Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Dick Eastman vs. Jim Fetzer

9/11 debate over "the planes" in New York


  1. Explain how a plane hologram can be projected against a bright blue sky?
    Please study what a hologram is and why ths is impossible.

  2. The advanced holographic-deception theory that Dr. Fetzer has personally adopted as the "best explanation" for the (nevertheless suspicious) planes-hitting-buildings "eyewitness testimony" on 9/11 does have some basis in various rumoured/black-budgeted research projects of the U.S. military.

    But I agree, moto, that since there's been no open-sourced, scientific explanation for how such a projection system would actually work (particularly against mere air and clouds) it's still quite a stretch to settle on high-tech holograms as the "final solution" to the central 9/11 mystery.

    Perhaps if the much more plausible "total-video fakery" theory of Simon Shack & Co. (so impressively and publicly demonstrated in several Hollywood blockbusters of the late 1990s) had been examined closely, with a genuinely open mind, by Dr. Fetzer (who usually DOES take such an approach to contrarian ideas) then that dodgy hologram "idee fixe" would not have seduced our Distinguished Professor Emeritus as the ultimate answer.

    OTOH, the egregiously rude behaviour of the Shacksters toward Dr. Fetzer (in the often juvenile postings about him on their own forum) certainly hasn't boosted the credibility of their (otherwise quite impressive and persuasive) fakery theory.

  3. the point is that a holographic image projected against a blue sky can not appeare darker than the sky. There is no such phenomenon as black light. Children understand this and why Fetzer dies not is a mystery. Cold is abcence of heat. Darkness is abcense of light etc. I can not understand why peoole have problems with understanding such fundamental concepts of everyday optics.

    1. motorfot,

      Appeals to impossibilities as a function of our personal states of knowledge is not a rational response to the situation as we know it. Consider the following:

      (1) This is an argument by elimination. We have something that looks like a plane but is doing things that no real plane could do. This cannot be a real plane.

      (2) Only three theories have been offered as to how it could have been done: CGIs (Rosalee Grable), video compositing (Ace Baker), and the use of a sophisticated hologram (John Lear and others).

      (3) If it had been done using CGIs or by video compositing, there would have been no visible image in real time, because the only images of a plane would have been introduced during the process of broadcasting.

      (4) But a large number of witnesses have reported not only seeing (what they took to be) "a plane" but also hearing (what they took to be) a plane. That being the case, it cannot have been done by CGIs or by video compositing.

      (5) Therefore, it must have been done by means of the use of a hologram. Richard Hall has done very detailed studies of the extant videos, which are some 52 in number, about half of which enabled him to create plots of locations and times.

      (6) He found a comparable set of plots done by the NTSB, which it claimed to be based upon radar data, where the citation its report included did not look authentic to him.

      (7) He did find a RADES radar study, which showed a plane traveling 1,400' to the right of the trajectory he had derived from the videos he had studied, where its trajectory was not visible on the radar data.

      (8) The image appears to have been projected from the real plane 1,400' to the right of the image, which was flown into the building effortlessly with no collision effects, because it was only a projected image and not a real plane.

      It won't do to claim that this cannot have been done using a projected image, but it could be argued that the image was projected in a different fashion, if there were any good reason to believe it.

      It seems to me that motorfot does not quite grasp that (1) through (5) are unavoidable, given the available evidence. If he thinks there is a better explanation than (6) through (8), then let him produce it.

      I allow at the end that it might have been done using a drone cloaked in the image of a plane. Or the atmosphere might have been prepared with some kind of reflective material. But that it was a hologram appears to be inescapable.

    2. Moreover, there is a good discussion of Richard Hall's work by Nick Kollerstrom at

      Plus I did a series of interviews on this show before reaching the conclusion that it appeared to have been a hologram, including one with Stephen Brown, who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge.

      He assured me that it's technologically possible to project such an image under such circumstances. This is therefore another good reason to question motorfot's skepticism. So I encourage him to reconsider his position and, if he has a better explanation, share it.

    3. Jim Fetzer have you watched this?
      SEPTEMBER CLUES addendum

      It makes a good cause for pre-fabricated imagery.

