9/11 Planes: 3D Volumetric Image Projection Technology Vs Video Fakery and CGI

Is seeing believing, or believing seeing on 9/11?

Introduction

This is an article I wrote in November 2017. I have found out a lot more information during my research since then surrounding the US Navy’s 3D volumetric image projection technology, and the roles to which they deploy such technologies, and the role it may have played on 9/11. I am writing a follow-up article which will hopefully published in the coming months, which covers in much more depth and detail about this type of technology, and the secret program that was set-up by US military in 1994 to develop such technology.

Is seeing believing, or believing seeing on 9/11?

Strange anomalies were captured in the second plane crash videos of United Airlines - Flight 175, such as, disappearing wings, impossible plane speed for Boeing 767, no collision on impact with the building, explosion happening after the plane had already entered the building and no apparent debris falling to the ground of the plane along with no breakage of the tail section on impact.

Explaining these anomalies has always been promoted as video fakery, and planes being inserted or composited into the video footage, which creates several issues in itself. Video fakery or CGI does not explain how eyewitnesses observed the plane in the sky, and also how they were able to track a non-existent plane with their video cameras? A more plausible hypothesis put forward by Richard D. Hall in his 2012 radar analysis, where he asserts a drone flying parallel projected the image of the plane, which was observed and captured by people with their cameras. This hypothesis does provide some answers to the anomalies captured in the videos.

See Below: Image created by Richard D. Hall.

Richard's hypothesis isn't without its issues though, as he explained, because the military radar data showed radar coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar flight path coordinates, which could’ve been the result of a fixed offset error. In October 2016, Richard D. Hall updated his radar analysis and hypothesised that it could've been a Tomahawk missile, which was cloaking an image of a plane around itself. This hypothesis seems more plausible, and does go someway to provide answers to all the anomalies captured in the videos.

John Lear spoke of about the Airborne Holographic Projector, which has been talked about in various manuals and articles. See below: 

Also there is a 'Washington Post' article which describes a secret program established in 1994 to pursue technology of a "holographic projector" for deception purposes. The article certainly gives us a glimpse into the thinking in the military circles for weaponry of a different kind. See below:

And again also discussed in this article below: 

Closing Note:

I believe this is a valid area for further in depth research, which could go some way to explaining the anomalies captured in the Flight 175 plane crash videos. 

What we can determine is, video fakery cannot explain all the anomalies alone sufficiently which I have outlined above and in several blog articles. In some cases it appears to me that the video fakery and CGI theory has been used as a distraction, or some type of psychological operation, by the likes of Simon Shack, Killtown and Ace Baker, to lead people away from knowing about the image projection technology. Also, video fakery cannot account for how hundreds, if not thousands of  people observed the plane in the sky, and crashing into the South Tower. Plus, how did the perps have complete control over all the videos and photographs in the NY area without the possibility of at least one or two videos/photographs slipping through the net showing no-plane hitting the South Tower at all? This has never been fully explained by Simon Shack, Killtown or Ace Baker when promoting the video fakery theory.

3D volumetric Image projection technology, would not need to have complete control over any of the eyewitnesses, photographers or videographers, which would limit the people involved in the operation. By carrying it out this way using image projection technology it can explain the lack of plane crash physics and impossible plane speed. The image projection hypothesis explains all the anomalies far better than does the video fakery or CGI theory.

Finally, the question I am left with is, was the video fakery theory deliberately circulated to explain the anomalies captured in the videos of the planes, but also to act as a cover to help keep the 3D volumetric image projection technology a secret, because the powers-that-be intend to use the technology again in a Project Blue Beam style operation in the future? Was the planes on 9/11 a trial run to see if the people could tell the planes were not real? All legitimate questions.   

Thank you for reading and caring!