Zebra Imaging, Inplane phototonics, Operation Gelatin

I was listening to Lenny Bloom, and Morgan Reynolds and they are talking about a media company, actually a holographic imaging company called Zebra Imaging.

Apparantly Sherman Skolnick reported about an operation called "Gelatin" and some armenians who were placing a holographic projection machine across from the World Trade Center in August before 911. It was supposedly reported in the NY times. Well, Skolnick is by far one of the best researchers on the planet, until he passed away recently. So, if Skolnick reported on it, I would take it seriously
So, I did a search on Zebra imaging to see if Lenny or someone just tried to link the two together without direct evidence.

I found a couple of interesting things.

This page is very strange. If they were not involved in holographic projections on 911, then this page is HIGHLY COINCIDENTAL.
www.directionsmag.com...

They choose two models to diplay as examples of their imaging. One is New Orleans and the Superdome, and the other is the New York, Manhatten Skyline, BEFORE AND AFTER 911 !!!

Very strange indeed.

So, after a little further research, I found a few things about Zebra Imaging. All part of the public record.

There is not much here of major importance except background.

Title: Holographic imagery enters the industrial mainstream
www.tectrends.com...

Zebra Imaging Recognized for Industrial Security Excellence With James S. Cogswell
"Zebra Imaging is the only company that can develop true 3-D images for
critical applications such as military planning and security."
www.reuters.com...

About Zebra Imaging

Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Austin, Texas, Zebra Imaging, Inc. designs, develops and manufactures state-of-the-art 3-D holographic displays for government, military and commercial markets including architecture, engineering and construction (AEC). Zebra Imaging has developed the world's most dynamic 3-D visual communication medium that is portable, scalable, intuitively-understood and easily viewable to help customers turn design data into reality. Customers include Federal and Department of Defense agencies; leading architecture, design and planning firms; civilian topographic agencies and various groups who need to clearly and effortlessly demonstrate sophisticated 3-D data in a comprehensive, durable and portable medium. For more information visit:
www.istockanalyst.com...

Founded in 1996 by MIT Media Laboratory graduates
Areas of company focus include Department of Defense and Intelligence, Homeland Security, Oil & Gas and Manufacturing. Current customers include Northrop Grumman, British Aerospace, the Defense Department, Chevron, Halliburton, Cameron, Honda, as well as others



Now, folks, this Zebra Imaging is starting to sound more and more like a Defense Based Intelligence Front.....

What do you think?

I wonder if this company was used to do the "screw up" that allowed 19 Rector Street and the building, to be left off the CNN video? This company does do imaging as well as holograms.

More to come....

continued....

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the central research and development organization of the Department of Defense has awarded Zebra Imaging the second year of a potential four-year contract. The first year phase was awarded on June 1, 2005. The continuation of this contract was based largely upon Zebra’s successful completion of its first year efforts on the Photonic Sandtable dynamic 3-D display development program. In its second-year efforts, Zebra Imaging will expand and refine the successful research completed in the first year. Ultimately, as a result of this effort, Zebra will provide a prototype scalable, dynamic 3-D display product of unprecedented quality and utility for both government and commercial applications and markets.

In addition to the DARPA contract, Zebra Imaging has also received a $3 million contract from a department of the U.S. Government to provide an M1 Monochromatic Holographic Imager, holograms, and services for various customer-critical topographic visualization applications. The M1 Imager – a patented digital hologram recording machine manufactured by the company will produce holograms for a variety of government needs. This contract represents a milestone for the integration of Zebra’s M1 Imager and hologram products designed for broad, routine use and application to complex 3-D image data communication.

“As a result of the additional funding and new contracts, Zebra now has even greater opportunities to provide cutting-edge, practical tools for high-profile clients,” said Al Wargo. “I’m thrilled to be leading Zebra Imaging during this exciting new era.”


Albert Wargo

Al Wargo is the President, Chairman and CEO of Zebra Imaging. Al brings more than 25 years of executive leadership experience in both commercial and defense companies. Most recently, Al was the CEO of Inplane Photonics, a company providing broadband, integrated, optical communication ICs for telecommunications and defense applications. Previously, as VP of Product Management, Marketing and Strategy for JDS Uniphase, Al provided leadership for the optical networking business unit, the company’s fastest growing and largest business segment. He was also CEO of the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) based in Austin, Texas. In the defense industry, Al led significant business growth within the Government Communications Group of the Harris Corporation as Director of Business Development and Advanced Programs. He also held various technical positions at Honeywell and NASA. Al has a BSEE from the University of Pittsburgh and completed the University of Florida/Harris Corporation Graduate Program in Business.

www.businesswire.com...

