The Plane Illusions On 9/11

Three Schools of Thought

With recent discussions surrounding the planes on 9/11 and the use of 3D volumetric image projection technology along with how the plane shaped holes were created in the buildings, I have decided to clarify my own position.

Below is a video still image analysis I did in 2018, showing what was captured in the Naudet Brother’s 2nd plane video. The analysis shows the plane with its wing and tail section missing for 6 frames of the 12 frames that the plane was captured. The same anomaly was also captured in a number of other videos, which were from different locations and perspectives.

The fact that various other video cameras and photographs captured the same anomalies with wing indicates that the anomalies were not the result of video compression which has been suggested, however the result of the glitches in the real-time optical plane illusion technology.

What we should have been observing:

Below is a comparison of the Naudet Brother’s 2nd plane video still frame, combined with and a computer generated image of the Naudet Brother’s 2nd plane video, for comparison to illustrate what we should have been observing in the video, if a real 767 Boeing United Airlines plane was in the sky, which should have shown its wing, tail section and underbelly livery markings, which are absent in the Naudet video 2nd plane video.

In the 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality” documentary film released in 2018 (which I played a major role in researching with its director/producer Chris Hampton) we showed evidence of directed energy to create of the plane shaped holes at ALL 4 plane events. The evidence shows that the plane shaped holes were not the result of “high” heat.

At the time of All 4 plane events, the Earth’s magnetic field fluctuated. Bombs in buildings, conventional explosions, plane crashes, missile strikes or thermite cause the Earth’s magnetic field to fluctuate.

In the film we also named several high-level contractors involved with directed energy weapons technology, who were also involved with the clean-up at ground zero. The same contractors also had involvement with the development of optical holography technology and perception management.

See the video below, which was produced by Norman - 9/11 Revisionist

Exploring the three schools of thought of the plane illusions

As with any investigative research, positions can change over the years as new evidence is discovered. I have explored the first school of thought, the “cloaked” missile hypothesis to create the plane illusions. This involves a cloaked physical object.

I have also explored the second school of thought, that the plane was projected into a selected space via a third-party air vehicle, or vehicles. I and written about this school of thought in 2017-18, and covering perhaps involvement of mystery planes seen in and around NY at the time of the 2nd plane crash.

Further to my on-going research it has led me to a third school of thought, which could possibly indicate space-based directed energy weapons, which could have executed both the plane illusions, combined with directed energy to create the plane shaped holes, and inner building damage.

China has made significant advancements in space-based directed energy weapons, particularly in developing a satellite power system capable of supporting high-energy particle beam and other DEW technologies.

Source: https://interestingengineering.com/military/china-satellite-power-system-space-weapons

Also, we have the Global Precision Optical Weapon. See below:

To conclude

I want to conclude with a brief history lesson on two of the schools of thought of how the plane illusions were executed on 9/11. Since 2003-04, I followed closely the 9/11 researchers and their hypothesis and theories. One of the earliest 9/11 researchers to suggest that the plane observed crashing into the South WTC tower was hologram, was MI5 officer David Shayler. According to Shayler the plane was a missile cloaked with a hologram of a 767 plane. He proposed this around 2005-06. He was lambasted by the 9/11 Truth Movement for expressing this hypothesis.

The second school of thought put forward was by John Lear who suggested that the planes was a holographic projection, using technology similar to the airborne holographic projector, which showed in a video interview around 2008.

Simon Shack also suggested that the plane was a missile in his 2007 September Clues film, although Shack promoted the idea that video fakery was used to conceal the missile, rather than a hologram to cloak the missile.

There was also Canadian researcher named Jeffery Hill, who was famous for his phone calls to videographers who captured the second plane, and also plane eyewitnesses. Hill promoted the hologram hypothesis around 2008-09, although he also explored the video fakery earlier on, but later rejected it, and lent towards holograms after his phone call with second plane videographer Jennifer Spell.

The earliest suggestion of a missile used on 9/11 was by a French journalist/researcher named Thierry Meyssan, promoting the hypothesis that a missile hit the Pentagon. He also wrote two books on the subject. 9/11 The Big Lie and Pentagate.

No-planes originated with Meyssan at the Pentagon around 2002. Other researchers also promoted no plane at Shanksville, PA. People seemed to readily accepted the possibility that no-planes were involved in both of those events. This was not the case regarding the twin towers events, where people found it too difficult to accept or comprehend that no-planes were involved.

Around 2012, Richard D. Hall produced his Flight 175 Radar Analysis video, and later revised 2016 updated version. Hall suggested around 2013-14 the use of tomahawk missile, which was perhaps cloaked. Richard never used the term hologram though. He stopped short of saying it was a hologram, but only to some degree the plane was fake, but the videos were real.

My current position in 2026

My position is that the plane videos are real but the plane was not, meaning that what eyewitnesses observed, and what the videographers captured in their videos was some type of advanced stealth optical technology, which was able to create a 3D volumetric image of a plane in the sky. I still remain open to how this illusion was executed, and open still to all the three schools of thought, whether a cloaked real air vehicle object projected a 3D volumetric image around itself, or a third party air vehicle projected a 3D volumetric image of the plane into the selected area. I also cannot rule-out involvement of the mystery planes, or the possibility that the plane 3D volumetric image was broadcast via space-based weapon, satellite.

At the end of the day, I can only speculate how the illusion was executed, which I don’t want to do, as this detracts from the video evidence which clearly shows without a shadow of doubt that the plane was not real, thus was not the named plane or a supped up version using a remote controlled military plane. Remote controlled military planes do not have their wings disappearing and reappearing as observed in the 2nd plane video evidence record.

Finally, I hope this statement clarifies MY current position, and where I am at with my research regarding the planes on 9/11, and the plane shaped holes creation.

For further reading on this subject area, please see all my related articles at this link https://911planesresearch.substack.com/t/3d-volumetric-holograms

Thanks for reading & caring!