John Lear and Jim Fetzer are working hard trying to convince us that the 9/11 airplanes could have been holograms projected into thin-air.
Thin air holograms are physically impossible. For a projected image to reach the eyes (or a camera), it must reflect off of some surface. Semi-transparent screens work for 3D teleconferencing. Particulate matter in the air can create a vaporous reflective region. You can use mirrors. But there is simply no way to get around the fact that the photons need to enter people's eyeballs.
There is no earthly reason to suspect that the military have image technology beyond that of Hollywood. But even if they did, they cannot defy physics.
It is more reasonable to think the military have aircraft more advanced than do the commercial airlines. If you are willing to consider the possibility of something thought to be physically impossible, why not just believe they have a 767 that can fly through steel columns like thin air? It's no more ridiculous than thin-air holograms.
Why would the the kindly professor Fetzer reject the presence of real airplanes based on the observed impossible physics, yet promote equally impossible thin-air holograms, especially when the correct solution (video compositing) stands written up and un-refuted?
Furthermore, even assuming the existence of thin-air holograms, there are several data points that rule out this explanation anyway.
1. The nose out. Perfectly consistent with a real-time video compositing mistake, as explained in detail by me. How does thin air holography account for Pinnochio's Nose?
2. No Plane in the wide shot. They accidentally broadcast the wide shot from Chopper 5. Perfectly consistent with video compositing, as it is not possible to composite in real-time on a zooming shot like that. Other videos show the plane approaching during the time of the Chopper 5 wide shot. How could the hologram appear in some shots, and not in Chopper 5?
3. The over-under puffball contradiction. Perfectly consistent with a misplaced layer mask in video compositing, how could a real live image appear above the explosion in the Hezarkhani video, and below the explosion in Fairbanks?
4. Unstable motion. The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable when you stabilize the video. This is perfectly consistent with trying to do real-time compositing on a moving helicopter shot. The motion of a hologram would be smooth, just like a real airplane. How on earth could this motion become less stable after stabilizing the video?
Of course, believing in thin-air holograms gets the guilty news media off the hook. Again.