Image projected onto a building at night.
Moving image projected on the Arch of Triumph in Paris. (still image)
Image of some shadows.
Image projected onto a person.
I have made the claim in the past that what was seen in the sky on 9/11 was not an airplane, rather that it was a projected image of an airplane.
What technological hurdles must be overcome to project a moving image into the daytime sky?
All the examples below are light being projected onto an object in dark conditions. EXCEPT the shadow image has light being SUBTRACTED to create the image. The daytime sky has so much light, and the sky on 9/11 appeared to be clear and cloudless. What could be going on here?
Brainstorming: What if, instead of reflecting light to form an object, in the daytime sky you need to absorb light in a certain way to form an image? What if, instead of light rays being reflected off objects (as in the four examples below), light is being absorbed in a pattern that is determined by a pattern of disturbance in the air, generated by a computer and localized using GPS devices?
Neither of these things are particularly likely to be true. I just made them up. Point is that I, as a non-expert in video projection technology, can at least imagine a technology that can project an image in the daytime sky. Not knowing the particular technology that might have been used doesn't mean that I can't recognize the effect of using such a technology.
If you tried to simulate a plane crashing into a building and failed to account for the fact that a plane crash would slow the plane and generate debris, what you would get is the sort of videos that are claimed to be showing WTC 2 being hit by a plane. Those videos do not show debris where debris should be (namely, at the exterior south face of WTC 2).
Those videos are consistent with a moving projected image of a plane where they forgot to add the plane crash. The plane just slipped on through into the building.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc+2nd+hit&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35&fr2=tab-web&vid=0001595930321
"Point is that I, as a non-expert in video projection technology, can at least imagine a technology that can project an image in the daytime sky."
ReplyDeletePoint is, as a non-expert in video projection technology, this indicates nothing. I can imagine a technology that can transport me from point A to point B on a beam of light. That doesn't mean such a technology exists.
What is your evidence that this technology exists? Not that it COULD exist. What is your evidence that it DOES exist? If you're going to make a claim as bizarre and delusional as there were "beam weapons" used on 9/11, and it must be backed by actual evidence. Dr. Judy Wood has none. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing. And neither do you.
"If you tried to simulate a plane crashing into a building and failed to account for the fact that a plane crash would slow the plane and generate debris, what you would get is the sort of videos that are claimed to be showing WTC 2 being hit by a plane."
What about the thousands of eyewitnesses who actually saw planes crash into the towers? Not on video--who actually saw them with their own eyes. What's your explanation for that?
Also, I have seen with MY own eyes debris from the planes. I visited Ground Zero not long after the attacks, and I personally witnessed pieces of wreckage from the planes. How are you going to explain that? Was that also a holographic projection?