Morgan Reynolds and John Lear Challenge Alex Jones

[mercuryrapids]

Morgan Reynolds and John Lear Challenge Alex Jones to debate the NPT:

MP3 Interview (http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Bob%20Murphy%20-%20John%20Lear%20-%20Joe%20Keith%20-%20US%20Economy%20-%20911%20-%20Morgan%20Reynolds%20DD%2026%20Sep%202005.mp3) (right click and 'Save As...' - 2nd part of the show after the discussion about the financial crisis)

[graflok]

Good interview -- thanks for posting.

[cluas]

Thank You :)

[dangermouse]

crap interview imho

sound like bunch of retards tbh

[bryan]

crap interview imho

The worst 9/11 interview I've ever heard was Callum Douglas on the James Whale show. The host had already said in his introduction that he was getting bored with 9/11 truth, hinting to his guest that he was hoping for something juicy.

James Whale then gives Callum Douglas a gift of a chance to lay into the OCT, saying: 'as far as I'm concerned, controlled demolition is a given'.

So how did Callum Douglas react?

He says cautiously: 'Well, it's a definite probability'.

Just as I was thinking my heart couldn't sink any further, Callum Douglas went on to add that 'the most likely scenario' was that elements of the US Government stood by and watched Islamic terrorists plan and carry out the attacks.

In the days and weeks afterwards, the organisers and hangers-on at 911truth.co.uk were full of praise for his efforts.

At around the same time, James Whale dedicated a show to a debate on 9/11 with debunker Nick Pope pitted against Annie Machon, Ian Henshall and Tim Sparke. This was almost but not quite as pathetic, with Ian Henshall in particular pushing LIHOP bullshit.

[acebaker]

Reynolds and Lear debating Jones. What a setup. Reynolds will make a decent case for impossible physics and no significant wreckage. Lear will make a decent case for impossible flying speed.

Then . . .

Lear and Reynolds will suggest that the planes were HOLOGRAMS!. Which is impossible, because you cannot reflect a hologram off of thin air.

Then Jones will ask Lear about colonies on the moon, and Lear will gleefully chat about the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE he says ARE LIVING ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON.

Jones will pronounce Lear a lunatic, and mission will be accomplished. Reasonable people who don't understand the depth of the psy-op will associate "no planes" with "moon colonies" and "thin air holograms", and will throw the whole idea down the toilet.

[graflok]

Lear and Reynolds will suggest that the planes were HOLOGRAMS!. Which is impossible, because you cannot reflect a hologram off of thin air.


You obviously don't know what holograms are or how they work. They do not
require a reflective surface like a movie projector does. They are 3-dimensional
and "thin air" is where holograms are produced all the time. You can walk all
around a hologram and see all of its sides. They've been doing that with
hologram "ghosts" at Disneyland for 50 years.

Hint: the "Bat signal" in Batman comics is NOT a hologram.

[acebaker]

Sorry, I'm right and you're wrong about holograms.

A hologram is a photographic exposure, just like a photograph. The reason it is 3D is because what gets exposed on the film is not simply light reflecting off the subject, but rather an interference pattern between two beams reflecting off of the subject.

Then you can illuminate the exposed film with a reference beam and cancel out one part of the interference pattern. What remains is the other part of the interference pattern, which is like a normal reflection of light off the subject. Depending on where you are, you will experience the reference beam from a different angle relative to the film, and so you will see a different angle of the original subject.

In all cases, when you observe a hologram, you are looking through a piece of film. The fact that it appears to float in mid air is a nice illusion. Sometimes they have you look into a mirror, which reflects to the film. Sometimes the film goes floor to ceiling and you're not supposed to notice it.

There are no thin-air holograms. John Lear claims that thin-air holograms are top-secret military stuff. Even Lear admits they are not common knowledge.

[kamakazi]

if holographic images of planes were shot into the sky why would video fakery be necessary on all the WTC "plane" crash videos? wouldnt they have all just simply taped the same holographic image and therfore have the same image in each shot instead of the many different "planes" that weve all seen? :confused:

[graflok]

@ acebaker:

You are correct that I misused the term "hologram" when I should have said
"3D image technology" which is not necessarily something produced with
holography and therefore not technically a hologram.

The 3D projected videos and animations and such that can be seen on YouTube
and elsewhere are not technically holograms since they are not produced with
holography. These technologies have become lumped under the term "hologram"
which is not technically correct and was an error on my part to use that
term.

