Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

reply to post by jfj123


i cant help but agree, discussing the technology that COULD create such a hologram is all fine and well however you simply appear to be stating it is possible without providing adequate links/info to how it would be done.
Any post entertaining the idea should be backed up with some evidence surrounding how it would be achieved

Originally posted by Retikx
The medium used on 9/11 was dispersed aerosol sprays from strategic positions around the wtc,

And dispersed aerosol would disperse in the air instantly due to high winds and updrafts which are very common with skyscrapers.

these are specially formulated sprays that are far lighter then air

And would thus disperse or be pushed by air even more quickly.

and they created an invisible dense cloud of aerosol vapor for which an image can be projected on.

Again the wind would prevent any dense cloud of lighter then air aerosols from remaining cohesive. Lighter then air means it would float up instantly (ie helium).

as for the projectors them selfs they could have been either ground based or air based (satellite/high altitude balloon) or a combo of both.

The projectors would need to be very close to the wtc's so the satellite or balloon thing is a no go.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by T.Smith

 

I did not intially claim anything except holography is very real has been used for many years.

I further stated this is a discussion of assessing the probablity and possibility of holography being used at any location on 9/11/2001.

I never claimed I was going to prove it one way or the other. If you or anyone else believes I did, then please link the source and cite my words to that effect.

OK let's approach it this way then.
Are there ANY posters who have ANY evidence to suggest that the technology exists to create the 9/11 planes?

"Do you have any proof of this any pictures of vehicles/buildings/people dispersing the aerosol, any eye witnesses etc."

No but wouldn't that make me the ultimate internet rock star?? I have no proof of this but i can assure you that this is how modern day holographs are done.

"Also how do you explain (as previously mentioned) sound was projected."

It has been definitively proven that the sounds that you have heard on many of the videos on 9/11 were fabricated for the purpose of furthering the official story. BUT it is not at all impossible to project very loud and very real sound far distances using advanced sound devices (like a hyper subwoofer) although i do not believe this to be the case.

"As for the aerosol clouds, any kind of high density cloud even with small particles would surely be visible, especially in a non controlled environment."

You would be wrong on the aspect of visibility, and you are also forgetting the large amount of smoke that was hanging in the air that day. Any aerosol that might be visible would pale in comparison with the visibility of the smoke from the buildings. And against the back drop of the sky it would be almost invisible,[hypothetical] imagine 100 people standing on a rooftop spraying air freshener into the sky, from the ground you would not see it against the sky.[hypothetical]



[edit on 23-1-2008 by Retikx]

And an aerosol dispersed on mass within a 10 block radius that was specifically designed for this purpose would do a good enough job to convince a few people at ground zero that they saw a plane. It would not have to be a crystal clear perfect holograph, just good enough to give the general outline of a plane. The planes you saw on "live tv" were nothing more then animations.





"The projectors would need to be very close to the wtc's so the satellite or balloon thing is a no go."

lol now you think you somehow have knowledge of classified holograph tech?? Before it was not possible... now it would have ONLY been possible if it were ground based? You dont know what your taking about thats pretty simple to see, so why would you now say this?

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Retikx]

reply to post by Retikx


When i ask for proof i dont mean a photo of a plane with giant cannister of holographic aerosol medium strapped to it, i simply mean whats your evidence for stating this.
if there was such a high density of smoke as to not to see these particles surely it would also be disrupting or interfering with any kind of projection.
Theres also as stated by jfj123 if the aerosol was lighter than air (your own words) it would simply rise upwards at such a rate as to be useless, with you stating its an aerosol aswell im guessing that would mean, as with most aerosols, itd be a little flammable. Could pose a problem next to a burning building

Originally posted by Retikx
No but wouldn't that make me the ultimate internet rock star?? I have no proof of this but i can assure you that this is how modern day holographs are done.

If you know this, you must have seen evidence. Please post it.

It has been definitively proven that the sounds that you have heard on many of the videos on 9/11 were fabricated

Please post the evidence PROVING it.

You would be wrong on the aspect of visibility, and you are also forgetting the large amount of smoke that was hanging in the air that day. Any aerosol that might be visible would pale in comparison with the visibility of the smoke from the buildings.

The problem is that the planes were visible before the smoke existed.

And against the back drop of the sky it would be almost invisible,[hypothetical] imagine 100 people standing on a rooftop spraying air freshener into the sky, from the ground you would not see it against the sky.

And then it would instantly disperse from wind. Plus how did they spray aerosol all over the place when the visible planes were no where near the building?

reply to post by Retikx

lol now you think you somehow have knowledge of classified holograph tech??

I'm familiar with the physical limitations of optics and lasers. And obviously by your statements, you are not

Before it was not possible... now it would have ONLY been possible if it were ground based?

It's still not possible but the additional reason is a distance restriction. Obviously you're not familiar with laser technology or you would know that.

You dont know what your taking about thats pretty simple to see, so why would you now say this?

Then tell me how it's possible to overcome the distance factor regarding the laser holograms? If you really know ANYTHING about lasers and holograms, you should be able to answer this question.



[edit on 23-1-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


The magician who made people believe there was an actual "treasure room" toward the end of "National Treasure".

The magician who made Patrick Swayze appear to jump through a door in "Ghost".

More on holography:

www.holophile.com...

reply to post by jfj123


That is correct. But not for the reason you persist in promoting, which was never my intent. Even after two clear explanations, you still relentlessly promote what was not my intent nor has it been.

