Originally posted by mrwiffler
"cameras DID record jetliners (albeit shiny, luminous, amputee wings, distorted) "

This is only true of the compressed footage. I know the footage you speak of. Try and find higher resolution versions, they don't distort. Low resolution digital footage will always be distorted in this manner.

compression does not amputate wings, does not distort shapes that radically.

Have you seen the Luc Courchesne video?


scroll down to image No# 43, 50 etc.

Compression does not shift large groups of pixels in a trapezoid manner

However holography does:

"in that the 3-D scene appears distorted if viewed from locations other than those the scene was generated for."

Be my guest to rubbish the hologramme evidence, but you really need to bring up substantial arguments.

Reality is that which doesn't go away when you don't believe in it!

Just because you deem the technology impossible, or yous deem my research to be defamatory it doesn't mean that the facts are addressed.

The *F*A*C*T*S* speak for themselves. I am amazed that the wholly improbable images of ua175 crashing into the south tower are taken to be real BY ANYONE WHO HAS SEEN THEM.

There really is only a few ways out of the dilemma:

ignorance --- I SHALL DENY IT

tv-fakery --- a multitude of images show the same amputee wings? and what about eye-witnesses that saw -- a weird looking, but -- a plane?????

real planes -- As Marcus Icke has proven a long time ago, there is NOT ONE picture that shows a real plane. EVERY image is wrong.
I even went to the trouble of testing the assumption that the camera of carmen taylor and hezarkhani was virtual, because no real-world location for the viewing angle could be found. It turned out both were on a boat and had a perfect view, but the images they recorded are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ... just say butterplane!

I grant yous this:

The simple truth is so simple that the mind is repelled.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -Sherlock Holmes


If ONLY A SINGLE ONE of the recorded pictures, or a SINGLE EYE WITNESS statement is true that a large passenger jet was recorded/seen


at the same time, this large passenger jet did physically impossible things like butter-plane, amputee wings, shape-shifting, or disappeared (chopper 4)

the ONLY conclusion is that there, in the air, on that day, there was an apparition. Today these apparitions are called hologrammes, but feel free to call it what you want.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
"(of the only possible way it could have been done) ...

Real Flight 175 was an optical template for a real-time dynamic hologram"

Rubbish. Why is it "the only way it could have been done"? Much, much simpler to use real planes.

I am not talking about the way it could have been done in our minds, I mean the ONLY WAY IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE. Got that?

Originally posted by mrwiffler
"too much explosives, too much debris, too many people know too much."

Again, rubbish. Did you see ground zero? Who is going to give a damn about debris with that huge mess. Anyhow it was all hauled off as scrap.

Interesting theory. You mean the fact that there was a huge problem for any thinking person, for every eye-witness doesn't matter. Interesting. What do you base your assumption on?

Non-disclosure signatures?

Originally posted by mrwiffler
The hologram theory is garbage.

Thanks for this well-reasoned statement.


[edit on 22-7-2008 by u2r2h]