    4. Lets project a plane image against a bright blue sky, somehow, now have a plane in the sky, great! BUT. We still have the light from the sky, massive radiation, shining through the hologram!!
      How do you explain that the back ground sky light does not shine through the plane image?
      What is blocking the light from the sky?
      Until someone can give a principle for how to block that light from shining through the image there is no hologram theory period.
      Noone will adress this devastating problem, why?

    5. Thats all I ask, explain how i would be possible to stop the sky light from shining through the hologram. How?

  4. It's Dr. Fetzer's position that the hologram was projected from a nearby moving plane. He fails to address how the projected image would remain stable in a smooth flight fashion (when the projection source is moving) that would be required of such a ruse. Also what happens if an object such as a bird or building gets between your projected image and the projection source? Wouldn't we see the hologram flicker in and out? What about the hologram's interaction with the building at the 'moment of impact'? Dr. Fetzer has failed to adequately address these issues.

    1. Maybe a mag field of some sort to back the image a gas of some sort ..this would not be really available to the public because its for miltary use .. But maybe some replication will be done..I seriously doubt it tho

  5. There was no hologram, it would be impossible for the image to be viewed in all directions with such perfection. They would have needed 3 of these invisible planes which of course since they are invisible I have never seen one projecting the phantom image. Dr Fetzer should not be ridiculed for his beliefs though because imagination is usually how things are invented or the truth is somehow uncovered.But this theory needs to be put back in dreamland

  6. Okay fellows, rather than bicker and quibble unproductively (and to Manichaean excess), about the presumed mutual exclusivity of the "Hologram Hypothesis" versus "Total-video Trickery," how about considering a scenario in which key aspects of BOTH EXPLANATIONS could be valid?

    Curious, Dr. Fetzer? (If you're still re-visiting this comment thread, anyway...)

    So here goes:

    Assuming that most of the truthers who constitute your regular listernership agree with you, by now, that the official account of two 500mph jumbo-jets smoothly penetrating the towers is physically impossible and therefore DID NOT HAPPEN, we are nevertheless left with the need for some credible, alternate explanation of the aerial phenomena later reported by purported eye-and-ear witnesses in Lower Manhattan.

    As I'm sure you know, thorough comparative analyses of their testimonies have been done by several investigators over the past decade, and the consensus of their reports reveals that the 9/11 eye/ear witnesses differ widely, even wildly, as to what they recall seeing and hearing. I hope that you have taken into consideration the distinct possibility that at least SOME of these witnesses are mendacious shills in league with the perps, while others are likely so post-trauma influenced by the repetitious deluge of mass-media reports "clarifying" the situation that these people now suffer from false-memory syndrome. But that still leaves open the chance that at least a remnant of the witnesses REALLY DID see and/or hear SOMETHING resemblng (or simulating) a roaring, speeding and crashing passenger jet. And perhaps what they did perceive that morning was actually the result of some high-tech, DARPA-developed, holographic-style trickery -- the arcane details and principles of which are still understood by only a small coterie of mil-intel boffins to this very day.

    If, indeed, there is one faction of witnesses who are neither lying nor deluded yet honestly attest to the sound and/or sight of a large aircraft that morning, then I grant you that the "Hologram Hypothesis" (buoyed by radar data of satisfactory provenance) is a plausible explanation for their accounts.


    1. But, Dr. Fetzer, this hypothetical use of such witness-fooling future-technology, amidst the generally poor sight lines of Lower Manhattan's concrete canyons, DOES NOT PRECLUDE the simultaneous possibility that the TV-news networks were themselves complicit in the casus belli fraud -- to the extent that THEY SHOWED NO "LIVE" TV IMAGERY AT ALL from Lower Manhattan, substituting customized variants (for each network) of a spectacular, Spider Man/Batman-style, 103-minute CGI movie, pre-manufactured under military secrecy and playing back on the networks until AFTER the towers had really been brought down by conventional, from-the-bottom-up demolition, hidden from any still-working cameras in civilian hands under the cover of strategically generated, giant clouds of white smoke.