About Dave Perry

With more than 30 years of high-tech experience in developing and executing multi-channel sales, marketing and business development strategies, Dave Perry joined Zebra Imaging as executive vice president, commercial markets and strategic partnerships. Most recently, Dave was executive vice president and general manager, management systems division of Avocent Corporation where he provided strategic leadership to an 800 + person worldwide organization. Prior to Avocent, Dave spent 19 years with Dallas-based, Texas Instruments/Acer where he served as vice president of sales for the Acer America commercial division. Dave also served as a cryptographic systems engineer and master technical instructor for the United States Air Force. Dave attended Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program, and also holds an MBA from Hardin-Simmons University and a BS in Education from Texas State University.
www.istockanalyst.com...

Patented on January, 1989
Real time autostereoscopic displays using holographic diffusers

Patended on January, 1999
Stereoscopic display

Patented on May, 2001
Three-dimensional image system

www.freepatentsonline.com...



Not sure what exactly the relation or connection might be, but Bloom mentions them as well, and they seem to be tied into the Zebra imaging company, and tied into defense industry too.

About Inplane Photonics

Inplane Photonics was founded in 2001. The company designs and manufactures the most highly integrated "system on a chip" solutions based on Silica on Silicon technology available today for both commercial and defense markets, which include telecommunications, LAN/WAN networks, avionics and shipboard systems. Lockheed Martin has selected Inplane as a subcontractor on its Highly Integrated Photonics contract with the US Air Force, where the military contractor is developing fiber-optic network technology for tactical combat aircraft. Inplane has a turnkey manufacturing capability, including a 5,000 sq. ft., class-100, PLC wafer processing facility. The wafer processing is largely based on established materials, processes and equipment used by the semiconductor industry. The company is based in South Plainfield, New Jersey. For more information, please visit www.inplane.com....

www.marketwire.com...

S&F

Excellent post from what I have read so far

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I was listening to Lenny Bloom...

I think Skolnik was absorbed by Bloom and his ilk to cast aspersion on his research. Bloom, et al, are the closest things to purveyors of Internet disinformation that I have yet encountered and anything they say needs to be micro-scrutinized. All this in my humble opinion, of course.

I say this because I paid a lot of attention to Skolnik as his information appeared. Once associated with Bloom, it became attached to some of the most wackadoo, shrill, conspiracy Bravo Sierra of an ilk that makes Alex Jones look like mellow. Skolnick's credibility went down the dumper as a result, and I think that was no accident.

At the time, I wondered if his ill health was a factor in him having been 'compromised'. There is a trail that can be followed...not sure were it leads.

All I'm saying is that if Bloom is involved, I wouldn't bet the farm.

Holograms don't do damage to buildings on the order of 160-foot wingspans, nor do they weigh 300,000 pounds to make a tall skyscraper sway back and forth from the force of impact. Not to mention the fact that there hasn't been a single person that has obtained a copy of any videos of 9/11 and had them professionally analyzed for fakery.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Why do you always insist on this magical sway? There was no magical sway. You can not find any video proof of it. You can find some video footage where the camera on the helicopter swayed making the buildings appear to move in the sense of those old startrek stars would move when their camera swayed but no.. You are spreading a SEVERE disinformation with this constant "The towers swayed" non sense.

They only had something of a 20- degree MAX sway in HIGH WINDS! As they burned they did not SWAY as you are so fond of saying...

Like I said before and to be perfectly Clear now

CRYSTAL CLEAR

You will not show anyone film footage from a static position of those towers swaying.

You won't because you can't because it does not exist because those towers did not sway.

reply to post by titorite


I've shown the video before. You've ignored it because it goes against your religion. We know how the no-planers like to deceive, obfuscate and flat-out tell dishonest things, so it's no wonder you would say that I can't produce a video and that one doesn't exist when it's been posted several times.

I mean, showing a video of the tower swaying would CANCEL every single no-plane/hologram/CGI disinfo theory out there, so of course you would deny it and say that it doesn't exist.

In the following video from 2:13-2:26, watch the curved lines on the south tower. They are stationary until the plane impacts, then they move indicating the tower is swaying. Continue watching the lines at the lower left of the south tower as they will move down, then up, then down indicating the tower is swaying back and forth from the force and impact of a 300,000 pound jetliner:





Of course, you'll probably make up the usual excuses to try to explain it away. Since everyone knows how the no-plane crew operates, it will be no big surprise.