However, my point is that a surface for reflection is not necessary to use all
these 3D projection technologies and they can and are produced in "thin air."

Since it is common practice for the military to possess technology that is well
ahead of what they make known to the public, I don't see that it is much of
a stretch to suggest a 3D image projection tech that could be used to fool
witnesses. As is discussed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPfN-PvFJ0

[graflok]

if holographic images of planes were shot into the sky why would video fakery be necessary on all the WTC "plane" crash videos? wouldnt they have all just simply taped the same holographic image and therfore have the same image in each shot instead of the many different "planes" that weve all seen? :confused:

This is all conjecture since we don't have details on secret military technologies
so I can only guess. Perhaps they needed to use both due to inherent problems
with photographing whatever 3D image tech was used.

[banoyes]

Reynolds and Lear debating Jones. What a setup. Reynolds will make a decent case for impossible physics and no significant wreckage. Lear will make a decent case for impossible flying speed.

Then . . .

Lear and Reynolds will suggest that the planes were HOLOGRAMS!. Which is impossible, because you cannot reflect a hologram off of thin air.

Then Jones will ask Lear about colonies on the moon, and Lear will gleefully chat about the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE he says ARE LIVING ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON.

Jones will pronounce Lear a lunatic, and mission will be accomplished. Reasonable people who don't understand the depth of the psy-op will associate "no planes" with "moon colonies" and "thin air holograms", and will throw the whole idea down the toilet.

It's not a good idea to be making shit up . Just stick to facts.
What's your mission Ace .. to be a screen play writer?
or a reputable researcher ,,, lll...this is silence ,speaking volumes

[acebaker]

@ acebaker:

You are correct that I misused the term "hologram" when I should have said
"3D image technology" which is not necessarily something produced with
holography and therefore not technically a hologram.

The 3D projected videos and animations and such that can be seen on YouTube
and elsewhere are not technically holograms since they are not produced with
holography. These technologies have become lumped under the term "hologram"
which is not technically correct and was an error on my part to use that
term.

However, my point is that a surface for reflection is not necessary to use all
these 3D projection technologies and they can and are produced in "thin air."

Since it is common practice for the military to possess technology that is well
ahead of what they make known to the public, I don't see that it is much of
a stretch to suggest a 3D image projection tech that could be used to fool
witnesses. As is discussed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPfN-PvFJ0

Disneyland does not have thin-air 3D images. Nobody does. There are no such examples on YouTube or anywhere else. When the ghost appears in your seat next to you, actually you are looking through a screen, and at a mirror.

As far we know, there is no thin-air projection system. As far as we know, it is physically impossible.

It is certainly possible to project images into smoke or clouds of various types. THis is because the light reflects off the particles.

I've proven how they put airplanes into the news videos. It's video compositing. When John Lear reads a piece of paper and tells you the military "would like to develop" a thin air hologram, he is full of it.

John Lear is working hard to capture and deflect. Capture you, and deflect you from understanding that the news media did 9/11.

[graflok]

As far we know, there is no thin-air projection system. As far as we know, it is physically impossible.



Quote from Personal Computer World magazine:
"Intel is researching dynamic physical rendering, using silicon to create
three dimensional objects on the fly that can be touched and changed." Source (http://www.pcw.co.uk/personal-computer-world/news/2164982/intel-works-touchable-holograms)


A video demo on YouTube is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojAVHfL7Nl4


And, here's a Popular Mechanics article from 3 years ago:

August 18, 2005

Display 3D Images in Thin Air
We've been reading about this for a while now, and it seems like it's finally available--as in, working
and for sale, though no prices are given. The Heliodisplay from IO2 Technology streams three-dimensional
images into the air; no screen is needed. Source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/1778607.html).

[jahzel]

All this NPT crap is meant to destroy 9/11 Truth.

The good news is, it ain't gonna work.

The TRUTH is TRUE!

[graflok]

All this NPT crap is meant to destroy 9/11 Truth.


The 9/11 Truth Movement is doing just fine:
"A new global poll conducted across 17 countries has found that less than half
of those surveyed believe Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, with a full 15
per cent believing that the terrorist outrage was directly perpetrated by the
U.S. government." Source (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=160406)

[mynameis]

Quote from Personal Computer World magazine:


A video demo on YouTube is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojAVHfL7Nl4


And, here's a Popular Mechanics article from 3 years ago:

When in doubt search it out.


HelioDisplay which produces interactive 3D dsiplays in thin air (via lasers) from common sources.


