J
John White
Guest
I'm wondering if there are any plans to get into whose behind the "no Planes" Hologram/faked TV Theory which is doing the rounds right now, maybe as a follow up to the 911 disinfo podcasts
Can you clarify this statement further?, because I don't see how it logically follows the statements below.veille said:Isn't it funny to see investigators shouting 'disinfo!' or cointelpro!' or 'cia agent!' at each other all the time. Real funny to me!
John White said:I'm wondering if there are any plans to get into whose behind the "no Planes" Hologram/faked TV Theory which is doing the rounds right now, maybe as a follow up to the 911 disinfo podcasts
Joe said:Good idea. We'll get on it.
actually 'hologram theory' is a subset of 'no plane' theory. it assumes 'no plane', and then attempts to explain it in a certain way.veille said:No plane theory is different from the hologram theory.
gambeir said:The evidence to support the contention that no planes existed is quite convincing I think. Consider the recent so called mirages of floating cities, mountains, and then there's the so called ufo seen in Chile which resembles a lighted clock dial. In fact that was the first explanation given to the curious residents, that the city was testing out a new technology by projecting a clock in the sky!
OK, so I will just address this issue of the silver colored orbs, or balls seen in the video as well as all over the place.
The evidence shows clearly a round silver ball which is consistent with cloaking in my view, and there appears to be at least two such visual confirmations of these objects recorded on video. As noted, one of these is seen flying on by one of the planes that supposedly impacted one of the two towers.
There's an axiom to crime; "crime follows the potential pathways". Whenever we as a society do something that changes things, when technology and invention creates new things, it also creates new pathways for crime to follow. Change enables the new pathways for crime just like it does to everything else.
At least one very clear video exists on Youtube showing exactly the same type of obscure ball flying just behind and beneath what seems like a very solid looking Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. The question is, is the object flying the C-17 remotely? Is the C-17 even real? The second one brings up all kinds of interesting questions about what the military really has in inventory don't you think? Like maybe they haven't actually got half of what we think they have. Can we even trust our own eye's now? Yea I know that plane looks really real, but is it? Look at the source of the video. Third phase of the Loon? Believe me these guys have put out some doozies, like one featuring a leaping out of the water midget tyrannosaurus rex that they marketed as an unknown creature caught on video, and boy was it a sad one. So anyways...here a link to the C-17 video shown back in 2011. Not sure if they are the original source or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3wT8awyoVY
If you wanted or needed to divert vast amounts of money to somewhere's else but needed to keep up appearances this would be a neat solution.
That would be a perfect way to disguise the diversion of funds. Recently I've noticed what is manifestly mock planes posing as real planes in public photo shoots. There's at least one or two involving the vaunted F-117 Stealth Fighter, and though appearing to be, and being marketed as the Real McCoy, clearly is a mock plane and is missing key parts which anyone familiar with the materials, primarily graphite, and the construction theory of the design knows has to exist on the real plane for it to actually be the real plane.
So now what? Projected images and mock planes? Oh good lord, well yes of course and it could all be done pretty easily. Do I have to actually outline how and why the entire operation might be implemented without anyone being the wiser? It isn't that difficult.
Point is, how do we even know what really is in the inventory the USAF or US Army? It's like a big shell game with objects moving all over, and if anyone were to ask where is plane such and such they could say, oh well it's flying practice missions. Here, call up the control tower and they will tell you it's right there in front of them.
Also, as of very recent, it's been show time and again that this absurd fly by wire program, another military inspired technology implemented into Airliners, is also completely hackable, was designed to be hacked, and even admitted that it was intentional as a means to deal with supposed hijackings. Thus the military has announced it can simply take over the flight controls from the pilots.
Well they don't need a drone flying close to the plane cloaked to do that. They only need satellites because that's what enables the Obama drones. So whatever these silver colored objects are, they aren't like needed to take over the controls of a real plane, so what are they then? Why are the planes they flying right next to, and lock solid with the other aircraft?
Obviously you're looking at a projected images of planes because it's basically impossible to fly this close to giant C-17 Globemaster with anything and not be buffeted by the jet engine blast of the massive turbofans and the slipstream vortexes coming off the real plane. So you have to conclude that either the silver ball is not real, or else the C-17 isn't real. That I think is pretty logical if a bit much to absorb.
Now are you still flying on one of these death ship? I'm not, no way. Forget that, I'll ride a bike before getting on a giant radio control model plane.
Jtucker said:Second, if we accept the working hypothesis that 4th density denizens are behind some UFO sightings, then the holographic plane theory creates a problem. The UFO's don't seem able to manifest in 3rd density for the same amount of time or solidity that the 9/11 757's do according to any videos I've seen of either UFO's or 9/11. Also if 4D operants are ultimately pulling strings to create chaos war and fear, wouldn't the best thing for their purposes to actually crash physical planes and kill people?
Jtucker said:They do need blood sacrifices for their program to progress. And yes, I've looked at the "fly by wire", hackable plane control systems too. I think you are bang on that any plane (at least a Boeing) can be taken over remotely. But then why would you need holographic planes if you can crash real ones?
Jtucker said:You've dug into the holographic plane world. I can't say that I can grasp the technology you're discussing. But it does seem very plausible.
Jtucker said:I also started a thread here a while ago that touched on some anomalous jet activity in my local area in the 50's if it's something that interests you.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35514.msg509965.html#msg509965