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.

 

Toronto Sky Anomalies - 9/11 holograms

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Now if anyone can post ANY evidence to suggest that those types of holograms are possible, that would be interesting. My guess is that all I'm going to hear is
Well the government is like 20 years ahead of us in tech and it's super, duper, ultra, top secret so we can only imagine what they have. This statement is known as a cop out.

Then someone will post info about the Helio Display or show a video of the British prime minister or the super model holographic display... All of which are not really holograms but a more advanced version of the Peppers Ghost trick.




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Now if anyone can post ANY evidence to suggest that those types of holograms are possible, that would be interesting.


As stated you need to check DARPA's budget to see some of thier programs.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

I'm sure that such things exist.

They do not.


Oh so you know that DARPA does not have one, right ?

Might want to look at DARPA's budget for some of its programs.


Actually I have. They're working on holographic radar and LIDAR, not to mention a few other programs. None of which would be capable of projecting a hi-definition, solid, reflective, interactive, hologram with audio doppler effects. Unless of course you can post something showing otherwise.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually I have.


Well you missed the lazer and hologram programs.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually I have.


Well you missed the lazer and hologram programs.



So I assume you know a lot about them?
Please post the info.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So I assume you know a lot about them?
Please post the info.


Not alot but i do know something about the Flying laser labs.

Like the Russian one that was missing around 9/11.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So I assume you know a lot about them?
Please post the info.


Not alot but i do know something about the Flying laser labs.

Like the Russian one that was missing around 9/11.



And what is in the laser lab? Please be specific.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So I assume you know a lot about them?
Please post the info.


Not alot but i do know something about the Flying laser labs.

Like the Russian one that was missing around 9/11.



Or the ABL system?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Please post the DARPA info related to holographic projection projects. Please do not include the DARPA/USAF joint PROPOSAL called the 2025 program as it is not actually being researched but was part of a brainstorming WISH LIST meeting.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thanks for your responses. What you are saying makes sense and I appreciate it more now that I have taken the trouble to look around the web a little on the subject of holography.

Here's what I'm thinking.

There has been a lot of effort made by video experts to show that there was extensive fakery of TV video footage that day. I haven't really gone into this in detail but I have also read that there were very few live broadcast feeds of even the second tower hit.

Researchers on these forums have stated that there is reason to believe that real time video fakery is possible and that it could be inserted into mass media news broadcasts.

The reason that I say this is that if it is true, we have greatly reduced the number of people that a hologram might need to fool.

I believe, regardless of statements people have made, that very few actually saw the South Tower hit. What I mean by that is, few people actually saw what looked like a plane fly into the tower. Many saw the explosion associated with the hit, but a lot of these people didn't know what caused the explosion.

The South Tower was hit, I believe from the south, after a steep dive from a high altitude. I'm going by memory here but I think that is what the ATC in charge of that flight said. Optimal viewing time would have been quite limited on that hit. Perhaps only as much as three seconds.

In fact the hologram would have been playing to a relatively small viewership and would only have to fool a few people.

I think that it might have been possible to use a drone or cruise missle, specially prepared for this job.

The hologram could possibly have been projected onto the translucent skin of such an aircraft from projectors carried on board and using the sort of expertise in visual perspective displayed by Julian Beever, create the illusion of a Boeing 757 on a much smaller, specially prepared, aircraft.



[edit on 2-9-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
And what is in the laser lab? Please be specific.


Not sure what is all in the Russian airborne laser lab that was unaccounted for the weeks around 9/11/2001.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thanks for your responses. What you are saying makes sense and I appreciate it more now that I have taken the trouble to look around the web a little on the subject of holography.

Here's what I'm thinking.

There has been a lot of effort made by video experts to show that there was extensive fakery of TV video footage that day. I haven't really gone into this in detail but I have also read that there were very few live broadcast feeds of even the second tower hit.

Researchers on these forums have stated that there is reason to believe that real time video fakery is possible and that it could be inserted into mass media news broadcasts.

The reason that I say this is that if it is true, we have greatly reduced the number of people that a hologram might need to fool.

I believe, regardless of statements people have made, that very few actually saw the South Tower hit. What I mean by that is, few people actually saw what looked like a plane fly into the tower. Many saw the explosion associated with the hit, but a lot of these people didn't know what caused the explosion.

The South Tower was hit, I believe from the south, after a steep dive from a high altitude. I'm going by memory here but I think that is what the ATC in charge of that flight said. Optimal viewing time would have been quite limited on that hit. Perhaps only as much as three seconds.

In fact the hologram would have been playing to a relatively small viewership and would only have to fool a few people.