# Inputs from most regular sources: PC,TV, DVD, HDTV, Video game consoles
# Projects a 22″ to 42″ (depending on model) diagonal image that floats above the device
# It is interactive, like a virtual touch screen: a hand or finger can act as a mouse
# Although the HelioDisplay uses lasers, the images are not holographic

http://www.ohgizmo.com/2005/08/17/interactive-3d-display-its-here/

[graflok]

^ Thank you for arguing against yourself again. :)

I was quite aware of that link, BTW.

[mynameis]

^ Thank you for arguing against yourself again. :)

I was quite aware of that link, BTW.

So you think is there is supposed to be flying laser emitter using this technology that replicates an entire 767 while flying though the air that seems to be invisible to the naked eye? And I'm arguing against myself?

And if this concept of fakery wasn't as moronic as it already is. The technology doesn't even appear feasible according to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zRmffRIifE

[graflok]

So you think is there is supposed to be flying laser emitter using this technology that replicates an entire 767 while flying though the air that seems to be invisible to the naked eye?

Nope. I was simply pointing out that 3D imaging "in this air" technology exists
and has been demonstrated and that it is a non-holographic tech.


And I'm arguing against myself?

Yes, you made the point I already made that it is non-holographic, meaning
not produced by holography but by other means.


And if this concept of fakery wasn't as moronic as it already is. The technology doesn't even appear feasible according to this video.

That's what was said about stealth technology before the military made it
public knowledge.

If it's "not feasible," why does a description of such a technology exist on
a .mil web site along with announcement of it's availability for sale to
governments as is detailed here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPfN-PvFJ0

[mynameis]

Nope. I was simply pointing out that 3D imaging "in this air" technology exists
and has been demonstrated and that it is a non-holographic tech.



Yes, you made the point I already made that it is non-holographic, meaning
not produced by holography but by other means.



That's what was said about stealth technology before the military made it
public knowledge.

If it's "not feasible," why does a description of such a technology exist on
a .mil web site along with announcement of it's availability for sale to
governments as is detailed here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPfN-PvFJ0

John Lear is not a dependable source of information. Do you have a link to a military site or company of said tech? I was not arguing against myself I was reinforcing the point home.

[graflok]

John Lear is not a dependable source of information.
On the contrary. He has 40 years of aviation experience and holds every flight certificate the FAA offers. What are your qualifications?


Do you have a link to a military site or company of said tech? I was not arguing against myself I was reinforcing the point home.

Didn't you watch the video? The site where the material was gotten is given therein. And, the place it is now available is
given in the full version of this video called John Lear Tells All available on YouTube and elsewhere.

[mynameis]

On the contrary. He has 40 years of aviation experience and holds every flight certificate the FAA offers. What are your qualifications?



Didn't you watch the video? The site where the material was gotten is given therein. And, the place it is now available is
given in the full version of this video called John Lear Tells All available on YouTube and elsewhere.

I don't need credentials to know when I've heard his lies in the past. If you and he can't verify what he says on the video, he's blowing smoke up your arse.

[graflok]

I don't need credentials to know when I've heard his lies in the past.

You'll need some to be credible to anyone else though.


If you and he can't verify what he says on the video, he's blowing smoke up your arse.

I'm an American. We don't have arses. :)

[acebaker]

1. The Helio system is not 3D. It is 2D. They could make something like it that is 3D.

2. It is not in thin air, it is projected into water vapor. Watch the YouTube that someone linked above.


It's a fundamental problem. You have to have something off of which to reflect the image. AIR IS TRANSPARENT. This means it does not reflect light.

[graflok]

^ Well, Popular Plane-Hugger Magazine says it's 3D and in thin air. :)

Source:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/1778607.html

[mynameis]

^ Well, Popular Plane-Hugger Magazine says it's 3D and in thin air. :)

Source:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/1778607.html

You must believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny as well to believe that Lear(n) and Popular Mechanics are the truth.

[acebaker]

^ Well, Popular Plane-Hugger Magazine says it's 3D and in thin air. :)

Source:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/1778607.html

Popular Mechanics says there's thin-air 3D? Popular Mechanics?

I REST MY CASE.

[onourwayto2012]

Yeah but thats how they do things....they leak out little bits here and there via "respectable" or "reliable" sources. All part of their sicko game.

[graflok]

Popular Mechanics says there's thin-air 3D? Popular Mechanics?

I REST MY CASE.

Gee, I thought all you plane guys loved that magazine. :D