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.

 

ua 175 FLY-BY = optical template for hologram

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Hello everyone,

my first post since a while...
I had problems, had to work as a barmaid, no time for discussions about 911 issues, but of course I am still nosy HOW 911 WAS DONE.

Just to let yous know, my latest refinement (of the only possible way it could have been done) ...

Real Flight 175 was an optical template for a real-time dynamic hologram u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com... ...

executive summary:


  • cameras DID record jetliners (albeit shiny, luminous, amputee wings, distorted)
  • There was no serial-numbered jet debris, witnesses hear missile, no 767 roar


if perps really wanted to get away with such a huge crime, they needed to use

  • very secret weapons
    ("cannot be disclosed EVER = national security = blackmails even good people)
  • very high-tech weapons (near magic - people would not believe their eyes)
  • remote-action weapons (can't have too many people peeping)


boys, get used to hologrammes and beams. Otherwise you have a magnitude problem, i.e.
too much explosives, too much debris, too many people know too much.




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
"cameras DID record jetliners (albeit shiny, luminous, amputee wings, distorted) "

This is only true of the compressed footage. I know the footage you speak of. Try and find higher resolution versions, they don't distort. Low resolution digital footage will always be distorted in this manner.

"(of the only possible way it could have been done) ...

Real Flight 175 was an optical template for a real-time dynamic hologram"

Rubbish. Why is it "the only way it could have been done"? Much, much simpler to use real planes.

"too much explosives, too much debris, too many people know too much."

Again, rubbish. Did you see ground zero? Who is going to give a damn about debris with that huge mess. Anyhow it was all hauled off as scrap.

The hologram theory is garbage.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Holograms don't work on people who are actually stood there watching it.

TV, perhaps, but not in RL, so it's bogus.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Notice everytime debunkers get owned in these forums these holograms threads come out?

Just recently no one was able to prove a plane crashed in shanksville so these debunkers dissapear and pseudo skeptic theories pop up.


old.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
"cameras DID record jetliners (albeit shiny, luminous, amputee wings, distorted) "

This is only true of the compressed footage. I know the footage you speak of. Try and find higher resolution versions, they don't distort. Low resolution digital footage will always be distorted in this manner.


compression does not amputate wings, does not distort shapes that radically.

Have you seen the Luc Courchesne video?

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

scroll down to image No# 43, 50 etc.

Compression does not shift large groups of pixels in a trapezoid manner

However holography does:

"in that the 3-D scene appears distorted if viewed from locations other than those the scene was generated for."

Be my guest to rubbish the hologramme evidence, but you really need to bring up substantial arguments.

Reality is that which doesn't go away when you don't believe in it!

Just because you deem the technology impossible, or yous deem my research to be defamatory it doesn't mean that the facts are addressed.

The *F*A*C*T*S* speak for themselves. I am amazed that the wholly improbable images of ua175 crashing into the south tower are taken to be real BY ANYONE WHO HAS SEEN THEM.

There really is only a few ways out of the dilemma:

ignorance --- I SHALL DENY IT

tv-fakery --- a multitude of images show the same amputee wings? and what about eye-witnesses that saw -- a weird looking, but -- a plane?????
ELIMINATED, IMPOSSIBLE


real planes -- As Marcus Icke has proven a long time ago, there is NOT ONE picture that shows a real plane. EVERY image is wrong.
I even went to the trouble of testing the assumption that the camera of carmen taylor and hezarkhani was virtual, because no real-world location for the viewing angle could be found. It turned out both were on a boat and had a perfect view, but the images they recorded are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ... just say butterplane!
ELIMINATED, IMPOSSIBLE

I grant yous this:

The simple truth is so simple that the mind is repelled.


When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -Sherlock Holmes

Therefore:

If ONLY A SINGLE ONE of the recorded pictures, or a SINGLE EYE WITNESS statement is true that a large passenger jet was recorded/seen

*A*N*D*

at the same time, this large passenger jet did physically impossible things like butter-plane, amputee wings, shape-shifting, or disappeared (chopper 4)

the ONLY conclusion is that there, in the air, on that day, there was an apparition. Today these apparitions are called hologrammes, but feel free to call it what you want.


Originally posted by mrwiffler
"(of the only possible way it could have been done) ...

Real Flight 175 was an optical template for a real-time dynamic hologram"

Rubbish. Why is it "the only way it could have been done"? Much, much simpler to use real planes.


I am not talking about the way it could have been done in our minds, I mean the ONLY WAY IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE. Got that?


Originally posted by mrwiffler
"too much explosives, too much debris, too many people know too much."

Again, rubbish. Did you see ground zero? Who is going to give a damn about debris with that huge mess. Anyhow it was all hauled off as scrap.