      Tapes of the supposed "live" network coverage have long been available, at the Internet Archive and various other sites, and dozens of sharp-eyed, independent researchers (the sharpest of them being Simon Shack) have pored over the images for years, with far greater curiosity, scrutiny and honesty than the bureaucratic drones at NIST, who were politically "under the gun" to come up with a Warren Report-like confirmation of the 2001 version of the "magic bullet" theory, this time involving "magic planes," "mystical kerosene" and "supernaturally supple steel".

      What Shack, his cohorts (and even some of his severest critics!) have come up with is stunning evidence of a whole range of giveaway defects and inconsistencies in the CGI-simulation tapes which point not only to the jumbo-jet images being faked, but the also the cityscape itself, the running crowds, and most shockingly -- the bizarre and (official) explanation-defying, TOP-DOWN/FREE-FALL collapsing/dustifying of the towers!

      Dr. Fetzer, I know it is regrettable that the (elusive and temperamental) Simon Shack has refused all your multiple invitations for interviews and in-person presentations, but that still should not be a viable excuse for a scholar of science, such as yourself, to dismiss, out of hand, his discoveries without rebutting them point-by-point -- if you can.

      And if you can't, then I trust you will grant them at least the same measure of plausibility you have given to holograms. As I have demonstrated above, the two lines of explanation are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

    2. Andy, Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I am stunned by those who persist in the view that it cannot have been a hologram on the basis of their personal beliefs about hologram technology. I make a point of interviewing Stephen Brown, who had recently completed a course at Cambridge on holography, who assured me that the technology existed at the time to do it.

      Most strikingly, as long as there are witnesses who are truthfully reporting having seen and heard "a plane", there is no alternative explanation that is reasonable. It cannot have been done by CGIs or by video compositing, if that is the case, because "a plane" would then only have become visible AFTER THE FACT and could not have been seen PRIOR TO NETWORK BROADCASTS.

      I was therefore concerned to locate AT LEAST ONE BONA FIDE WITNESS, which I did in the persona of SCOTT FORBES, whom I also interviewed on this show. As long as there were witnesses who saw and heard "a plane", the only hypothesis that can explain the data is that of a sophisticated hologram. No other hypothesis is remotely tenable, as long as that is the case.

      John Connor, for example, is begging the question by making ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE FEATURES OF HOLOGRAMS, which may or may not be true. In particular, some of the videos show the left wing of "the plane" disappearing. And none of them include strobe lights, which, as John Lear observed, would have been present had this been a real plane. He does not appear to have watched Richard Hall's presentation, moreover, since he explains that the projecting plane had to fly faster than a standard 767 could fly at that altitude to preserve the integrity of the image from the ground.

      What stuns me the most is that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION given that we have something that witnesses reported looked like a plane but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform. It was not only flying faster than a Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude but entering the building in violation of Newton's laws of motion. So I am not impressed by those who cannot begin to accommodate these most basic aspects of the situation we encounter here.

      As for Simon Shack, onebornfree and others who believe in wholesale fakery of the images from New York, I find that very difficult to take seriously, but I have interviewed onebornfree in the past and have planned to interview him yet again. As for Simon Shack, I am acutely disappointed that he has been unwilling or unable to speak up for himself. I have no only invited him to appear on this show, but invited him to speak in Vancouver. That he has declined my invitations in the past does not reflect well on his integrity.

      I reiterate that I would be glad to feature him on the show, since I would like to hear more from him about his position. Since Stephen Brown has told me that the technology existed at the time and Scott Forbes appears to be a bona fide witness who observed "a plane" hitting the South Tower, I am not going to take seriously those who discount their reports UNLESS THEY CAN SHOW WHAT THEY HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD OR ARE FALSELY REPORTING. The elements (1) though (5) that drive the hologram hypothesis are never even considered by these critics, whom I therefore find very difficult to take seriously.

  7. Dr Fetzer makes claims that the planes were holograms based on some guy taking classes at Cambridge University. Show us a actual case of anything being projected in the sky that was made to travel at 500 mph with stable and defined features throughout its viewable travel and uniformly viewable from all angles. Why would they use a hologram of a plane with no windows, the wrong color, and a pod at the bottom of the aircraft that is not on any other passenger airplane in existence that milliseconds before impact ejects a pulse at the tower? Why not make a hologram of the actual airplane? Show us just 1 invisible airplane that could be used for the projection of the hologram.

