Evidence of 3D Volumetric Image Projection Technology on 9/11

The Great Plane Illusion

In this analysis, I will present evidence of 3D volumetric image projection technology, involving the second plane attack on South Tower on 9/11.

To begin, I will conduct a frame-by-frame analysis, the plane object captured by videographer Luc Courchesne on 9/11 of "alleged" United 175. What are we really observing in the video footage. What did Courchesne really capture in his video?

Points of discussion in the video presentation below:

• Disappearing Wings

• Disappearing Tail Section

• No Collision

• Engine Impact Anomaly Regarding Trajectory of Plane

• No Video Compression

• Motion Blur Present

Video Analysis Below:

My Conclusion:

Courchesne captured evidence of secret military stealth, 3D volumetric image projection illusion technology.

Evidence of the black budget US secret program of illusion technologies

As I have documented in my analysis video above, I conclude, Luc Courchesne’s video captured some type of black budget 3D volumetric image projection, or cloaking technology. His video captured the wings and tail section disappearing periodically, which is highly anomalous, which is NOT related to video compression, which many debunkers have claimed.

The photograph below captures the violation of Newton’s third law of physics, with the alleged plane showing no collision between the plane and building. Just as we observed in the Courchesne video.

Jet fuel is stored in the wings which should have initiated an explosion upon impact of the plane as the wings made contact with the outer façade of the building, but this did not happen? The plane just disappeared seamlessly into the building, with a delayed explosion, which should not have happened when the jet fuel in the wings made contact with the building. See below:

In the video still above, we observe the plane fully inside the building. There is no visible plane debris falling to the ground, or outside of the building, which we should be seeing, if a real solid plane had collided and crashed into the building.

A plane’s tail section is prone to detaching from the plane during impacts, such as what we observed on 9/11. However the plane smoothly enters the building with no resistance at all. Below, we see footage of Flight 7C2216, Jeju Air, coming off the runway before colliding with a concrete structure and bursting into flames at Muan International Airport, 30th December 2024.

The next biggest give away that there was not a large physical 767 plane crashing into the building is the lack of an Emergency Locator Transmission (ELT), which should have been activated on impact due to the amount of G-Forces involved as the plane collision with the building outer perimeter steel wall and concrete floors of the South Tower. This should also have been the case with American 11, American 77 and United 93. None of the 4 plane crashes activated an ELT signal.

Below, ex-Pilot, and then FAA operations manager, Paul Thumser, explains about the Emergency Locator Transmitters to the FBI during his interview.

Excerpt From The 911 Commission FBI Investigations Interview - 2nd October 2003.

Other evidence showing United 175 was nowhere near New York on 9/11 is from the ACARS data, showing the plane was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, and still airborne after the alleged crash.

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC and the airline, to the aircraft depending on its location and vice versa.

ACARS Messages have been obtained through the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ (FOIA) which demonstrated that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft “allegedly” impacted the South Tower in New York.

The image below it shows the first ACARS message received at 8:59 a.m. as UAL 175 is “allegedly” flying towards the South Tower in New York.

The image below shows the second ACARS message received by the plane at 9:03 a.m. as UAL 175 is “allegedly” about to crash into the South Tower in New York at 9:03 a.m.

The image below shows a third ACARS message which was sent to UAL 175 located from Pittsburgh ACARS ground station at 9:23 a.m. The 9/11 Commission omitted whether or not this ACARS message was received by the plane. Why did they omit this information? It is more than likely it was received by the plane based on the previous two messages showing that the plane was travelling in that direction away from New York area, which is why the ACARS ground stations were sending the messages from those ACARS ground station locations.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at Harrisburg (MDT), and then later Pittsburgh (PIT), over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the airplane observed to strike the South Tower at 9:03a.m. was not UAL 175. So, if UAL 175 was somewhere over in Pennsylvania when the airplane was observed to strike the South Tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the plane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower?

Lack of wake vortex at the WTC crashes

There is no wake vortex to be seen in the smoke and explosion after the impact. Wake vortex is the strong rotating vortex of air left by an aircraft that persists for around a minute or more. This should have been observed after United 175 impacted the South Tower.

