IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

R. I. P. - No Plane Theory, Jim Fetzer evading questions

onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 10:56 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I'm just going to jump straight in here. Basically Jim Fetzer has been evading these points I raised at "TruthandShadows" blogspot (820 posts later..)

Post 1.


From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:

QUOTE
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake …” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing ‘airplane’ images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released – inexplicably – as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight” 


First off, the "lucky shots" description is ludicrous because thousands of New Yorkers were focused on this area after the strike on Tower 1.

According to the NPT accusations, that’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be publically used as authors of totally manipulated footage, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers”, who “know” exactly what happened on 9/11 in Manhattan. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses. 

That’s a lot of loose ends.





Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.

I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc. 

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?



So how can people who allege that all footage is a complete fabrication and that it's been in the perps'  hands literally from day one, base any scientific claims on observations made in them??

Even the claim that no aircraft debris was seen falling from the impact side doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pause and play the impact seen in the following video. Slowmo if you can.



Then there's this:



I don't know if there is any footage of the base of that area, but the collapse of the tower also leaves the debris claim open to obfuscation.

We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.

The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft's recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.

When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

Here's a video that's as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.

Normal speed



Slow motion (pay attention to the actual collision at the beginning of the video)



See how the car appears to "melt" or "disappear"? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 11:04 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Post 5. (please read thoroughly)

The claim that holograms were used (this is pivotal to NPT)

I was pointed to a discussion paper on holograms being experimented on by DARPA which could have allegedly been used on 9/11

"3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate"

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA338490

QUOTE
"Until recently, however, research in photorefractive holography has been limited to the production of two-dimensional (2-D) holograms and very limited field-of-view (FOV) 3-D holograms."

"The proposed method employs a volume hologram recorded and read in real time in a photorefractive crystal to produce a 3-D image. This innovative technique is simple, and it differs from previous attempts at 3-D dis plays. We used a photorefractive material, SBN, to record a hologram, and a phase-conjugate read beam, which is generated from a double-pumped phase-conjugate mirror (DPPCM), to accurately reproduce the holographic image in space over a large perspective. The resultant holographic image is free from system-induced aberrations, may be viewed over a wide range of angles that can be expanded by the use of a mosaic of crystals, and has uniform high quality over the entire FOV."




QUOTE
"The three-dimensional hologram is a real image of the object and can be displayed in free space. The image can be viewed by projection, via lens relays, directly into the eye or a camera. Figure 3 shows the hologram of two dice earrings recorded in the SBN:60 photorefractive crystal. The dice have dimensions of 2 mm on a side. We verified the third dimension of the image by viewing the hologram at different perspectives, which demonstrated parallax when we rotated the viewing angle by placing the camera on a pivot arm. The FOV of the hologram (fig. 3) was measured to be -14°. We determined the FOV by the angular range in which the hologram was clearly visible."

"Using equations (8) and (9), we calculated the maximum FOV of the holo- gram presented in figure 3 to be -24°, where Lc = 20 mm, d = 40 mm, <p= 20°, and s = 3 mm. Because of incomplete phase conjugation of the read beam, the measured FOV of 14° is much less, because the entire region of the crystal was not used. The alignment of the pump beam and reference beam in the DPPCM is critical to enhance a large phase-conjugate read beam."


Note: look at the limited field of view (FOV) with the first experiment:



Note: look how exact these positions have to be to project a static image:




QUOTE
"The increased perspective (FOV) is evident on the die in the background of figure 5, where the side of the die with the three is visible at one edge of the FOV, as shown in figure 5a; while at the other edge of the FOV, the side of the die with the six is clearly visible, as shown in figure 5b. We measured the FOV of the hologram presented in figure 5 to be -30° by rotating the camera on a pivot arm that was centered at the image plane. The hologram is clearly visible through the entire FOV; however, there was a bright strip of light that appeared due to scattering when the viewing angle passed through the intersection where the two crystals were attached by double-sided tape. Using equations (8) and (9), we calculated the maximum FOV to be -44°, where Lc =40 mm, d = 45 mm, <p= 20°, and s = 3 mm. As previously stated, the FOV was limited because the read beam did not fill the entire crystal. The maximum possible FOV is desired so that the images are more realistic."


Given the multiple angles at which the aircraft was captured, the following is very important:

QUOTE
"We would also like to display the hologram in such a medium that the image could be viewed at different angles. A scattering liquid was tested, but proved ineffective since the perspective was lost, and only a 2-D image was visible."


Those multiple angles can be seen in this video linked to earlier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uCdeRGw4PQ

And these documented first responder witnesses to an aircraft (which Jim Fetzer actually claims "reinforces" the hologram argument because they were deceived! Yeah, you work that one out)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804309

The following is also very important. Each individual holographic projection is stored on a crystal (Strontium Barium Niobate) and each complex projection requires the previously mentioned specifically placed multiple apparatus to achieve just one hologram. A single frame.

