Zebra Imaging, Inplane phototonics, Operation Gelatin

reply to post by Vinciguerra


Well. You too have failed.

Neither one of those videos show anything holographic. They are basically digital versions of 'Pepper's Ghost'. Look it up. en.wikipedia.org...

DO SOME REAL RESEARCH!

Talk to an optical engineer, call a school and talk to a professor of optics or something. Crack open a book. Learn about logic. Learn about the real world FFS!

They are beam splitter plates and a digital display. Not holograms at all. It's not even 3D. Just because they use the words 'hologram' and '3D' doesn't mean that they actually are holograms.

I can say all kinds of things that aren't true and some gullible dunce might believe it.

Tell me, what's that like? Does it lead to believing in all kinds of stupid things? Like holograms in the sky and magic planes that aren't really there? Maybe it was leprechauns brought down those buildings? Maybe holograms of leprechauns?

My posts aren't personal attacks. The ignorance that you are displaying here is fact, not attack. I'm just pointing it out.

Originally posted by titorite
Prove planes hit those buildings.

Nice way to ignore the burden of proof and try to weasel your way out of showing any evidence of your claims. You have no evidence that no planes hit the towers. That's why you try these BS tactics, to keep from having to actually show any evidence.

Either show evidence that no planes hit the towers or concede. Stop playing these childish BS games.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nice way to ignore the burden of proof and try to weasel your way out of showing any evidence of your claims. You have no evidence that no planes hit the towers. That's why you try these BS tactics, to keep from having to actually show any evidence.

Either show evidence that no planes hit the towers or concede. Stop playing these childish BS games.

What the heck are you talking about? You must be losing your edge. I am not playing a game. I asked you to prove your ridiculous theory that no plane hit the pentagon. After all eye witnesses saw it happen! You say no plane hit the pentagon so the burden of proof is on you!

I read the quote above and all I see is a distraction/deflection. Prove no plane hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by titorite
I read the quote above and all I see is a distraction/deflection. Prove no plane hit the pentagon.

That is off topic and not the point of this thread. The point of this thread deals with holograms in place of planes at the WTC. Show evidence there were no planes at the WTC or concede. Those are your options. This game gets older and older by the day.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Hey if you don't want to answer my questions about your strange conspiracy theories thats fine.

I and others have shown you our evidence to which you commonly just dismiss outta hand because it challenges your version of the events. And when we ask for your evidence you just continue to whine "The burden of proof is on you" "The Burden of proof is on you"

You have admitted you do not know what technology the mass media had at the time and yet you insist No planes were used there but planes were used there.

You fit the story to be whatever you want it to be. It makes discussion with you impossible.

I am still waiting for your evidence. But I aint holding my breath.

reply to post by titorite


Show evidence there were no planes at the WTC or concede. It's very simple and you keep dodging it. If only you could see what you make yourself look like by continuously dodging my simple request.

Show evidence there were no planes at the WTC or concede. Those are the only things I want to see from your keyboard. Anything else will be ignored and brought back to this:

Show evidence there were no planes at the WTC or concede. I hope this makes it as clear as possible.

Show evidence there were no planes at the WTC or concede.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Concede to what? We have shown you evidence. You choose to ignore the evidence and drone on and on about "Burdens of proof" and ignore our requests to show us YOUR evidence.

Heck sometimes you post the evidence for us like your favorite 47 angles of impact video. You post that thing and then when people point out that the plane approaches from different paths you just shrug it off and refuse to address that little fact.

When we ask you for YOUR no plane evidence you just say thats off topic.
Well If you have evidence of no planes then lets see it! Otherwise your just trolling here.

reply to post by titorite


Your inability to post real evidence of no planes at the WTC is noted. You haven't posted any evidence of no planes because there is no evidence. That or you're scared that I'll debunk more of the NPT fairy tale and then you'll have nothing to believe in anymore.

Anyway, your FAIL is noted, thanks.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by titorite

 

Your inability to post real evidence of no planes at the WTC is noted. You haven't posted any evidence of no planes because there is no evidence. That or you're scared that I'll debunk more of the NPT fairy tale and then you'll have nothing to believe in anymore.

Anyway, your FAIL is noted, thanks.

It has recently come to my attention, that you're nothing but a projection of the Matrix, a kinda Hologram, BoneZ...in other words, you are not a real person, but a program, much like the agents. So, if you want information from a real person, you'll have to prove you are not part of the matrix.
Prove you're not a hologram, then i'll answer you.

Until then, it is noted that you're a towel....I mean... a hologram

[edit on 6-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

It might do you some good to read the forum rules. Your post focuses on me instead of any evidence, which is against the forum rules. It's not surprising as no-planers manage to get themselves banned from this and every other forum on the net because they would rather attack like little children than act like adults and debate the "evidence".

You were repeatedly asked to show some real evidence of no planes at the WTC and you've refused and instead have only attacked. This is why the 9/11 truth movement has banned NPT and anybody that peddles it.

