saw as opposed to what you state you saw. I could care less who states it was seen the way you saw it. I did not. I do not follow opinion simply because it is easier than opposing it. I never have.

Look I'm trying to be fair here. I don't know what anyone is going to say regarding the videos or pictures, I do know that I can easily see through them and it's not because I want to win an argument, it's because it's the truth. Again, I don't have a side.

Originally posted by OrionStars
You are on the opposing view side. Your response comes as no surprise.

Jesus, you're quick at labeling people.. You don't even know me or what i believe.

I just mentioned what i saw and it was my response to jfj123

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is not going to change what I saw as opposed to what you state you saw. I could care less who states it was seen the way you saw it. I did not. I do not follow opinion simply because it is easier than opposing it. I never have.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I'm just interested in facts. If such advanced holography technology exists, i would LOVE to know and learn about it.

Besides, all i did was propose an experiment, if light can or can not block other light from coming through.

I have lasers here sitting on the table next to me. One of them is charging.

If you're interested in learning wheather or not light can pass through other light, i have the equipment required to test it.

Are you interested or not?


EDIT: Also, just like jfj123 said, i'm not taking a side, i'm just interested in discussing the facts.

Are you interesed in facts or only in people agreeing with you?

[edit on 24/1/08 by deezee]

Good post Spoodilly- I was going to mention that very article myself- but couldnt remember where it was from. The fact that the Joint Cheifs were discussing using Holo projection in an actual combat situation- while discussing war preperations for the first Iraqi War- indicates to me that they did indeed have the technology available. Can you imagine anybody in a meeting of that level proposing something that wasnt possible? Hilarious. "and yes sir General Warzenkillzalot- I would like to suggest that all of this talk of tank and troop deployment is not necessary. My proposal is that we spray a can of "Iraqi-B-Gone" on them so we can get back to more serious matters like golf"