I think that it might have been possible to use a drone or cruise missle, specially prepared for this job.

The hologram could possibly have been projected onto the translucent skin of such an aircraft from projectors carried on board and using the sort of expertise in visual perspective displayed by Julian Beever, create the illusion of a Boeing 757 on a much smaller, specially prepared, aircraft.



[edit on 2-9-2008 by ipsedixit]


Here are a few difficulties
1. For the hologram to be seen outside and projected on something, it would need to be dark outside at the time. Of course we know it was not dark so nobody would be able to see a hologram in the daylight.
2. I've also heard about realtime tv fakery but those people have never been able to provide evidence that this is possible.
3. There have been a number of videos and photos taken of the planes from different sources including independent sources so unless we're willing to include quite a few witnesses of planes for both towers, into a conspiracy, I must believe the planes were real.
4. Lets say it was dark outside and somehow they were able to overcome ALL of the technological hurdles....Imagine the super hologram that can reflect sunlight and emit sound and be visible in the daylight, is heading toward the 2 towers, their plan is working perfectly until...........
A bird flies through one of the holographic planes and it's caught on video and POOF their master plan is now over. Birds hit planes all the time so the most intricate, evil plan of the century has just been blown apart by a pigeon. Why bother even taking the chance when you could load a real plane with explosives and call it good?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
And what is in the laser lab? Please be specific.


Not sure what is all in the Russian airborne laser lab that was unaccounted for the weeks around 9/11/2001.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]


So we don't even know if it had any equipment to create holograms. We don't even know if it's an ABL type plane. It could be a topography mapping plane for all we know so until we know otherwise, we might as well write the plane off as a possibility.

So what are the DARPA programs you were referring to earlier? Please be specific.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

The hologram could possibly have been projected onto the translucent skin of such an aircraft from projectors carried on board and using the sort of expertise in visual perspective displayed by Julian Beever, create the illusion of a Boeing 757 on a much smaller, specially prepared, aircraft.
[edit on 2-9-2008 by ipsedixit]



Here are a few difficulties
1. For the hologram to be seen outside and projected on something, it would need to be dark outside at the time. Of course we know it was not dark so nobody would be able to see a hologram in the daylight.


What I am talking about probably would not qualify as a hologram, per se, but rather a projected trompe d'oeil image which would be seen on the translucent skin of the cruise missile or drone itself, projected from within the craft.


2. I've also heard about realtime tv fakery but those people have never been able to provide evidence that this is possible.


Now that's really hobbling the prosecution. I think they would say that the fact that faked footage exists is the proof that it is possible.


3. There have been a number of videos and photos taken of the planes from different sources including independent sources so unless we're willing to include quite a few witnesses of planes for both towers, into a conspiracy, I must believe the planes were real.


"Infomercial man" is the most obvious fake witness. But there are others who sound fake too.




4. Lets say it was dark outside and somehow they were able to overcome ALL of the technological hurdles....Imagine the super hologram that can reflect sunlight and emit sound and be visible in the daylight, is heading toward the 2 towers, their plan is working perfectly until..........
A bird flies through one of the holographic planes and it's caught on video and POOF their master plan is now over. Birds hit planes all the time so the most intricate, evil plan of the century has just been blown apart by a pigeon. Why bother even taking the chance when you could load a real plane with explosives and call it good?


The perps were running risks of course.

A bird could just as easily have knocked out their hijacked airliner. But there are other reasons to strongly question that an airliner was involved in those tower hits. The way they glided unwrinkled into the buildings for example. There are other things as well. Numerous airline pilots have doubted both the performance parameters of the planes that day and the skills of the novice pilots to perform the manouvers required to fly those fight paths.

Going a little further on the subject of risks, you might want to check out this thread on a strange anomaly in the US money supply related to 9/11.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The spike in the Federal Reserve Board graph below indicates an injection of $5 billion dollars, mainly in hundred dollar bills into the immediately accessible (M1) money supply in the lead up to 9/11.



The thread will tell you about a Federal Reserve Board investigator's futile attempt to track down who was responsible for this peak in ready cash that surged into the money supply.

Some people believe that the perps were hedging their bets against the 9/11 operation going wrong and had pulled together a large sum of accessible "running money" if it did.

Bottom line, this was a highly risky operation that could have gone wrong from a number of standpoints. That in itself is a major reason why an effort could well have been made to reduce risk by using drones, if they could be disguised, instead of hijacked airliners.



[edit on 3-9-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So we don't even know if it had any equipment to create holograms.


But you have no proof that it does not.