    1. Real time 3D holograms

    2. really impressive as long as the camera faces the angle of projection, definitely impressive, I want one. But this is a dark controlled environment with lighting just in the right place and no camera panning around the object. What was seen on 911 is seen at every imaginable angle and moving at over 500 mph. So where did they project from? the invisible airplane?

    3. "What was seen on 911 is seen at every imaginable angle and moving at over 500 mph. So where did they project from? the invisible airplane?"

      I agree. However, we don't the advance technology the military might possess.

      If example like this is being demonstrated to the public. You can bet the military has something much more advanced.

    4. And all this focus of "might possess" this or maybe it was done by holograms has been injected just to muddy up the journey to the truth. The video fakery and CGI theories are totally without merit. Holograms are possible if the technology really exists that it can be carried out in the conditions that existed that day to which there is no evidence. Many of the "truth" videos on youtube have been doctored also so you can't believe everything you see on video.
      This is why I support the efforts of AE911 Truth. This is the most stable and professional group with a focused message that only wants a new investigation. But unfortunately the odds of this happening in this country


    5. Joseph, don't shill for A&E911. They are still pushing the myth of explosive nanothermite! And they take minimal interest in other aspects of 9/11. I guess you don't know, but Cambridge is one of the world's greatest universities--and if anyone would know whether it can be done, the faculty there would know. So spare me your personal opinions when, given the available evidence, it is impossible that it WASN"T done using a hologram. These guys were not rocket scientists and they made mistakes, but what the witnesses saw was something that looked like a real plane but was performing feats that no real plane could perform. And you really need to get up-to-speed on how the Twin Towers were destroyed. Try "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II", "Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Missing Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle", and "Mystery Solved:The WTC:was Nuked". A&e911 is running a limited hang-out and you appear to be one of their dupes.

  8. Why are there not thousands of amateur videos of the second plane hitting? One would certainly expect there to be. There must have been tens of thousands of people filming the first building burning as the second one was hit. Where are these thousands of videos?

  9. Dr. Fetzer, please, please give us a straight answer:

    1. Have you actually watched, carefully and thoughtfully, the entire September Clues movie?

    2. Have you actually read, all the way through, the 9/11 Vicsim Report?

    If so, can you comment on them in detail?

    If not (and particularly after all this time...) WHY NOT???

    Just because the Shack-faction have rudely rebuffed you and ridiculed your hologram hypothesis is most certainly NOT a SCHOLARLY justification to simply dismiss (without serious investigation on your part) their potentially game-changing 9/11 theories and the documented discoveries on which they are based.

    Your ego may be brused by the Shacksters' on-line crudity and your academic dignity ruffled as well, but as a true public intellectual with a huge ethical commitment to seeking the truth -- you know I'm right (as one of your longtime supporters) in beseeching you to give September Clues and the Vicsim Report an honest and open-minded examination and response.

    1. Andy, you are making very thoughtful posts here. I have not gone all the way through Simon Shack's work, which I agree that I should do. I am fascinating by your suggestion that it might be BOTH the use of a hologram AND video fakery as well. So keep after me. Would you be interesting in coming on the show to discuss these things? You seem smart and articulate. Let me know. Drop me a line at Thanks very much.

  10. A hologram is transparent, that is why they are usually projected against dark backdrops. The bright blue light from the sky would have shone through the plane making it very hard to see and obviously fake.
    I guess you could argue that the government has some kind of electromagnetic technique for bending light by manipulating time-space, like a gravitational lens or a black hole or something like that, but that is very far fetched and border on ridiculous. Please Dr Fetzer, give us a sign that you have understood this HUGE problem with the hologram theory. You cant just ignore common sense arguments like this. What is stopping the light from the sky from from going through the hologram plane?
    I personally feel you have been lured into this stance by someone who wants you of the tracks.
    Just think about it, please, it is not complicated.
    We have no explanation for where the universe comes from, that does not mean that the God hypothesis is the only possible explanation. I dont know all the answers, I only know that the planes are not holograps because the light from the sky does not shine through them. Were they holograph then the darkest spot on the image would be "holes" in the image were only light from the sky shone through.
    Seriously DR Fetzer, I dont know what to believe if you cant aknowledge this.