False claims of evidence of video fakery and CGI planes

The plane anomalies captured in the 2nd plane video footage has always been vigorously promoted as evidence of video fakery and CGI planes. Prominent 9/11 researcher’s such as Ace Baker have claimed the plane was inserted by using “Luma Key” and compositing to insert the plane into the video footage. This idea in itself creates several issues with Baker’s theory. The video below explains in detail why Baker’s “Luma Key” theory is flawed.

The video fakery and CGI planes theory does not explain how so many eyewitnesses observed the plane in the sky? There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people observing something that looked like a plane in the sky. and also, how did the videographers and photographers capture the plane on their video camera and photographic cameras, if there was no plane in the sky at all? How would people pan and track a non-existent plane with their video cameras? To answer this pressing issue, Simon Shack has proposed that ALL the videographers were part of a conspiracy or hoax, however this still does not explain how so many people saw and observed the plane in the sky and crash into the building.

A well-known trusted UK “truth-seeker” Dave Murphy, witnessed the second plane in New York on 9/11. Because Murphy says he did observe a plane in the sky, he has been vilified and attacked by so-called “truthers”, who cannot accept that Murphy observed a plane. See short video below:

Surely one would think, truth seeker’s would be genuinely interested in Murphy’s account of what he witnessed on 9/11? Why are “truth-seeker’s so closed-off and clinging to the notion, that no plane at all was in the sky?

What did the eyewitnesses observe in the sky?

The question is; what was really captured on the video cameras? There are many unexplained anomalies which can be observed with the alleged plane in the video and photographic record, which defied laws of physics and the anomalous missing wings and tail section, captured from multiple different video and photographic angles. Some researchers have tried to explain the anomalies were due to compression and substandard video cameras, however the Naudet video camera was a professional grade video camera, and was taken quite close to the building. See video still image Below:

Naudet Bros Second Plane Video Footage

This does not resemble a Boeing 767, see below:

Does this explain why so many eyewitness accounts describe observing a small plane, or even in some cases, eyewitnesses report seeing a “missile” or a “rocket” hit the towers? See below:

Video Courtesy of Mathiew Estepho of Math Easy Solutions (MES)]

What can account for all the anomalies observed in the 2nd plane videos?

Did the videographers capture some type of advanced military stealth holographic technology, such as, 3D volumetric optical image projection?

What ever hit the South Tower does not look real, and did not behave like a commercial Boeing 767 airplane, travelling at an impossible speed of 586 mph, which is impossible for a Boeing 767. Many 9/11 researchers deny this possibility, however Boeing are inadvertently on record supporting this to be the case, when Jeff Hill called Lesley Hazzard at Boeing regarding the speed of a Boeing 767 airplane travelling at 700 feet. Listen below:

Jeff Hill also called Lori Bechtold of Boeing - 19th Sept 2007. Listen below:

What explanation best satisfies all the criteria of what was captured in the video footage, to explain the anomalous missing wings, tail section, impossible plane speed, no visible Newtonian physical collision between the plane and the South Tower and and the plane witnessed by people in NY?

3D volumetric image projection technology

There are two schools of thought which can explain all the criteria regarding the the visual video evidence, missing wings, tail section, impossible crash physics and impossible plane speed and real-time varying eyewitness accounts of the plane.

The two most plausible hypothesis which satisfy all criteria is 3D volumetric image projection technology. This was achieved via some type of onboard cloaking projection, which can broadcast a 360 degree image of a plane around the missile type delivery system, which creates the illusion of a plane. See below:

The second school of thought is, the 3D volumetric image of the plane was projected into a selected area from another air vehicle type drone. This hypothesis also satisfies all the criteria. Both hypothesis provides answers to the anomalies that were captured in the video evidence.

Image created by Richard D. Hall

You can watch Richard D. Hall’s 2016 Updated “Flight 175” Radar Analysis below:

Richard D. Hall spoke about his “Flight 175” Radar Analysis. This video below gives a summary about why Richard’s project was undertaken, and what it revealed.

Richard's hypothesis isn't without its issues, as he explained, because the military radar data showed 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 his October 2016 Flight 175 Radar Analysis update, Richard hypothesised that it could've been a Tomahawk missile, which was cloaking a 3D image of a airplane around itself. This hypothesis seems more plausible, and goes someway to provide an explanation to all the anomalies captured in the videos. MI5 officer David Shayler also put forward this hypothesis in 2006.