So please do not make a claim without evidence to support it.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Here are a few difficulties
1. For the hologram to be seen outside and projected on something, it would need to be dark outside at the time. Of course we know it was not dark so nobody would be able to see a hologram in the daylight.


What I am talking about probably would not qualify as a hologram, per se, but rather a projected trompe d'oeil image which would be seen on the translucent skin of the cruise missile or drone itself, projected from within the craft.
You still have the problem that it is still just a projection. Try watching a movie on a movie screen using a movie projector in the middle of the day. And why go to all this trouble when they could have simply used a real 757 loaded with explosives.


2. I've also heard about realtime tv fakery but those people have never been able to provide evidence that this is possible.


Now that's really hobbling the prosecution. I think they would say that the fact that faked footage exists is the proof that it is possible.
But they have never been able to prove any footage has been faked. They make the claim but never back it up with evidence to support it.


The way they glided unwrinkled into the buildings for example.

The physics of a massive object moving at high speed can look very different then what one would expect.


There are other things as well. Numerous airline pilots have doubted both the performance parameters of the planes that day and the skills of the novice pilots to perform the manouvers required to fly those fight paths.

That can go either way as I've spoken to pilots who have said they could have performed those types of maneuvers. That could go either way.



Bottom line, this was a highly risky operation that could have gone wrong from a number of standpoints. That in itself is a major reason why an effort could well have been made to reduce risk by using drones, if they could be disguised, instead of hijacked airliners.

Actually you'd want to make the op as simple as possible to minimize risks and using super projectors or holograms layed over drones, doesn't minimize the risk. Also keep in mind that those drones would need to look like and be of similar size to a 757. So at that point, it would only make sense to just use a remote 757. After all they would need to have used some type of aircraft right? So instead of trying to combine all these types of technology and upping the risk, it would make more sense to keep it simple and use a 757.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So we don't even know if it had any equipment to create holograms.


But you have no proof that it does not.

So please do not make a claim without evidence to support it.



This is completely illogical. It's the worst type of circular reasoning.

You're asking me to prove a double negative which simple doesn't make sense. You claim to have info about DARPA's hologram programs so post it.

I know those types of holograms are not possible because of the limitations of physics and optics. Unless you can show me otherwise of course ????



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
But they have never been able to prove any footage has been faked. They make the claim but never back it up with evidence to support it.


I don't think that is true. I think they have provided a considerable amount of evidence for it. Check out the 9/11 Octopus movies or September clues. They actually keep coming up with more stuff all the time. This is not an area that I've given careful study to, but some of what I have seen is very suspicious. The "nose out' clips and their manipulation, for example.



The physics of a massive object moving at high speed can look very different then what one would expect.


What you say is true, but there are questions as to whether the planes could even move at the 550 mph, or more that has been quoted. The slow mos of the impact of flight 175 are very troubling to me. I've discussed it in detail in another thread and won't go into it here. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


That can go either way as I've spoken to pilots who have said they could have performed those types of maneuvers. That could go either way.


I've had the same conversation with an airline pilot and he didn't see a problem. Just turn left at Lake Erie, fly down the Hudson River valley and bump into the biggest things you see at the mouth of the river. But of course he's done it lots of times, except for the bumping part.



So instead of trying to combine all these types of technology and upping the risk, it would make more sense to keep it simple and use a 757.


I agree with the general point you are making. From the truther perspective, this would argue for plane substitution or remote control of the planes as a more likely scenario than holograms.

I'm still very troubled by the impact videos. They are the only part of the story that makes me reluctant to rule out holograms or some sort of visual trickery.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jfj123
But they have never been able to prove any footage has been faked. They make the claim but never back it up with evidence to support it.


I don't think that is true. I think they have provided a considerable amount of evidence for it. Check out the 9/11 Octopus movies or September clues. They actually keep coming up with more stuff all the time. This is not an area that I've given careful study to, but some of what I have seen is very suspicious. The "nose out' clips and their manipulation, for example.

Please post evidence here. Thanks.



The physics of a massive object moving at high speed can look very different then what one would expect.


What you say is true, but there are questions as to whether the planes could even move at the 550 mph, or more that has been quoted.
If you look at the plane specs and flight tolerances, you'll see that yes the plane could indeed fly that fast. In addition, you'll notice that these plans are equipped with mach warning devices which means the planes can travel at the speed of sound. Why have the device if it will never be used.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I know those types of holograms are not possible because of the limitations of physics and optics. Unless you can show me otherwise of course ????


Ok, if you know they are not possible then it should be easy for you to show facts and evidence to suppot this claim.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join