  11. We have witnesses reporting their observation of something they took to be a real plane, but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform. IT LOOKED LIKE A REAL PLANE BUT CANNOT HAVE BEEN ONE. There are three theories (and only three of which I am aware, although perhaps total video fakery might be a fourth): CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a sophisticated hologram. But the use of CGIs or video compositing would not make the image of a plane visible in real time. For my benefit and edification, WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE OTHER THAN A SOPHISTICATED HOLOGRAM? A student who recently completed a course of holography assures me that the technology is available. But my point remains. WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE OTHER THAN A SOPHISTICATED HOLOGRAM?

  12. Here's a link to one of many demonstrations of sophisticated holograms being used inside within a theatre. There seem to be a lot out there. Check it out: Claims about what is or is not possible have to be well-founded. If the proof I have adduced about the situation--it looked like a real plane but was performing feats that no real plane could perform; hence, it was not a real plane, but it looked like a real plane--then, since witnesses observed it BEFORE IT HIT THE SOUTH TOWER AND ANY VIDOES HAD BEEN BROADCAST, WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE? Please tell me.

    1. Mr Fetzer, the video you linked to does not demonstrate jolograms, it demonstrates Ace Baker video effects.
      Holograms are by definition transparent.
      The 911 planes where nor transparent, therefor they can not be holograms.
      Somebody wants you to believe in the hologram fairytales, but do a little real research, lika studying what a hologram is, and you will understand that you have been fooled into beliving in nonsense.

    2. Possible alternativs:
      Planes that actually fly into a hollowed tower with a built in crash-zone. Weakend planes that blows up in a controlled demolition of the plane as it crashes inte the crash zone.
      Flyby planes.
      No planes.
      We all know that thousands of people will claim to have witnessed a spectacular event even if we can be sure it was only witnessed by a handful. There are many examples of such confabulation. We can be sure though that the planes were NOT holograms, because holograms are transparent and the planes witnessed and videotaped were not transparent.

    3. The link, , does go to demonstrations of holograms, so you are wrong. I don't quite understand why you think your knowledge of the state of holography would be superior to what Stephen Brown learned at Cambridge. While I appreciate that we all base our judgments on our own knowledge and understanding, when I have cited an interview that can be found in this archive on a subject like this, I would like to see some indication that you, for example, have taken the time to listen to it. Given what he explained to me during that program, you are simply wrong.

      No, this is not holograms, why do you say that? Anyone who knows what holograms are, knows they are not physical objects, the are light, optic illusions. A hologram can not block light, because holograms are not matter.
      Therefor a hologram is transparent. A bright blue sky would shine through a hologram, ask someone who actually understands physics and you will get the same answer, the planes on the videos can not have been holograms. It is impossible by definition. If they were projections they were projections of some other technuiqe than holograms because holograms thay could not be, absolutely wrong and you are wrong mr Fetzer, you must kill this darling of yours if you want to make progress. Im trying to help you get closer to the truth.

  13. Perhaps, when OneBornFree returns as a guest on the Real Deal, Dr. Fetzer will be obligated (via the protocols of talk-show hosting) to finally and directly address the startling (but thoroughly plausible and well-demonstrated) claims of the Vicsim Report and the September Clues movie.

    His continuing avoidance of doing so here still suggests to me (and I'm trying to be charitable) that he has never given either anything more than a cursory scan -- and then quickly dismissed them as "ridiculous," preferring to concentrate on other aspects of the 9/11 mystery to which he has already devoted much intense and ultimately productive study.

    But as I have demonstrated above in this thread, the corporate-news networks' broadcasting prefabricated CGI simulations of the physically impossible second plane strike and the utterly bizarre, top-down tower collapses (while some holographic-plane trickery, followed by massive smoke-screening and bottom-up demolitions may have been militarily conducted at the real Lower Manhattan location) is a worthy hypothesis that DOES NOT require concluding that EVERY eyewitness is a shill.