Watch Richard D. Hall’s Short Talk About 9/11 Video Evidence & UA175 (5th March 2014) See below:

The Military & Holographic Technology

Dating back in the early 1990s, there was a desire by the US military to develop such optical holograms as non lethal weapons to be used in PSYOPs against enemies, by using holograms as decoys. Below, I use a number of excerpts from a selection of articles which reported on the type of technology which the military spoke about in the 1990s. See below:

In a DEFENSE WEEK article published 31st March, 1997, states;

“in late 1991, the Army's JFK Special Warfare Center and School disclosed that it was looking to develop a PSYOPS Hologram System with a capability to project persuasive messages and three-dimensional pictures of cloud, smoke, rain droplets, buildings even religious images or figures. The use of holograms as a persuasive message will have worldwide application."

The article also states, “Holographic Projection”, describes a quasi-information warfare/psychological operations program that was first discussed in the Air Force after Desert Storm. Holographic projection involves projection of a three-dimensional holographic image to project decoys, or even an "angry god" (religious imagery) above the battlefield. Source: DEFENSE WEEK 31st March, 1997.

In 1999, Timothy L Thomas, the retired US army lieutenant colonel, wrote a book about Psy War, where he specifically drew on holograms as part of the war of deception.

Holograms are also being considered for their value in propaganda productions, such as morphing images of political leaders. Soldiers require training to recognize misleading information produced from holograms, voice synthesis or other psychological tricks.

Soon both sides will have the ability to use holograms and other IT manifestations that will offer the opportunity to completely fool one another.

Timothy L Thomas (USA Ret.) analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office, Information Technology: US/Russian Perspectives and Potential for Military-Political Cooperation, Macmillan, 1999

Holographic Technology and the Military

The Washington Post published an article which describes a secret program that was 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:

Another article published in February 2000, also discussed projecting a hologram over Iraq. See below:

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

A Navy Patent was released in 2018. Aircraft “Ghost Image” 3D Volumetric Projection, for Counter-Measures Defence System.

In the Navy 2018 patent, it describes the capabilities of being able to project a 3D volumetric “ghost images” of an aircraft into space (thin air).

Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ad/27/1c/baede7d8638bd6/US20200041236A1.pdf

Below is an excerpt from Chris Hampton's 2021 documentary film called - 9/11 Alchemy "A Big Idea". Chris discusses with Richard D. Hall, his "Flight 175" - 3D Radar Analysis, and other the issues regarding what is captured in the video evidence, such as the impossible speed of the airplane and also the crash physics. Chris also looks at some of the contractors involved on 9/11, and their involvement with advanced technologies, such as directed energy and 3D volumetric illusions.

Chris goes on to discuss with Mark Conlon new findings involving the 2018 US Navy patent describing advanced 3D volumetric “ghost imaging” missile defence counter-measure system, which projects multiple aircrafts as decoys into space/air to counter missile attacks. He also discusses possible involvement of the illusion technology to explain the anomalies of the airplanes on 9/11. Chris explores with Mark Conlon the future implications for such illusion technology being used in a possible 'Project Blue Beam' staged alien invasion scenario, along with the Pentagon and media's notable change in attitude towards the UFO subject and sightings in recent years, and possible psychological priming of the public for such a Blue Beam event in the coming years. See video below:

Conclusion

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

What we can determine is, video fakery cannot explain all the anomalies alone sufficiently which I have outlined above in this article. 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 (Hytten) Shack, Killtown, Ace Baker, OBS, BS Registration, Nico Haupt and Peggy Carter, to lead people away from discovering about the 3D volumetric image projection technology.

Also, video fakery cannot account for the thousands of people who observed the airplane 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 3D volumetric image projection technology it can explain the lack of plane crash physics and impossible plane speed. The 3D volumetric image projection hypothesis explains all the anomalies far better than does the video fakery or CGI theory can.

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

Please watch - 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality” Documentary film which covers the planes and technology in more detail. See below:

Thank you for reading and caring!