Originally posted by titorite
You will not show anyone film footage from a static position of those towers swaying.
You won't because you can't because it does not exist because those towers did not sway.

You were saying?




[edit on 26-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]

The video is still loading on my connection but even I or anyone of you reading this can clearly see that _Bonez_s' 43 different angles have different approach paths.

Sometimes the plane flys in horizontally and sometimes it flys in from above.

SURELY Anyone with eyes can see that this video clearly shows different paths of approach?

As for your specific time frame _BoneZ_ I am still waiting for the video to load... when it buffers to the point I can watch the frame in question I will.

So far I see no dramatic Sway like the type you are fond of talking about... I mean you talk about those buildings swaying like a tree leaning over. As I said The had a 20 degree sway MAX! Past that they might lean too far... The fire did not bring down those buildings. Controlled demolition did.


Man even in that first vid of those 43 different angles you can clearly see the camera panning back and forth but as for those buildings swaying ???

Nope..

Anyways...

I shall edit this entry to add my thoughts on that segment like I said I would... just as soon as it loads.

EDIT TO ADD.

OK.. It loaded up to the right point.... I had trouble seeing that sway... I honestly expected to see one or two degrees of sway.... I thought I could see it but I could not be sure... So I put my mouse courser over one corner.... then the other... I replayed the video over and over... Maybe someone else could try this... Preston? ATH? TW?...

Because I did not see the building sway past the tip of the edge of my mouse courser.

I said you could not find a video from a static position showing those towers swaying.

You didn't.

HOWEVER I did see the plane enter the building from different routes depending on the version of the video.



[edit on 26-7-2009 by titorite]

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Nonesense

Wow, that post showed all kinds of information proving me wrong, and all in one word against forum rules, I might add.

If you think holograms can damage buildings or make them sway, let's see some kind of evidence of that. If you know of any videos of 9/11 that have been professionally analyzed for fakery, we would all love to see them.

But it is a fact that holograms can't damage buildings or make them sway, and it's also fact that the no-planers have not had any 9/11 video analyzed for fakery. There's no nonsense about any of those facts. If you think you can prove them wrong, by all means, try. If not, concede and move along.

Originally posted by titorite
I said you could not find a video from a static position showing those towers swaying. You didn't.

I did. That camera position is absolutely static and the south tower is swaying from the impact of the plane. See, what you're doing is the typical no-planer disinfo artist tactic of denying all evidence showing planes hit the towers. All the witnesses that saw the planes are lying, all the videos showing planes are all fake, the video showing the tower swaying is fake, all the buildings are fake, blah blah blah. We know the drill.

I took the liberty of putting the video into animated image and highlighted where to look for the sway. Look at the bright lines (indicated by arrows) and especially pay attention to the lines at the bottom left. Put your mouse cursor next to the lines for more proof. As soon as the plane impacts, the lines move down and up and down proving the tower is swaying from the impact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d45a0c40f56.gif[/atsimg]


Any further denial of swaying is typical no-planer disinfo.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Nonesense

Wow, that post showed all kinds of information proving me wrong, and all in one word against forum rules, I might add.

If you think holograms can damage buildings or make them sway, let's see some kind of evidence of that. If you know of any videos of 9/11 that have been professionally analyzed for fakery, we would all love to see them.

But it is a fact that holograms can't damage buildings or make them sway, and it's also fact that the no-planers have not had any 9/11 video analyzed for fakery. There's no nonsense about any of those facts. If you think you can prove them wrong, by all means, try. If not, concede and move along.

I didn't respond with much, because you didn't post with much.

The post is about Zebra Imaging and Holograms, not your silly sway theory.
Why should I respond to a statement that holograms don't cause building to collapse, either? That's obvious and I never stated holograms destroyed the building.

I will respond to your statement though that no videos have been analyzed. Are you aware that FOX and other networks won't release the original footage and that Morgan Reynolds has a petition to get them to release them?

The videos you can watch online, have come from FOX and CNN and have been analyzed as best they can be without having them "in hand". You do not have to have the videos analyzed to realize they are faked, you just have to have a pair of eyes, a brain, and a critical mind.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You're just a thread crasher, and nothing more. Start your own thread and argue with people over there, will you please.