    So why would the perps use TWO forms of trickery, you might ask. Well, perhaps whatever cutting-edge, airborne-deception technology WAS deployed to fool whatever potential witnesses and working cameras remained (following the rapid evacuation of the area after the first, non-broadcast "hit") was suspected to be less than totally convincing and wasn't likely to photograph well from multiple angles (as is certainly the case with holograms whose older technology is widely known).

  14. Mr. Eastman insists the holes in the buildings HAD TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY PLANES. Nothing else could have formed such shapes and ejected material on the other side. No pyrotechnic or special effects experts could have rigged the buildings to produce such an effect according to Eastman even though fireballs are commonly seen in most movies where explosions are required and plane shaped holes could easily have been created.

    If the videos were live, the holes had to have been made by artfully placed explosives inside the buildings. If you look at the video archives from the morning of 9/11 and study clips from all of the networks, you will see that no reporters are sent down to the streets to film the event. Instead, anchors are calmly sitting at their desks and are interviewing people they have apparently called on the phone as opposed to taking calls from the public. This demeanor seems strange and unlike what usually happens with a breaking story. The anchors seem to be waiting for an all clear and not running for cover when they are told the country is under attack.

    Study the videos of the demolition and the sidewalk below to find signs of people, injured people, crowds running, evacuations of the WTC, etc. I have looked at many videos fro 9/11 and find no substantial crowd scenes. One can almost conclude the WTC had been evacuated probably through the underground. I have to conclude the early videos, some with planes and some without or taking a different path, are fakes and that the people in most of the videos and callers are actors.

    Now that we've seen how casual the actors are, thinking they are in drills as at the Boston Marathon, we can see that the takedown of the WTC was blatant and took the course of least resistance. Actors in a drill are not going to go complaining to the press and furthermore, the press is being well paid to facilitate this black operation. (Note that only two exercises had victim compensation funds in the millions--9/11 and Boston.)

    1. Well stated, sir.

      When you consider that New York City has been, for more than sixty years(!), the most competitive TV-news market in the world, with both network and local-station camera crews scouring the city (and the high-profile borough of Manhattan in particular) at all hours, searching for "scoops" via fresh/new "action" footage of "breaking" events -- their coverage of the WTC "plane" crashes and resultant fires was so uncharacteristically LETHARGIC as to be HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS from the get-go!

      Yet long before 2001, literally EVERY TV-news operation in the city had become well-equipped with what constituted, collectively, an entire FLEET of live-remote capable minivans, lorries, and SUV's, always filled with petrol and ready to speed to the site of any calamatous event as soon as its location could be determined from chatter first monitored on emergency-services' two-way radio traffic.

      But on the morning of 9/11, as can be plainly seen in the archived video of the real-time program streams, there is NO on-the-scene, street-level television reporting for a painfully long time. Instead, all the viewer is presented with is a narrow selection of alternating studio shots of chatting morning-show hosts, some alleged telephoto long shots of the towers as seen from the air, and telephone-patched audio of various big-time media employees who just happened to be "off duty" but were nevertheless quite well situated to recite verbal desecriptions of the morning's ghastly, "terrorist-caused" events.

      As Simon Shack and others have documented, what the viewing public was initially presented with that morning (at least until the "impromptu" presidential response from Florida aired) was not genuine, live TV-news coverage at all, but rather a prefabricated, 103-minute, CGI-crafted, psyop-MOVIE, designed to implant in the nation's collective consciousness a strategically falsified version of how the towers were destroyed.

    2. These are VERY INTERESTING observations that suggest we might be dealing with pre-packaged videos. But why then would they create images of buildings that are blowing apart from the top down rather than collapsing? What was the point of that? And do you agree that, given the arguments I have made, we CANNOT BE DEALING WITH REAL PLANES? I just want to make sure where we stand on this. Do you know of a single New Yorker who has protested that those videos were not what he personally witnessed regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers?

  15. Jim, other than a sohpisticated hologram, it certainly could have been nothing at all. This is my point when I ask where the thousands of videos that should exist are. Lots of people will say they saw a plane when in fact they saw nothing at all.

    I noted a while back that when the Rolling Stones suddenly played a bar in Toronto when I was in high school, a bar that held maybe 500 people, there were tens of thousands of people who said they were there.