Interesting theory. You mean the fact that there was a huge problem for any thinking person, for every eye-witness doesn't matter. Interesting. What do you base your assumption on?

Non-disclosure signatures?
Prozac?


Originally posted by mrwiffler
The hologram theory is garbage.


Thanks for this well-reasoned statement.


[/quote

[edit on 22-7-2008 by u2r2h]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Holograms don't work on people who are actually stood there watching it.

TV, perhaps, but not in RL, so it's bogus.


RL=real life?

I don't understand.

Normally a TV camera can only record the same photons that the eye can see.

wouldn't you agree?

Also, eye-witness testimony is very clear:

"I saw no plane, just an explosion."

"I have never seen a plane like that"

"I saw a missile"

Depending on your viewing angle the hologramme looked more or less (or not at all) like a 767. That's a fact with the technology.

It is what I called the

variable visibility hologram theory

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...


It is often claimed that volumetric displays are incapable of reconstructing scenes with viewer-position-dependent effects, such as occlusion and opacity. This is a misconception; a display whose voxels have non-isotropic radiation profiles are indeed able to depict position-dependent effects.

scroll down:

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Notice everytime debunkers get owned in these forums these holograms threads come out?


I am not happy with the gist of your post. I think it contravenes the motto of this BBS


DENY IGNORANCE


If you are implying that I chose the timing of my posting because of something that happened on this BBS, you are mistaken.


Originally posted by IvanZana
Just recently no one was able to prove a plane crashed in shanksville so these debunkers dissapear and pseudo skeptic theories pop up.


old.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by IvanZana]


what is old?


I am wholly independent of anyone. I don't despair over the stupidity of others. I suggest you do the same and refrain from paranoia and start discussing the facts.

For my part, I see the PLANES vs TOWERS as the central illusion and particulary easy to unravel once you know the techology that was employed.

Regarding the demolition of the towers, IMHO the explanation of Dr Judy Wood fits best.

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -Sherlock Holmes.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I had an old camcorder until recently, and if you zoomed at al or moved it quickly it would distort the image as much if not more than most 9/11 videos.

Especially anything recorded with an earlier phone camera would distort.


The images can and will distort that much.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by umbr45
I had an old camcorder until recently, and if you zoomed at al or moved it quickly it would distort the image as much if not more than most 9/11 videos.


What do you mean with "most 9/11 videos"?

Technically image distortion should be non-random.

If a wing of the airplane disappears... ON TWO DIFFERENT VIDEOS.

What would you ascribe this to?



Especially anything recorded with an earlier phone camera would distort.


The images can and will distort that much.



To me your argument sounds like:


My grandfather used to have a clock that was always wrong.
All clocks everywhere are wrong.


What makes you speak of a "phone camera"?


Did you investigate the videos at all?

please check again
u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Here are two examples of exactly the sort of distortion that appears on the video you think is of a hologram:





posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
You are not serious.

The distortions we are talking about are not to do with jpeg compressino blocks:

- the whole aeroplane
- the wrong angle of the wings


u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...
scroll down to image No# 43, 50 etc.

please explain the THE NOSE OUT with video compression...

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

I am sorry. But this is not a serious discussion here.

The only replies I get are from people who have not reviewed the evidence and in any case are not at all troubled.

My central argument, -- again, so EVERYONE is clear about it -- is:


a) that physically impossible IMAGES of airliners (Nose-out +++ Butterplane +++ airplane distorted shape +++ amputee wings)

and

b) people and cameras IN NEW YORK saw them, i.e. one or more of the images were not TV-fakery

equals

c) holograms.

Please review the evidence




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
There were no widespread witness statements of people seeing a missile. There WERE witnesses that saw a variety of things.

This fact is nicely supporting the VVHT = Variable Visibility Hologram Theory. EVERYONE SAW SOMETHING... weird/different.



I am still trying to get people to understand how simple logic is inescapable.

Real people saw "something like a 767"
At least one real cameras filmed "something like a 767"

PLUS

There were no 767s.

EQUALS

Hologrammes





Many people were viewing the approach or impact from an angle where the hologram transmits an imperfect image.. sure, some people saw "something weird, like a missile". Some people even HEARD a missile.

Some photos and films are faked.

BUT THE PERPS COULD NEVER HAVE RISKED FOOTAGE THAT SHOWED A MISSILE. The missile NECESSARILY had to be cloaked.

But it wasn't perfect. The BLACK-PLANE and the DISTORTED WING SHAPES and the GLOWING HEZARKHANI PLANE the NOSE-OUT FROM at least 3 angles... my goddess! How revealing!

So what. AS WE SAW the last 7 years... the cloaking DID THE TRICK.