It was never my intent to prove holography was used on 9/11/2001. It was my intent to state it was available to use on 9/11/2001. What about that can't you comprehend?

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

The magician who made people believe there was an actual "treasure room" toward the end of "National Treasure".

The magician who made Patrick Swayze appear to jump through a door in "Ghost".

More on holography:

www.holophile.com...

You posted another link about holograms. It is not relevant to this discussion.

reply to post by jfj123


Holograms are not relevant to this discussion? The topic is entitled "Is holography currently available for use and misuse?"

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

That is correct. But not for the reason you persist in promoting, which was never my intent. Even after two clear explanations, you still relentlessly promote what was not my intent nor has it been.

It was never my intent to prove holography was used on 9/11/2001. It was my intent to state it was available to use on 9/11/2001. What about that can't you comprehend?

Here's what I posted before.

OK let's approach it this way then.
Are there ANY posters who have ANY evidence to suggest that the technology exists to create the 9/11 planes?

So this is the 2nd time I have posted this. What is your answer to this?

reply to post by OrionStars


The link youve posted proves early pictures in one colour were used before our modern counter parts, however those were still images, it does not provide any information on how a moving fully detailed holograph could be produced under non controlled conditions.

On another note anything you see in films will be C.G.I
en.wikipedia.org...
why waste money and time creating a holograph when a computer can create a 3d image on film?

"When i ask for proof i dont mean a photo of a plane with giant cannister of holographic aerosol medium strapped to it, i simply mean whats your evidence for stating this."

My evidence is simply the fact that IF holographs were used on 9/11 the ONLY way to produce a medium for which a holograph can be projected onto in mid air is using specially designed aerosols.


"if there was such a high density of smoke as to not to see these particles surely it would also be disrupting or interfering with any kind of projection."

You are right, it would have interfered but as i stated above the holograph did not need to be at all perfect and crisp and clean. It only had to give the momentary illusion of a plane in order to give a few people a glimpse of what they would report as a plane. There was simply no need for the illusion to be 100% perfect because the people who saw the holograph all eventually saw the footage of the "plane" hitting the buildings and said to themselfs "yea thats what i saw" The perfect psyop.


"Theres also as stated by jfj123 if the aerosol was lighter than air (your own words) it would simply rise upwards at such a rate as to be useless, with you stating its an aerosol aswell im guessing that would mean, as with most aerosols, itd be a little flammable. Could pose a problem next to a burning building"

As i have said the aerosol was specifically designed to interact with the air in such a way that all it had to do was raise into the air slow enough for it to be useful in the projection. Heres the likely situation, a 10 block radius around the wtc is wired with aerosol canisters releasing a constant steam of spray a few mins before the initial "impact" and continuing to spray until after the second "impact" thus eliminating the spray dissipating from just one application the tanks were simply running continuously for 30+ mins dispersing spray is a constant large area around the wtc. And as for the flammability it is very possible to engineer a completely non flammable aerosol. Just so you know.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Holograms are not relevant to this discussion? The topic is entitled "Is holography currently available for use and misuse?"

Let me explain this as simply as I can.
You posted a link about holograms. Not really helpful as everyone else is actually putting their information on this thread as a COURTESY.

In any case,
that link, once again, does not indicate the possibility of holograms being used on 9/11. There is no mention of the required technology on this site either. Just basic info about how holograms work and it's history.

Please don't expect us to keep going to sites that neither prove nor disprove anything related to this discussion. Post relevant info on the thread and, if you like, cite your source links below.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Retikx

 

lol now you think you somehow have knowledge of classified holograph tech??

I'm familiar with the physical limitations of optics and lasers. And obviously by your statements, you are not

Before it was not possible... now it would have ONLY been possible if it were ground based?

It's still not possible but the additional reason is a distance restriction. Obviously you're not familiar with laser technology or you would know that.

You dont know what your taking about thats pretty simple to see, so why would you now say this?

Then tell me how it's possible to overcome the distance factor regarding the laser holograms? If you really know ANYTHING about lasers and holograms, you should be able to answer this question.



[edit on 23-1-2008 by jfj123]

Just didn't want you to miss these questions so I thought I'd repost them for your convenience.

Howdy,

Not that I subscribe to this particular theory as a whole.
But, a friend made an observation that sounds kinds like the discussion here.

He had noticed that a great deal of UFO's are seen with planes chasing them. His theory was that the following planes actually were creating the image.

One that disperses a high pressure stream of spray such as water, that when interacting with the cold air, created reflective ice like particles that would visibly appear to match the sky from a distance and the excess would appear as cloud cover.
Then another with a sort of broad projection device that uses the particles to reflect back the light causing the image to be visibly moving.

Leaves a lot of holes, but thought it was interesting nonetheless.

reply to post by jfj123




As ive already stated, there was absolutely no reason for the holographs to be perfect images, not even close to perfect images. Just good enough to give the general outlines and figure of a plane for a few seconds in order to convince a few people on the ground that they indeed saw a plane. Then when those people went home and saw the actual "armature footage" and news "footage" from (LOL) "live" feed they simply saw the plane animations and for any person who saw what appeared to be a plane (for a few seconds) hit the towers there would be no reason to doubt what they are seeing it real. The PERFECT psyop

So to answer your question it is not necessarily possible to OVERCOME the distance factor but it is possible to come close to overcoming it. Thus creating a shaky crappy illusion just good enough to fool a few people.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Retikx]

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Essedarius]