It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:48 PM
Dear Mr. Lear,

Sorry to have to bring this here but this question was ignored through 5 pages of the last hologram thread, and you seem to be the person to ask this most crucial question confronting the No-Planer Movement:

The Hologram Challenge:
What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buildings? You can add to that the damage to the 'thermite'-corner in the South Tower, as well as the 'zipper cut' along the wall leading to it.

There are plenty of other ones to add to that, but in my view that is the most daunting. I've posed this same question everytime I've mingled with No Planers yet it remains unanswered to this day.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:54 AM
Response To The John Lear Hologram Challenge

The Challenge: What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buidings?

The response:

Was Wile E. Coyote here?

The cartoon cutouts in the side of the World Trade Center towers were probably made by demolition experts to simulate an airplane crashing into it.

As you will see in the presentation below they didn't do a very good job.

Here is a picture of the north side of the north tower with the cartoon cutout which the alleged Boeing 767 made.

The side of the World Trade Center Tower is 208 feet in length. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet in length.

The dihedral or “V” of the wing is 5 degrees.

Now here is the same photo but with a few dimensions on it.

You can see the alleged right wing tip made a definable hole at which we will begin the wingspan measurement.

You can see that extending at the approximate angle across the north face of the north tower down to the left of the alleged impression of the alleged Boeing 767 we stop our measurement at the point where there is no more damage to the building. We stop there because if the building was not impacted then there was no wing. (Actually there was no airplane but let’s just assume there was for the sake of the Cartoon Cutout Challenge
).

That distance is approximately 121.4 feet or about 37.6 feet short of the wingspan of the Boeing 767. In other words either al the explosives that the demolition experts set didn't go off, or they got lazy and underestimated the persistence of the American public. But the simple fact is that a 159 feet wing does not go into 121 feet hole except in a cartoon. Which is what this is.

Now just above that line I drew another line to represent the wingspan of the Boeing 767 (159 feet) and I placed the right edge of the line at the first indication of building damage on the right. I then extended the line which represents the alleged wing of the alleged Boeing 767 downward toward the left, parallel to the lower line an approximate distance of 159 feet.

As you can plainly see the yellow line representing the alleged wing of the alleged Boeing 767 extends well beyond any area of the building which was allegedly damaged by the alleged Boeing 767.

See what I mean?

Now I have included an enlargement to show that the exterior girders that extend around the perimeter of the World Trade Center Tower are not broken but the area around them has simulated damage in a perfect rectangular shape, where the wing should have hit them.

And here is an enlargement of the same photo without the dimension so you can clearly see the girders.

These pictures are similar to the alleged Pentagon crash were an alleged Boeing 757 allegedly went through the front of the building but never broke any windows or breached the building at the alleged impact point of the wing.

In summary there is no evidence of any kind that any Boeing 767 crashed into either the north or the south tower of the World Trade Center. It is pure fiction.

It was a brilliant but essentially failed PsyOp to fabricate a reason to attack, take control of Afghanistan and insure the cultivation, harvesting, transportation and sale of the opium poppy grown there, which according the New York Times article dated August 28, 2007 has now reached 93% of the worlds opium production. (Did you think that with the world's most powerful Air Force couldn't bomb the thousands of acres of poppy fields into oblivion in the past 6 years?)

I speculate that the enormous profit (in the trillions of dollars) derived from the sale of these illegal drugs by elements within our government is used for black projects.

Have a nice day.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:05 AM

Originally posted by johnlear

In summary there is no evidence of any kind that any Boeing 767 crashed into either the north or the south tower of the World Trade Center. It is pure fiction.

No evidence?? This from the man who looks at a few rocks on the moon and calls them Mining settlements?

So, no evidence, other than hundreds who saw it on the streets and millions who saw it live on TV, or maybe you missed that part John ?.

You really should do some research into how thing collapse when impacting at speed.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Chorlton

So, no evidence, other than hundreds who saw it on the streets and millions who saw it live on TV, or maybe you missed that part John ?.

You really should do some research into how thing collapse when impacting at speed.

Thanks for the post Chorlton. To say I am delighted would be a gross understatement.

Your input is always greatly appreciated.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by johnlear
In summary there is no evidence of any kind that any Boeing 767 crashed into either the north or the south tower of the World Trade Center. It is pure fiction.

