Hologramm Theory on 911composites.wiki-site.com

http://www.demonoid.com/files/download/HTTP/1772645/3876110

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Pinocchio%E2%80%99s_Nose

''12:55, 13 April 2009 -- u2r2h added hologramme theory, it may need a separate page''

Under the [[Hologramme hypothesis|hologramme hypothesis]] the image is still being projected onto the vapor carried by the remnants of the missile. The conjugated mirror then disintegrates and the spray mechanism becomes visible as the "Venus Plane Trap".

Therefore Pinocchio.s Nose is perfectly consistent with the hologramme and the compositing hypothesis, and impossible under the real plane hypothesis.

::if you need more info, please google '''u2r2h vvht''' and '''u2r2h hologramme''' and carefully read my ramblings and especially research the scientific basis for real-live hologrammes.

*http://google.com/search?q=u2r2h+%22atomic+vapors
*http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/08/nose-out.html
*http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/11/ua175-wtc-hologramme-ghostplane.html
*~~~~

----

please add your comments here and don't forget to sign with four wiggly lines.

=== u2r2h's Hologramme Theory ===

The Venus Plane Trap is a clear giveaway for the mechanism. The "spray" mechanism had to survive the impact, it may have been inside a hardened missile tip. .. and in the course of it, enough of it even survived the pass through the whole building.&nbsp; A few more points:<br>

*the "spray-area" had to be fairly large to allow for hologramme viewing angles (from below for example). The Venus Plane Trap is pretty large!<br>
*the illuminating laser seems to be in one of the [http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/david-thom-pictures.html THOM] pictures. An airborne large laser was flying east (in direction of the sun) of the scene. The Thom photo shows a huge bright light in the sky about 1 second after impact. I take it the laser was "left on" too long with&nbsp; the obviously unintended nose out effect.
*Weird aeroplane shapes (e.g. [http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/07/911-weird-airplane-hitting-tower.html Jenifer Spell] and [http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2008/01/luc-courchesne-911-ua-175-hologram.html Courchesne] and ''Arraki'' eye-witness) can be attributed to the necessity to approximate shapes for various viewing angles because the magnitude of computing required is simply too large.
*There is more, but I leave it at that. The technical description of how real-time holography may work is taken from an older wikipedia article and mirrored [http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/10/911-hologram-theory.html here]. I know it is hard to believe but see it from the POV of the perps! They would want to use the best technology for creating illusions in order to keep everybody off their case long enough and make it easy enough to dismiss and cover up... <br>

===========================

March 3, 2008 8:27 PM
u2r2h said...

study the nose-out again. The exit-fireball is a two-dimensional egg-shaped disc NOT VISIBLE from the front!! From
my posts you can gain additional knowledge.

The following logic is inescapable:

noplanes + tv-fakery + ONE SINGLE authentic 767 film/photo

EQUALS

HOLOGRAM-missile.

http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2008/01/luc-courchesne-911-ua-175-hologram.html

Yes, I know you have BIG problems even touching this... you think the technology is not possible, but think again, someone left us a hint on how the technology works here.

http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2008/02/hologrammes-how-911-was-done.html

I guess it it was a hardened missile (white-fireball-exiting!) that carried the "screen" (atomic-vapor? liquid?) and it was intact enough upon exit and the "illuminating/activating" laser aboard the 747 in the distance was not switched off in time.

Ondrovic described a fireball in the distant sky!

David Thom took a photo of the 747 light-source!!

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/david-thom-pictures.html

remember the eye-witness who said "DAMN! I HAVE NEVER SEEN A PLANE LIKE THAT"

the hologram is not perfect. From various viewing angles it looks different. Dark-featureless, strangly luminous, distorted, amputee-wings etc. Maybe this is because the perps did not have the computing power to real-time calculate ALL angles.

The fire-ball-upon-impact points to a missile.

I share your scepticism about the hutchisonEffect... but the toasted cars are just too weird. I have investigated it a bit ....

http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/02/free-electron-laser-toasted-cars-at.html

ACE BAKER cannot accept hologrammes... maybe now that I explained it again.

I wanted to talk to Genghis about the NEW AND IMPROVED version of Chopper 5, the one with the plane in the wide shot. One previously available version (Hoffman/Salter) had no plane in the wide shot at all, while another previously available version (Avery/Lawson) had a plane visible in 3 frames during the zoom in only. The new version (Dr. Ebbets) is an interlaced version of the same VHS source as Avery/Lawson.

In an email to me, Genghis said of the new and improved Dr. Ebbets version:

"it's a legitimate find. it's authenticity is not in doubt."

This seems quite an odd comment for anyone, much less a supposed no-planer. This new version has appeared out of the blue, we have no idea who actually has the VHS tape from which it was made, or who digitized it. Why would Genghis not at least SUSPECT that an airplane was added to the wide shot? I think that's just what they did. I wouldn't be A BIT SURPRISED if they come out with a "new and improved" version of CNN Ghostplane. One that shows the columns breaking!

We do know that the new Dr. Ebbets version is cropped differently than the previous Avery/Lawson version. Why? It's suspicious, because the far right-hand edge (where the plane comes in) is cropped away now.

The chroma (color) of the Dr. Ebbets version is accurate, like its frame-blended predecessor Avery/Lawson. The Hoffman/Salter version has been brightened. So the new Dr. Ebbets ought to have finer detail than Hoffman/Salter, but strangely the detail is less fine. This strongly suggests that the quality of Dr. Ebbets was reduced, then enlarged back up to 720 x 480 dimensions. Why?

In fact, I not only SUSPECT someone added an airplane to Dr. Ebbets, I can prove it. The proof comes in attempting to recreate the lesser-quality versions from the higher-quality versions. I've already shown that brightening the old Avery/Lawson does NOT disappear the airplane, therefore brightening did not erase any airplane in the wide shot from Hoffman/Salter.

Genghis and I get into this in our conversation. And we learn several other very interesting things about Genghis.

* Genghis says Chopper 5 is fake, but doesn't really have a reason why.
* Genghis thinks perhaps a missile was used, but doesn't explain how they made it look like a 767.
* Genghis says the image in CNN Ghostplane is not the image of a 767, that it keeps changing shape, and doesn't match up correctly with a known image of a 767.
* Genghis thinks the fake plane might be a hologram.
* Genghis thinks it is physically possible to see a hologram projected into thin air.

The laws of physics dictate that thin-air holograms are strictly impossible, because any projected image needs something to reflect off of in order to go into your eye (or the camera). If Genghis can suspend the laws of physics to allow for thin-air holograms, why not just pretend that planes can meld into steel and concrete buildings? And that those buildings can then crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight?