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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I won't comment on holograms but what you say are not chemtrails.
Watch the sky someday and notice the difference between contrails which disperse and chemtrails which do not disperse but rather expand into a milky mess.
Of all the things to debunk this is the one that makes the debunkers look just plain silly.
Try to find an example of these 'persistent contrails' in films prior to the late 90's.
See how often they appear in films and tv commercials lately.




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

The issue is, really, how to project "dark". Would it be good enough to fake the projection of dark? Could that be done? I think it could. (Perhaps the 9/11 plane impacts could have been done perfectly with holograms at night, thus solving the "dark" problem.)

These are issues that the experts are no doubt working on.

Does anybody in hologram research resign himself to the notion that convincing holographic images are impossible because "dark" can't be projected? I don't think so.




In this frame from a video the camera has adjusted to the overwhelming brightness of the buildings in full sunlight making the background sky appear very dark blue yet the plane is still darker (the underside is in shadow). At night (black sky) such a hologram would be a dead give-away due to the surreal glowing appearance of it and stars in the background would be visible through it.

Perhaps some researchers out there will be inspired by this controversy enough to work on a means of projecting darkness. Success would likely result in an invitation to Sweden to collect a nobel prize


[edit on 21/10/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Perhaps some researchers out there will be inspired by this controversy enough to work on a means of projecting darkness. Success would likely result in an invitation to Sweden to collect a nobel prize



Imagine the Nobel Prize scramble that would ensue if places like Lockheed Martin's "Skunkworks" dumped their bag of tricks out onto the table. Imagine all those black-hooded figures stepping forward to get their medals and the heavily cubed-out television coverage of the event.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


While it's fun to convince ourselves that some 'super-science' and/or reverse engineered extraterrestial technology is being held in top-secret laboratories, there's very little to support the idea apart from scifi (fictional) tales and persistent rumors.

Don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that science fiction is the very foundation of future science fact as history has shown us many times.

As to whether the 'black' technology extends to mastering the art of turning photons on and off and creating opacity and blackness (& the whole spectrum of living colour) at a distance in bright daylight without any of those characteristics of 'out of place' luminosity, well - it's just a 'bit' too far fetched IMHO.

Then to use this incredible technology (if it existed) to do something as mundane (by comparison) as damaging occupied buildings...wait a minute, laser hologram displays don't actually do any physical damage do they?.
And the issue of a convincingly realistic sound track to accompany the show hasn't been addressed at all yet. But known technology like real jet aircraft can do the job equally well, if not better, and are totally 100% convincing.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


This thread has probaby gone about as far as it can go, barring some breakthrough in hologram development, but high tech stuff is routinely used for purposes only a cave man would dream of. Destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the most obvious example of the inverse ratio between intelligence applied to level of purpose achieved.

As far as the sound track "problem" on 9/11 goes, that is so easy to solve that I won't even go into it, except to say that a rock group roadie could probably have done it with today's speakers and electronic gear.



[edit on 22-10-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


So your problem is that you are not familiar with the new technology that ionizes air to make a "screen". Recall that HAARP works because of an upper atmospheric transformation to reflect the radiated beam.Think outside the box. The New World Order does. Methinks thee protesteth too much.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I suggest everyone go to youtube and watch "9/11 holograms" or "9/11 missing wing"



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Factually, the theory of "hologram projection" is the only theory which put ALL the pieces together.

It explains why a plane was observed by people on the ground.

It explains the abnormal way the plane penetrated the building, the missing wing and the 'nose-out' phenomenon.

It explains all video fakements and CGI's, including the badly done duplications of the smoke and dust clouds.

It explains the impossible speed of the plane.

It explains the obvious demolition of the towers, but not of course how this was done.

It will also explain any other pertinent things somebody could further come up with.

And adding to the above:

No theory has been more ridiculed, scorned, made laughable, met with more condemnation and condescension than any other theory, however absurd.

This has been done not only by the pretend supporters of the OS, but also by the shills pretending to be 'truthers'. Or in other words, by people who in this way think that by ridiculing and scorn others, will automatically make themselves appear more knowledgeable and intelligent on this given subject, unawares that by using this method, they actually will appear much more as someone ..... not being too bright!


Then of course, there's also this reason to take into account,

part of DARPA's budget papers from the years 2000 to 2007:


From page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."


So for these reasons alone, yes, i'll definitely stick with other hologram believers, as to this "theory" being by far the most likely explanation for what took place 9/11.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 

Interesting post. I was surprised to see this thread revived. (I worked hard on this thread. lol.)