Your proving to be just a distraction to the original post.

BTW, any video you show to try to prove anything, is a faked video anyways, made with CGI, and used for brainwashing the public on 911 or afterwards.
If YOU can prove the videos you used are NOT faked, and come from legitimate sources, and not animation companies, then I will pay attention, but until then, please stop your distractions or go somewhere else with them.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
The post is about Zebra Imaging and Holograms, not your silly sway theory.

Well let's see; hologram planes can't damage a building (the plane holes), nor can holograms make buildings sway. The plane holes and the building sway proves real planes hit the towers. There's no way around that.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Why should I respond to a statement that holograms don't cause building to collapse

I never said holograms don't cause buildings to collapse. I said holograms don't damage buildings, i.e. make holes with 160-foot wingspans.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Are you aware that FOX and other networks won't release the original footage and that Morgan Reynolds has a petition to get them to release them?

I could really care less, to be honest. There are plenty of people out there with videos of the planes.

Are you aware that one of our own ATS members payed $175 out of his own pocket to obtain an HD copy of the Naudet film to prove no-planers wrong? Yep, sure did. There are plenty of independent journalists and home videos that can be examined. You don't necessarily have to have footage from the media. But it is a damned shame that someone had to pay that much money for a copy to prove no-planers wrong when no-planers won't even obtain their own copies for fear that they might be wrong and the whole no-planer disinfo movement would come to a swift and unspectacular halt.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
You do not have to have the videos analyzed to realize they are faked

As I've said many times before, if someone records a "real" UFO in the sky, producers of UFO tv shows obtain that footage and have it analyzed for fakery at professional studios.

For no-planers to claim fakery, they absolutely have to obtain the originals or copies of the originals and have them analyzed for fakery to prove fakery. No proof = no fakery. You can't sit there and stare at low-quality internet videos and claim fakery, unless one doesn't care about truth and accuracy; kinda like the no-planer disinfo cult.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


O.k., you're right about everything. Now LEAVE and go somewhere else, so us grownups can have a real discussion.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
BTW, any video you show to try to prove anything, is a faked video anyways, made with CGI

Yes, I know the no-planer script. All videos showing buildings or planes are fake, all witnesses seeing a plane are lying, blah blah. It's the same script and hasn't changed for years.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
If YOU can prove the videos you used are NOT faked, and come from legitimate sources, and not animation companies, then I will pay attention

And see, that's your problem:

burden of proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof.

It's a proper presumption that planes hit the towers and 99.9999% of the world knows that. You seek to prove the opposite, that planes did not hit the towers. Therefore, you and all other no-planers bear the burden of proof. Meaning you have to prove that the videos are fake. Not the other way around.

And since you have not obtained any videos and had them professionally analyzed for fakery, please don't say that the videos come from animation companies as that would be disinfo without proof.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
please stop your distractions or go somewhere else with them.

You must be new to the no-planer "theories". If so, you should try to remember my name. Because anytime anyone peddles anything that has to do with no planes at the WTC, I'll be there.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_





It's a proper presumption that planes hit the towers and 99.9999% of the world knows that.

Your wrong there. More and more after the total sum of the evidence has been added up people are coming to realize the truth of the mater. That no planes where used.

you should try to remember my name. Because anytime anyone peddles anything that has to do with no planes at the WTC, I'll be there.

And you will be lumped into the same class as the likes of other dis info agents on this site like the Fox twins. Your stubbornness to ignore pesky little facts like the different approach angles has been noted just like your insistence that only a plane and not High grade explosives could of caused any sway... which I still did not perceptibly notice.

While I do not subscribe to the hologram theory I do not discount it out of hand. The only thing I discount is that which can be proven bogus like the video footage.

If one video shows a horizontal approach and another shows a vertical approach then OBVIOUSLY one of the videos are bogus and in all likely hood both videos would be fake.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
WE ALL KNOW that you're gatekeeper. Thanks for the admission. For all I know, you're a paid hack too.

How about we keep this on topic and continue discussing holograms and no planes?

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Oh, and thanks for keeping my post bumped to the front.

No problem. We gotta let people see what happens to no-planers when their "evidence" gets debunked. They just start attacking people because they have nothing else left. So, nice personal attack there. Let's see the evidence of no-planes and tv fakery and holograms. I'll debunk it line-by-line.

In fact, I'll go one step further. Give me the word and I'll set up a debate between you and me in the debate forum, if you think you have enough "evidence".