Is nobody watching??? Doesn't a single TV station dare to question the footage?

Is is HERESY to question the official theory?

Of course it is. Of course the media is embedded. Of course people will not WANT to believe their military would kill thousands of civilians in the middle of New York.

EVERYONE WILL RATHER BELIEVE the hologramme-apparitions were real.

Please read further down ... someone has described the limits of the technology. It is all to do with optics. Hence my theory that a missile was the "screen carrier". The PERFECTLY CLEAR DAY was IMHO a prerequisite for the successful employment of the hologramm technology.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Having watched and read material on this possibilty before, I dismissed it as wild fantasy or even disinfo.

Thanks to numerous videos posted since my opinion is starting to change. Im leaning towards this possibility as an explanation the more I look into it. Disappearing and magically appearing planes needs an explanation, and none Ive seen so far explain this anomaly except the hologram theory.

Also, considering the population of Manhattan on any given day Im amazed at how few people there are that actually saw a plane. That is, witnesses who are not affiliated with the mainstream media. Then theres those that saw 'something' but insist it wasnt a plane or was a military plane. And those that saw a plane but heard no sound?

Much of the video footage of the 'planes' came out the following day, is that right?

Something fishy happened on that day and it wasnt just the way the towers fell.



[edit on 1-8-2008 by Nonchalant]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Having watched and read material on this possibilty before, I dismissed it as wild fantasy or even disinfo.

Thanks to numerous videos posted since my opinion is starting to change. Im leaning towards this possibility as an explanation the more I look into it.

Sherlock Holmes said something like this: "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must have taken place."

Couple these videos with a distinct lack of positively identified airplane wreckage and you really have to wonder.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by u2r2h
 


CIT manufactures failed ideas, proven wrong on 9/11! How is that for debunking, Sean debunks CIT from 9/11! As do hundreds of people. The people who saw 9/11 unfold in person debunk CIT, I am just presenting them. Many people saw 77 hit the Pentagon and many saw 77 hit the lamppost CIT implies or say outright were planted, pure fantasy.

Your ideas were proven to be useless/false over 6 years ago. But you ignore reality and come up with an idea, and it is true fantasy.

People with working eyes saw 175 hit in full resolution, real time, no video tape needed. When you come up with a hologram that packs the punch of 2093 pound of TNT when it hits a building at 590 mph, and carries 66,000 pounds of fuel, be sure to mention it.

Holograms and claims of no planes are pure imaginary and are nut case ideas. It is so simple to prove wrong with just one witness from 9/11; we have thousands.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by umbr45
 



Distortion does not have wings that "blink on and off" this is a aerodynamic extreme that would have caused the "plane" to "crash"

Distortions cannot change the principles of flight....no wing no flight....



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Distortion could indeed make things dissapear,I could use that camera to try and record a plane in the sky and the whole thing would dissapear.

With the plane closer the whole plane would not, but it would be possible for part of the plane to 'dissapear'.

Also, have you ever looked directly up at a plane far in the distance, sometimes the sun can even trick your eye into only seeing one wing, yet you know there are two.

Physical planes hit the towers. FOr all who say holograms please ask the people who were inside the towers and saw the plane coming, and hitting.


I did not watch the videos, no, I saw them all on the day. And for days afterwards, i know the missing wing videos, they are nothing more than a distorted camera. I mentioned phone cameras by the way as they are even more prone to distortion, I am not saying these videos were taken with phone cameras.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
UMBR45.....

If you have video equipment and or Camera equipment that makes things dissapear on planes or albiet anything else, I suggest you take it back for a REFUND, IMMEDIATELY!!!!!


I have been involved with photography for quite sometime and NIKON F4 would NEVER EVER IN THE END OF WORLD make wings of aircraft dissappear!!!!

To claim such an statement is beyond my limits of understanding.

The lens allows the visable light to enter the appeture and strike the emulsion layer of the film, it cannot will not ever change the image, only the light entering the SAID appeture....making wings disappear my god, what??????

Its physics and WELL understood...

Sorry your statement is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by theability]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Look at a plane in the direction of the sun at the right angle and yes, a wing can dissapear to the naked eye due to the light reflecting off of the wing.

Using an old camcorder you can achieve the same sort of effects, the resolution is not always high enough to pic up objects and so a plane that would appear about 1 milimeter long can well dissapear completely. When swinging the camera about to follow a fast moving object images can blur and distort so much that they become near invisible.

It is not faulty equipment, it was the limit of technology on old equipment.

I did not see anywhere the Nikon F4 mentioned, if it was however and I missed it then I can only take your word. I speak of Sony cameras of different ranges. I stand by what I said.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join