QUOTE
"Presently, much research is focused on studying holographic storage in photorefractive crystals via angular [7], wavelength [8], and electric-field [9] multiplexing; however, these images are generally 2-D. We have stored multiple 3-D holograms in the photorefractive crystal via wavelength multiplexing. The experimental setup used to study wavelength multiplexing is shown in figure 2. However, the writing beams originated from an argon-ion laser that was operating in a multiline configuration. Also, the DPPCM was not used. The read beam was generated from a second argonion laser running in a single-line configuration. Several holograms were written simultaneously at the lasing wavelengths of the argonion laser.
The relative powers of the primary lasing wavelengths used to record the holograms are listed in table 1. We read the individual holograms by tuning the read beam to a particular wavelength. The relative powers of the read beam used to reconstruct individual holograms are also listed in table 1."


A lot of the jargon is way over my head but even I can see that both the theoretical and experimental stages of this concept is nowhere near as advanced as to project a realistic aircraft caught on video in its last seconds of flight. Or multiple images caught at different angles (including ground to air angles), at varying distances.

The maximum FOV achieved is 44° but with major distortions.

The apparatus has to be in exact positions, distances and angles from eachother to project a static image.

How could they have projected this solid looking, constant, mobile hologram without first having previously set it up for a dry run??

How can even this (alleged) impressive technology even begin to portray an aircraft not only in motion, but covering a distance of 700fps over thousands of feet, in a descent, banking, and disappearing at the precise moment of reaching the building?

It couldn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- onesliceshort   R. I. P. - No Plane Theory   May 2 2012, 10:56 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 2. The impact hole http://img114.imageshack...   May 2 2012, 10:57 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 3. The claim that the tower didn't budge (an...   May 2 2012, 10:58 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 4. The claim that modification of the witnes...   May 2 2012, 11:01 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 5. (please read thoroughly) The claim that h...   May 2 2012, 11:04 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 6. Miscellaneous: "Fade to black...   May 2 2012, 11:06 PM
- - onesliceshort   Post 7. My own 2cents on other technology to aid ...   May 2 2012, 11:08 PM
- - amazed!   Terrific work OSS! I especially liked the foo...   May 3 2012, 03:04 PM
- - rob balsamo   Good work OSS... I've never actually before s...   May 3 2012, 05:24 PM
|- - onesliceshort   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 3 2012, 10:24 PM...   May 3 2012, 09:36 PM
- - Tamborine man   Hey, hold on just a minute or two here, dear OSS a...   May 4 2012, 11:54 AM
- - rob balsamo   QUOTE Every person in the whole 'wide' wor...   May 4 2012, 12:31 PM
- - onesliceshort   TM, I think the insinuation about Snowcrash and th...   May 4 2012, 10:19 PM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 ...   May 5 2012, 04:54 AM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 ...   May 7 2012, 02:04 AM
- - onesliceshort   QUOTE (tm)My worry is this: By declaring NPT for ...   May 7 2012, 09:02 AM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 5 2012, 12:02 ...   May 7 2012, 11:11 PM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 7 2012, 11:11 ...   May 7 2012, 11:43 PM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 6 2012, 02:43 AM...   May 8 2012, 08:35 AM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 08:35 ...   May 8 2012, 09:01 AM
|- - bpete1969   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 8 2012, 09:01 AM...   May 15 2012, 09:58 PM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (bpete1969 @ May 15 2012, 09:58 PM)...   May 15 2012, 11:37 PM
- - amazed!   Famous line from Cool Hand Luke--what we have here...   May 8 2012, 08:44 AM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (amazed! @ May 6 2012, 11:44 AM...   May 8 2012, 09:04 AM
- - onesliceshort   QUOTE Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend th...   May 8 2012, 03:19 PM
|- - Tamborine man   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 6 2012, 06:19 ...   May 9 2012, 01:52 AM
|- - elreb   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 07:52 ...   May 10 2012, 06:44 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (elreb @ May 11 2012, 08:14 AM) I f...   May 11 2012, 07:22 AM
- - amazed!   Agreed, Elreb!   May 11 2012, 02:56 PM
- - Tamborine man   Agreed, elreb - Cheers   May 11 2012, 10:48 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 12 2012, 12:18...   May 12 2012, 04:32 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ May 12 2012, 06:0...   Jun 4 2015, 06:07 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 4 2015, 07:37...   Jun 6 2015, 02:32 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 6 2015, 04:02...   Jun 10 2015, 05:30 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2015, 07:0...   Jun 12 2015, 05:27 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 12 2015, 06:5...   Jun 14 2015, 07:41 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2015, 09:1...   Jun 19 2015, 11:51 AM
|- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 19 2015, 10:5...   Jun 19 2015, 05:11 PM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) A...   Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 20 2015, 02:3...   Jun 24 2015, 05:04 AM
- - amazed!   Robert For me, all 3 of those YouTubes were ...   May 12 2012, 11:34 AM
|- - 23investigator   QUOTE (amazed! @ May 13 2012, 01:04 A...   May 12 2012, 08:21 PM
- - onesliceshort   Bump   Feb 20 2014, 06:23 AM
- - onesliceshort   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 11:23...   Feb 24 2014, 08:38 PM
- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2014, 07:38...   Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM
- - Alpha66   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM) I...   Jun 3 2015, 08:44 AM
- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (Alpha66 @ Jun 3 2015, 07:44 AM) PL...   Jun 3 2015, 06:47 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th December 2019 - 01:43 AM