I guess the only counter to that would be......in summary, any alleged mining equipment seen in blurry, pixelated photos of the moon are simply holograms projected there. It is pure fiction.

Its simply impossible to reasonably counter a claim that is so unreasonable. It can't be done.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:13 AM
Thanks for the post John.
To say I am delighted would be a gross overstatement.

Your replies are always greatly appreciated though more often than not, totally wrong and we must assume you havent seen the videos.

[edit on 27/9/07 by Chorlton]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:18 AM
Mr Lear,

I am quite frankly dumbfounded as to why a man of your obvious intelligence can buy into this 'no planes' theory.

It is simply too fantastic an idea to take seriously, in my opinion. I fail to see how thousands of eye witnesses could be duped like that on the day with such an elaborate hoax. After all, as others have pointed out......wouldn't it have been infinitely easier to just use real planes to launch an attack....even if it was the New World Order behind it, and not just 19 arabs?

You are certainly a very knowledgeable and intelligent person, with great credentials under your belt, but you lost much of your credibility, in my view, with your assertion of the 'soul catcher'....much like David Icke did when he proclaimed himself the son of God. Totally off the rails!!

I know that you have a great following on here. I think maybe that is largely due to people's propensity to follow 'celebrity worship' and be aligned with whatever 'big name' they can.....including yours.

You are a clever and able person, in my view, so I really can't understand why you subscribe to such nonsense.

Unless, of course, you DO have some kind of agenda to discredit any serious research into the truth of 911.....bringing ridicule upon it with yours (and others) silly theories. Maybe you ARE a disinfo agent, after all!?!?

No offense meant, btw. I just don't see how a man of your obvious calibre and intelligence can buy into this kind of impractical nonsense.

Regards,

Stephen

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:20 AM
Ok, lets stay on topic and that topic is

What impacted the WTC, Airliner or Hologram Images.

If you want to discuss the moon pictures, please go to that thread.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:21 AM
what does one's opinions about the moon have to do with 9/11? IMO those are derailing comments. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs...what's with all the hate?

edit: right on, ATS has some quick responding MODS

[edit on 27-9-2007 by cynical572]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:27 AM
My question would be what about the noise? The sounds of the Jets? How could they go about making the sounds so real if indeed it was just holograms?

I really admire Mr. Lear, and can understand what he says... Yet I am one who wouldnt go around telling my friends and family this..

It was hard enough to convice them it was an inside job.. If I would go and tell them this.. They would laugh at me, and tell me Ive been reading to much online..

So I will say this in ending.. If a group of pilots where to stand up aginst Mr. Lears claims I might listen.. But to this day, Pilots as a group say that John is onto something here.. Groups of vetren pilots agree that things are not what they seem.. So prehaps another group of skilled pilots could change my mind.. Until then IM keeping an open mind..

But not going to try to convice anyone else of this.. Like I said, honestly they would laugh me right out the room.. I dont have the exp. or the knoweldge John Lear has. Unless some of you are pilots with years of exp and know something we dont. Please share with us..

[edit on 27-9-2007 by zysin5]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by cynical572
what does one's opinions about the moon have to do with 9/11? IMO those are derailing comments. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs...what's with all the hate?

edit: right on, ATS has some quick responding MODS
[edit on 27-9-2007 by cynical572]

To the Moderator, I am answering a direct question here

To cynical572
Its quite simple really.
Anyone who says that the far side of the moon has trees and waterfalls, anyone who says that every planet in the universe is populated, anyone who says you can walk around on the moon and breath normally, anyone who says there is a secret space station orbitting the earth and anyone who says there is a 'soul catcher' on the moon, has to have their credibility seriously questioned.

There is no hate, but to be continually bombarded with factually incorrect material and then told no planes hit the WTC by the self same person who posts what was mentioned above has to be replied to.

[edit on 27/9/07 by Chorlton]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:32 AM

I am on topic. Forgive me if I would characterize the topic as a bizarre and unreasonable one.

I know it is impossible to judge "intent" from these written words, so allow me.

The intent was to demonstrate how hopeless it is to post a counter to Mr. Lear's comments, using a topic and subject that many in this forum would be familiar with. I think my post in fact clearly shows how abnormal, odd, and bizarre the topic is.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Old Man

Mr Lear,

I am quite frankly dumbfounded as to why a man of your obvious intelligence can buy into this 'no planes' theory.

Not to worry. Many share your opinion including my wife.

It is simply too fantastic an idea to take seriously, in my opinion.

Not to worry Old Man. The perps are counting on you.

I fail to see how thousands of eye witnesses could be duped like that on the day with such an elaborate hoax.

It was essential to the PsyOp that thousnds of eyewitnesses be duped. The hoax was indeed elaborate and most bought into it.

After all, as others have pointed out......wouldn't it have been infinitely easier to just use real planes to launch an attack....even if it was the New World Order behind it, and not just 19 arabs?

Airplanes are expensive. Why waste them unnecessarily? Also why take the chance that some yo-yo pilot is going to miss on the first pass?

You are certainly a very knowledgeable and intelligent person, with great credentials under your belt, but you lost much of your credibility, in my view, with your assertion of the 'soul catcher'....much like David Icke did when he proclaimed himself the son of God. Totally off the rails!!

Many, many, many folks would agree with you.

I know that you have a great following on here. I think maybe that is largely due to people's propensity to follow 'celebrity worship' and be aligned with whatever 'big name' they can.....including yours.

I don't think its the 'big name' I thinks it is how handsome I am. But I could be wrong.

I am not selling it so not to worry. It is my opinion and you can take it or leave it, but you cannot purchase it, for any price. Thanks anyway.

You are a clever and able person, in my view, so I really can't understand why you subscribe to such nonsense.

Because I believe that the government used holographs to fabricate Boeing 767's flying into the World Trade Center to incite hatred against Muslim/Arabs to fabricate a reason to attack and control Afghanistan to grow, cultivate, transport and market illegal drugs the profits of which are used for black projects.

Unless, of course, you DO have some kind of agenda to discredit any serious research into the truth of 911.....bringing ridicule upon it with yours (and others) silly theories. Maybe you ARE a disinfo agent, after all!?!?

My agenda is to seek the truth, wherever it may lead.

No offense meant, btw. I just don't see how a man of your obvious calibre and intelligence can buy into this kind of impractical nonsense.

Research, research, research.

Thanks for the post Stephen, its always a pleasure when people take the time to explain their thoughts and reasoning.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:52 AM
Judging by the damage a 767 couldn't of made that impact,another kind of airplane yes,if an airplane hit the upright post's on that building it would of folded up like a hot Hershey bar,so impact area would be approximately 25% less than actual impact,besides doesn't hide the fact that the building was armed with thermite to all the supporting members ,I laugh at people who believe story of jet fuel and or diesel fuel having anything to do with it,the heat may or may not of made metal glow red,but wouldn't of comprimised the metal,I think you should all listen to John Lear more,some things he says may sound strange,but the truth always does

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:56 AM
anyone hear of project bluebeam?

for me its hard to say what hit the buildings, im kinda on the fence and open to more info and evidence as it comes

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Chorlton

Anyone who says that the far side of the moon has trees and waterfalls, anyone who says that every planet in the universe is populated,

Thanks for the post Chorlton. Many planets in the universe have people just like us. Some of them are more advanced (I know thats a toughie Chorlton but deal with it
) some are less advanced, but I don't think that EVERY planet in the universe is populated. Many, many, many are, but not 'EVERY'.

You may have been confused from my statement that I believe all planets in our solar system are inhabited.

anyone who says you can walk around on the moon and breath normally, anyone who says there is a secret space station orbitting the earth and anyone who says there is a 'soul catcher' on the moon, has to have their credibility seriously questioned.

Many, many, many share your opnion.

There is no hate,

Now there is an odd word......

but to be continually bombarded with factually incorrect material and then told no planes hit the WTC by the self same person who posts what was mentioned above has to be replied to.

I would take issue on your statement 'factually incorrect'. My opinion is that my statements are factually correct. It would be your opinion that they are factually incorrect. but it is still just an opinion. Not a fact.

Thanks for your post and continued input Chorlton, it is greatly appreciated.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:13 PM

John

I proved your claim about there being no mention of a 'Dulce War' as being factually incorrect and proved it was actually you that originally called it a Dulce war.