You won't post evidence because you have none or are scared of my debunkings. Either way, you have failed in proving NPT. I'll accept your failure to post evidence of NPT as concessions and that you finally admit there were real planes.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It might do you some good to read the forum rules. Your post focuses on me instead of any evidence, which is against the forum rules. It's not surprising as no-planers manage to get themselves banned from this and every other forum on the net because they would rather attack like little children than act like adults and debate the "evidence".

You were repeatedly asked to show some real evidence of no planes at the WTC and you've refused and instead have only attacked. This is why the 9/11 truth movement has banned NPT and anybody that peddles it.

You won't post evidence because you have none or are scared of my debunkings. Either way, you have failed in proving NPT. I'll accept your failure to post evidence of NPT as concessions and that you finally admit there were real planes.

Yes, and you stipulate that anything you say is a fiction , because you are a hologram.

You have consistently avoided anything I post and you talk like a child with no education.

You entirely avoided my other post, and all the videos. I wonder why? Because you aren't a real person, you're an agent of the matrix.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ You should take your own advice take it to the next step and OBEY the rules. You constantly follow around me, ATH911, and anyone you deem a no planer. You yourself take threads off topic, and you have earned a warn something I have not earned...

Your trying to intimidate videoworldwide here and I do not approve.

You Say No planers are not allowed in the truth movement but we ARE! You say we get banned from other forums but here we are on the LARGEST conspiracy site talking about it.

And you for your merits are focusing more and more attention on the persons and not the subjects.

You ask again and again for evidence. It is given and then you just dismiss saying oh thats debunked or oh the burden of proof is on you.

You ignore the fact that the flight 175 has different approach paths.

Why?

You ask that the video tapes be examined for fakery but we aren't saying the magnetic tape that recorded these images are in question, we are saying the images broadcasted are in question. And we can all see you tube videos posted by skeptic and believer alike. When we see things like different approach angles it raises the question about the image and not the tape that allegedly recorded the image.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2f2b38d3c18.png[/atsimg]

This image casts no shadow, The building has no hole where the plane has sank into it, we can not see any debris flying anywhere, and for being an object moving at over 500 MPH it is a very clear picture.

The lack of motion blur is astonishing.

I have offered evidence like this before and you just come up with any illogical excuse you can to dismiss it...but where is your proof that planes hit the buildings? I mean I have some proof that calls the video evidence into question.

So can you tell me where the planes were re-assembled or offer some kind of tangible physical evidence aside from a photo or video which has already been called into question?

Sorry to jump in so late on this thread but if people go back to the photoshopped version of the video, posted by BoneZ, and go very near the bottom of the frame and place their cursor on one of the windows of the building and leave it there while the impact takes place you can actually see the building dip very noticeably. Considering the size of the buildings I would think that dip must be on the order of 5 or 6 feet.

I'm not enough of an expert to draw conclusions about what that dip means, but just like the seamless entry of the plane into the building, it is suspicious to my layman's eyes.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Sorry to jump in so late on this thread but if people go back to the photoshopped version of the video, posted by BoneZ, and go very near the bottom of the frame and place their cursor on one of the windows of the building and leave it there while the impact takes place you can actually see the building dip very noticeably. Considering the size of the buildings I would think that dip must be on the order of 5 or 6 feet.

I'm not enough of an expert to draw conclusions about what that dip means, but just like the seamless entry of the plane into the building, it is suspicious to my layman's eyes.

All that points to is MORE FAKERY in the animation video.

Originally posted by titorite
Your trying to intimidate videoworldwide here and I do not approve.

You do not approve? That's funny. What are you, his father? I don't think a single person on this planet cares whether you approve or not!

Originally posted by titorite
You Say No planers are not allowed in the truth movement but we ARE!

Besides Pilots for 9/11 Truth, show me a single 9/11 research website where NPT is allowed. And we're talking about places like Architects and Engineers, Firefighters, Lawyers, Scholars for Truth and Justice, 9/11 Blogger, Loose Change. Every single one of those 9/11 research organizations does not support NPT, including Pilots. But Pilots is the only place that allows the discussion, albeit in a secluded forum out of public sight.

Originally posted by titorite
You ask again and again for evidence. It is given and then you just dismiss saying oh thats debunked

No you don't show evidence. You type a bunch of meaningless words on the screen like you did again, without showing any actual evidence. And when it is debunked (like every time) I also post the debunk. I don't type meaningless words on the screen and expect people to believe them. I post sources to back up my evidence. You and the rest of the no-planers do not.

Originally posted by titorite
or oh the burden of proof is on you

The burden of proof is on you. I even posted a definition. If you can't understand a simple definition, then I can't help you and I don't think anyone else can either.

Originally posted by titorite
You ignore the fact that the flight 175 has different approach paths.
Why?

It is not a fact and you can never show that it's a fact. To say something is fact without proof is called "disinformation". The dozens of different camera angles make it "appear" to have different approach paths. But it only "appears" that way to the lay person who doesn't understand camera angles.