    So, maybe there were no holograms, just some liars who want to have been there.

    I am not saying this is the truth, but it is a possible explanation.

  16. Andy Tyme wrote:

    When you consider that New York City has been, for more than sixty years(!), the most competitive TV-news market in the world, with both network and local-station camera crews scouring the city (and the high-profile borough of Manhattan in particular) at all hours, searching for "scoops" via fresh/new "action" footage of "breaking" events -- their coverage of the WTC "plane" crashes and resultant fires was so uncharacteristically LETHARGIC as to be HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS from the get-go!
    Right on, Andy. I'm glad to know someone else noticed the pitiful coverage of the WTC by all the networks on 9/11. I think we can forget about the so-called "eyewitnesses."

    Back in the days of the JFK assassination, the FBI actually took statements from witnesses who were under oath and who signed the statements--sadly which were often ignored or distorted by the Warren Commission.

    Were the WTC plane "eyewitnesses" questioned under oath? Were their signed depositions put into the record? Heck, the NTSB didn't even show up to check on the crashes! There is no "record." Why then should anyone care what a few, probably actors, witnessed? Would the thugs who demolished the WTC be concerned enough to plan and spend a fortune on the projection of holograms so a few people could say they witnessed planes? Quite ridiculous, I think.

  17. Philosophers deal with questions of reality and illusion all the time. We could be living a very vivid dream. We could be being deceived by the most powerful deceiver. Nothing we experience can be know for certain. So the idea of video fakery or of fake planes is not traumatic for those of us who have encountered these questions. I agree that there are many signs that the networks KNEW SOMETHING WAS COMING and that those CALLS IN as opposed to ON SITE INTERVIEWS is troubling by itself. But I would like to know of at least ONE NEW YORKER who has protested that the videos did not correspond with what they personally witnessed regarding the Twin Towers destruction.

  18. Everyone here has made some valuable contributions. I think it's one of the best discussions I've seen on The Real Deal, or possibly anywhere. For what it's worth, a friend of mine whose veracity I considered at the time unimpeachable and who was physically in Lower Manhattan at the time of the event, when he was visiting Atlanta a few years ago, told me that he personally witnessed a plane strike one of the WTC towers. For a long time my confidence in this friend was thrown into doubt, but the Hologram Theory offers the potential for solving my quandary. More...

  19. Anyone who takes a course in the physics of optics (I had only one, regrettably; and I can't guarantee that this is even relevant) learns that light (especially polarized light or polarized laser light) can behave in highly non-intuitive ways. A classic optics experiment uses a second polarized filter out of phase 90 degrees with the first to block a light beam, but when a third 90 degrees out of phase with the second is placed after that the light beam mysteriously reappears! I spent four hours searching for a video of that experiment, but failed to find one. This video, however, illustrates the same phenomenon: (right-click and open in new tab). More light "magic" here: (right-click and open in new tab). More...

  20. And here: (right-click and view in new tab). If photon energy (or light), which is a quantum phenomenon, makes sense to you, according to physicist Richard Feynman, you probably don't understand it: (right-click and view in new tab) (very funny but starts slow). The Mexican "flying humanoid", which appears opaque in broad daylight, may perhaps be a holographic projection: (right-click and view in new tab). More...

  21. We may see some even more extraordinary phenomena in the coming years. The ruling class is running scared and paying out billions (perhaps trillions) for heartless inventors who can come up with Wunderwaffen (miracle weapons) that can save their skins. They know that once they turn the military on us in a wholesale fashion, they'll have only one chance to come out victorious. And furthermore that, if they fail, there'll be no Royal Austrian Army (as in 1799) to come to their rescue. Any resort to wholesale slaughter by them will occasion a popular demand for gruesome reprisals, which the whole world would applaud. They'd do well to pick out an island of exile and ask the world to provide them with a contract to supply them with what personal luxuries they may require until they've lived out their final days far removed from the societies they've plundered and raped.