Now I simply need to prove I am far more handsome than you, and youre sunk

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:18 PM
The fact that there was no airplane wreckage on the side where the ' planes ' struck is telling. The fact that there are RECTANGULAR holes on the left side as Mr. Lear points out, is telling. On the right side, we see a very thin area where a wing supposedly sliced right through the steel outer supports and made a wing shaped entry opening!! Amazing!!

but the left wing makes a rectangle and not a thin opening, right? it stinks to high heaven. All the government would have to do is show the titanium engines being hauled out of the rubble to prove that there weres planes there, but what do we see? Nothing but one part of a 737 engine a few blocks away, having been blown out of the building to replicate airplane parts. Those engines could NOT have melted despite the lies we hear, and so if they existed, they could have been shown and serial numbers verified and all this put to rest. But of course no reports exist that show any engine serial numbers being matched or any proof of any airplane parts.

Four six ton engines should have been hauled from the rubble during the clean up yet not one was ever found or shown on alluded to. Where did they go? Maybe they fell down the same elevator shafts that supposedly carried a fireball that destroyed the lower levels, huh? Then they fell into0 the pool of molten metal that was seen and photo'ed but denied by the NIST as existing..ya reckon?

Personally, I have a hard time with the no plane theory for the reason of the sounds that are heard just prior to the much photographed jet hitting the Tower. Unless they can replicate a major sound to perfection and the holograms are perfected for daylight masking, then planes hit. BUT, I am still not sure; I tend to agree with Mr. Lear in most aspects of his argument and the damage he points out really means something. You cannot make a wing cause a rectangle on the left and a thin slice on the right, especially given the distances do not match. He has it right there.

I think that in the end we will be pretty amazed at the technology that was used to pull this operation off; it is beyond what we know about in the public arena obviously.The dustification of the concrete is another matter as well, regular explosives cannot account for that, so I think the beam weapons is right on that account. There were no doubt many different types of means used to get the job done.

The evidence is so great that it was a black op that no one can doubt that; but the how's will have to be figured out bit by bit.I think that Mr. lear is right on about the prime motivation being money, drug money, the biggest money comes from the hardest drugs: Heroin and coc aine. The FACT that the CIA and other intel agencies have been running vast amounts into this nation for decades is unchallenged. Bush Sr. was a huge drug runner forever.

Why do you think that cannabis is so demonized by the Feds? It is beyond their ability to control and profit from, thats why.Very few people in this world can cultivate poppies aned coca plants and make them a viable resource; geographically and socially it is limited and controlled by the criminals who work for the intel guys. But since anyone can plant a seed a dn water it and get a pot plant going, it will always be concentrated on by the Feds as competition to their schemes. They do NOT want anyone getting rich but them; they use minions and allow many to become rich, but if they go too far ( se Noriega) they will pounce on them and jail or kill them.

We are living in an age of deception, nothing is what it seems to be, or it is and we are too afraid to notice it. But in any event, the damage on the Tower does NOT match the damage likley made from a jetliner going very fast. No parts strewn around the outside of the buildings, the ' planes ' just melt into the buildings as if they were made of paper, no explosions or fire until they are fully inside the Tower...not right at all. A bright light tracking across the Tower just prior to the ' hit ', bright flashes seen just prior to the ' hits '. all adds up to a giant psy op.

Now, what do we do about it? We KNOW that America is in mortal danger from enemies withing, and we have a Constitutional duty to repel them and punish them, but instead we are watching them continue to live and work in the White House and Pentagon, all laughing at how lazy and gullible we are..what a shame we end this way;only a revolution will help now.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:24 PM
As for the engines. If you examine the videos carefully,The second plane methinks but I may be wrong, you will see in one video an engine go wizzing out and down.
The temperature of the burning fuel, paper, plastics, furniture, computers carpets, aluminium (yes it does burn as do other metals) and tons of paper burning would probably have done for the others.

Pure speculation and guesswork.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Chorlton

The temperature of the burning fuel, paper, plastics, furniture, computers carpets, aluminium (yes it does burn as do other metals) and tons of paper burning would probably have done for the others.

Thanks for your input Chorlton. Let me see if I have this correct. The burning fuel burned up two 6 ton engine cores? And tons of paper burned up the rest? I rarely say ‘ha ha ha’ because I think its rude. But in this case I am going to make an exception: ha ha ha!

Please remember when you are formulating your answer that the fuel fire was complete within 60 seconds. After that time it was just combustible material like sheet rock and couches and chairs.

Thanks again for your input Chorlton, I am really enjoying it today.

new topics

top topics

7