Originally posted by titorite
When we see things like different approach angles it raises the question about the image

When you think you see things like "different approach angles", then you should seek the advice of one or more photography experts and let them tell you the same thing I do. It's not different approach angles, it's different camera views!

Originally posted by titorite
This image casts no shadow

The sun is shining on the opposite sides of the tower. The smoke coming from the north tower is also not casting any shadows.

Originally posted by titorite
The building has no hole where the plane has sank into it

You're not going to see a hole in such a low-quality and blurry picture. There isn't much room left around the plane to even see a visible hole if you put the plane back in the hole:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/367ca9773da2.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by titorite
The lack of motion blur is astonishing.

Your lack of understanding of photography is astonishing. Not to mention, your lack of truthfulness is even more astonishing.

First and foremost, most digital cameras have a high shutter speed which reduces (or in most cameras) eliminates motion blur. In most digital cameras, you have to manually lower the shutter speed to create motion blur.

Second, there is plenty of blur in the picture you posted. Not only are the towers blurred, but you can clearly see blurring on the building at the far left of the image.

I can therefore conclude that since there is blurring in the image and you say there's not, then that could also be defined as disinfo.

reply to post by Vinciguerra


You might want to read up and INVESTIGATE a little more into this technology. Did you even go to the site which produced the effect? The effect needs a special set set up in order to have something to project onto.

musion eyeliner 3d technical

Musion Eyeliner System incorporates some very simple video principles and all equipment used is readily available in both the American and European rental markets.

The primary components of a Eyeliner set up are:

* A video projector, preferably DLP with an HD card/minimum native resolution of 1280 x 1024 and brightness of 5000+ lumens.
* For smaller cabinet installations, a high quality TFT Plasma or LCD screen can also be used.
* A hard-disc player with 1920 x 1080i HD graphics card, Apple or PC video server, DVD player.
* Musion Eyeliner Foil + 3D set/drapes enclosing 3 sides
* Lighting and audio as required
* Show controller (on site or remote)

Subjects are filmed in HDTV and broadcast on to the foil through HDTV projection systems, driven by HD Mpeg2 digital hard disc players, or uncompressed full HDTV video/Beta-Cam players.

The setup is erected in either a bespoke cabinet or a self contained four legged ground support. Alternatively, the foil can be stretched into a truss framework and flown from its own hanging points.

In either configuration, Eyeliner allows for a full working stage or set to be constructed behind the foil. In so doing live actors or performers, as well as virtual images are able to interact with other projected images in such a way that it appears to the watching audience that all of the objects they are seeing are in stage.

It is therefore quite conceivable to have a live performer sing a duet with a ‘virtual’ partner, a cartoon character or even his/hers projected double.

All the images used on an Eyeliner system are three-dimensional images, but projected as two-dimensional images (2D/3D) into a 3D stage set. The mind of the audience created the 3D illusion. This means that production costs are minimal, needing only the single camera lens for filming and a single projector for the playback – hence the phrase ‘Glasses-free viewing’.

www.eyeliner3d.com...

Now I dont recall seeing any huge floating stages or sets in he sky onto which they could project the aircraft onto, did anyone else?

So once again the NPT is dealt another blow, thanks to reality and getting bit on the rear by a little research into actual hologram technology.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Besides Pilots for 9/11 Truth, show me a single 9/11 research website where NPT is allowed.

You on one buddy. ATS Allows folks to discuss the No Plane explanation.


Aye... Nice way to travel way off topic. You accuse me of it and then indulge in it yourself.

Above in the photo, I have pointed out with those nice red arrows where the Hole should be. You say in one sentence that we can not see a hole because the photo is blurry then you address my comment about the clarity of the photo by saying digital can reduce image blur.

Well which is it? CAN WE SEE A HOLE BECAUSE THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON A DIGITAL CAMERA THAT REDUCES BLUR OR IS THE PLANE TO BLURRY TO SEE CLEARLY BECAUSE IT IS TRAVELING TOO FAST?

Or is it a Hologram?

Personally I say CGI image but I leave room for the possibility that it could be a hologram generated by Zebra Imaging.

Whatever it is, it is not throwing off debris out of the building.

And in between the plane engine and the plane fuselage we can clearly see building.

That is not motion blur, that is building.

You can not debunk that.

Originally posted by titorite
ATS Allows folks to discuss the No Plane explanation.

I said 9/11 RESEARCH WEBSITE! I even listed most of them. This IS NOT one of them. This is a CONSPIRACY WEBSITE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME???

Originally posted by titorite
Personally I say CGI image but I leave room for the possibility that it could be a hologram generated by Zebra Imaging.

I'm glad you finally admit that it's your opinion that it's CGI or holograms because there isn't a residue of proof that your opinions are fact.

Originally posted by titorite
Whatever it is, it is not throwing off debris out of the building.

Everything is being pushed into the building. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Originally posted by titorite
And in between the plane engine and the plane fuselage we can clearly see building.

You can't "clearly" see building. That's more disinfo-speak. The image is blurry and therefore nothing is clear.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


What is clear, is that you have never investigated 911.