A lot of the video produced of 9/11 has been shown to be inconsistent with other video of 9/11. That is a very big problem. Even one inconsistency, if broadcast on 9/11, is a very, very, big problem.

The question begged by "fake" video is "Why?".

A serious person is not going to have a quick, glib response to this question, inserting their own favorite theory. One thing to keep in mind about 9/11 is that one of the hallmarks of this operation appears to have been "the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing". Hence the BBC's premature announcement of the collapse of the "Saloman Brother's Building". Hence the "put options" mess. Hence inconsistent video.

After all, it was a big operation. A certain amount of wobbly execution and poor supervision is expected in a large, compartmentalized operation. The left hand is not supposed to know what the right hand is doing. That's how comparmentalized operations are supposed to work.

But why fake videos? Was it simply an attempt to make sure that there was video to broadcast? Was it an attempt to conceal the type of aircraft with its possible modifications, that actually hit the towers, by reinforcing the image of airliners through the means of television? Or . . . is there some property of "holograms" that would cause difficulty, if videotaped and then broadcast.

It's important to understand that, despite strident claims from people who "saw the planes hit with their own eyes", that very few people actually saw what they believed was a plane hit the towers. Lots of people saw a fireball and heard aircraft noise, but few people saw the approach of the "craft" that hit the North Tower and suprisingly, few people were in position to actually see the "craft" that hit the South Tower.

There is a lot of inconsistency in what eyewitnesses report seeing "with their own eyes".

My own personal favorite, among various theories is that fake video was used to conceal the appearance of "special" planes. The phone call from the ABC (I believe) producer who said that the plane that hit the North Tower was grey and did not appear to have windows on the sides, strikes me as convincing evidence that a real plane was involved in that incident.

It makes no sense for an MSM outlet, suspected to have been "in on it" to plant the seeds of doubt of the official story. I don't believe that they would set someone up with a fake story to put people off the track of holograms and it makes no sense to create a hologram that doesn't look like an airliner. It's too labyrinthine. It implies very meticulous and almost Byzantine planning.

It goes against the "tradecraft" of this operation, to borrow a word from the world of espionage. 9/11 tradecraft is all about sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

My two cents worth.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy


Factually, the theory of "hologram projection" is the only theory which put ALL the pieces together.

It explains....

It explains ....

It explains ....

It explains...

It explains ....

It will also explain any other pertinent things somebody could further come up with.

And adding to the above:

No theory has been more ridiculed, scorned, made laughable, met with more condemnation and condescension than any other theory, however absurd.


You can say that again.



Then of course, there's also this reason to take into account,

part of DARPA's budget papers from the years 2000 to 2007:


From page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."


So for these reasons alone, yes, i'll definitely stick with other hologram believers, as to this "theory" being by far the most likely explanation for what took place 9/11.


lol....you still need to explain how a "hologram" could be projected in the manner it would have needed to be in order for something like this to work.

I don't expect anything other than "Who KNOWS what technology the Evil Government has!!" response, despite meaningless cut-and-pastes from some obscure DARPA budget sheet that talks absolutely nothing about what you are fantasizing.

This is a classic example of someone not knowing bumpkiss about what they are reading yet opining on it as if they understood it. Read it again. It laks about *communications capabilities*, *image sensing* and *targeting* - nothing at all nor in the least about projection of anything.

So keep on living in your little fantasy world of holograms and such. It keeps the rest of us entertained.

And this line is a keeper!:


It will also explain any other pertinent things somebody could further come up with.


Has there *ever* been a better line posted to cover *any* unknown element of *anything* that has *ever* happened throughout *all* of history?

Translated:

"If anyone comes up with any more wild and impossible ideas, THIS will explain it"!

Beautiful!



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The idea of holographic displays hiding a missile has been worked quite a bit but no rationale has ever been provided. As was stated earlier, why bother with complications when a airplane laden with fuel is much simpler and much more destructive than any non-nuclear cruise missile in any arsenal. Note also that the explosions and fireballs were the result of hydrocarbon ignition and not any high explosive, so such a hologram would have to hide a large aircraft filled with fuel.
To accomplish this with holograms and explosives alone, without aircraft, it would be necessary to smuggle a fuel tanker or two to the upper floors of the buildings.

There is no rationale for such a contrived theory and major technical difficulties that would preclude it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join