  22. I feel like Im beating you guys over the head with my same message, but still noone has proposed an explanation for how the blue sky dis-appears. It is relativele easy to project an image. It is much more difficult to blacken the sky. It is not possible to bloch blue light from the sky with a hologram, since holograms dont block light, they are light. You can not dry wet clothes with rain, right? It is the same thing, you cant block light with a hologram. I dont get what is difficult to understand, I know it is partly my fault for presenting these principles of physics in a foreign languege, which makes my posts difficult to follow no doubt. But please just think about creating darknes by shining lights, it is absurd.

  23. What we know (from both mass-media reports and open-source science) about CONVENTIONAL holography, Moto, tends to support your position. But other laser-related, top-secret, illusion-creating technology (of which we know precious little) should perhaps not even be speculated about, in this context, under the name of holography at all.

    And then again, we do have a considerable body of publicly available psychological research which dramatically demonstrate the extreme fallibility (and malleability) of human memory -- particularly when percipiants are post facto exposed to contrary/enhanced/altered images and false accounts of an event.

    So... an explosion occurs, way up on the side of a very tall, distant building and huge smoke clouds immediately start to billow and fog the air -- or are ALREADY doing so. But no "crashing plane" was physically present at all.

    Whatever NON-shill "eyewitnesses" there actually were to the explosion(s) subsequently are subjected to an enormous barrage of ficticious media reports (and CGI simulations) of a "crashing plane" having caused the subsequent pyrotechnics.

    The (perfectly natural) desire to be an "eyewitness" to such an historic, "world-changing" event, coupled with the irresistibly reinforcing power of the torrent of media fictions that follow are, IMHO, more likely responsible for any honestly reported "plane sightings" than the deployment of some next-generation, holographic-style, projected illusion.

    But I'm still open to either explanation.

  24. Jim Fetzer Wrote:

    "We have witnesses reporting their observation of something they took to be a real plane, but which was performing feats that no real plane could perform. IT LOOKED LIKE A REAL PLANE BUT CANNOT HAVE BEEN ONE.

    There are three theories (and only three of which I am aware, although perhaps total video fakery might be a fourth): CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a sophisticated hologram.

    But the use of CGIs or video compositing would not make the image of a plane visible in real time. For my benefit and edification, WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE OTHER THAN A SOPHISTICATED HOLOGRAM?

    A student who recently completed a course of holography assures me that the technology is available. But my point remains. WHAT ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE OTHER THAN A SOPHISTICATED HOLOGRAM?"


    I have been debating this for years now and find the most persuasive evidence in the public's mind is the sight of the plane cut-outs on the sides of the buildings. This may be another possibility to explain honest witnesses to planes..

    Those who claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower, may have seen the fireball which was followed by the cut-out. Even a child seeing that image will get it that a plane flew into the building and disappeared, causing the building to collapse. Eastman keeps repeating that only a plane could have created those images. Had there been an outline of a plane with wings at the Pentagon, I think Eastman would believe a plane hit it.

    I really think that if those plane-shaped holes had not been on the WTC, the public would never have bought the official conspiracy theory to the degree they did.

  25. Jim Fetzer Wrote:

    I agree that there are many signs that the networks KNEW SOMETHING WAS COMING and that those CALLS IN as opposed to ON SITE INTERVIEWS is troubling by itself. But I would like to know of at least ONE NEW YORKER who has protested that the videos did not correspond with what they personally witnessed regarding the Twin Towers destruction.
    I heard one New Yorker fleeing the dust clouds say that he did not know what happened until he got home and turned on the TV. He did not know that planes hit the towers despite his experience.

    WTC 2 is on the southern tip of Manhattan and it was the south wall that was alleged to have been struck by a plane.

    The route of UA175 was a straight line crossing the water after flying over New Jersey. It was only a short distance from the shore to the building. The iconic photograph of the disappearing plane was taken from a sight-seeing boat out of Battery Park. In fact, there were two almost identical films taken from that same boat. The photographers, first reported as tourist amateurs, turned out to be professionals.

    My point is that the south tower was so hard to see from the ground and from surrounding buildings, especially the south wall, that I doubt if many people were around that area could see the building very well. Also, how was it that so many were able to capture that image given the alleged high speed of the plane.

  26. Very well, two hours worth of mysteries, all can be explained with hologram technology, what else could it be...