Sunday, November 18, 2012

Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique - Part 1

The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Image Thesis- Video

Youtube link to same video 
[Article update 11/24/12: Last night I was an invited guest on the AbIrato radio show. The subject of my interview was this, my 4 part analysis of the Hall thesis. The mp3 file of that interview can be heard here  N.B. the interview is somewhat marred by an intermittent "Skype" connection, but if you grit your teeth you might be able to make it through the entire thing. Regards, onebornfree.]

[Article update 01/14/13: this article was discussed by myself on Prof.Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal" podcast on 12/28/12.Regards, onebornfree.

 This examination is  divided into 4 parts: 

Part [1] Introduction .

Part [2] Minor problems with the  Hall hypothesis, reviewed.

Part [3] The  main problems with the Hall hypothesis.

Part [4] Conclusion

[N.B. although it might appear otherwise, this review is  not intended to be a personal attack on Mr. Richard Hall - who I don't know and have never met. It  is, however, an "attack", or whatever else you might want to call it, on his 9/11 holographic plane image theory as presented in his video-onebornfree]. 

 Introduction - Or,  A Non- Scientist [Myself] "Throws Down The Gauntlet" To  All "Scientific" 9/11 Researchers: 

I first started getting seriously interested in alternative [to the government's] explanations of what happened on 9/11 in about 2003, although, admittedly I had smelt something fishy about it all from day one- I just could not put my finger on exactly what it was. 

In 2003 or so I found the French journalist Thierry Mayssan's site "Hunt The Boeing" -or something like that, which exposed the glaring anomalies in the official story of what  happened at the Pentagon. [ I'd provide a link to it but I am currently unable to find it online- was it taken down?] 

Since that time I have been enthusiastically exploring the ramifications of the various unofficial explanations for what happened on 9/11. 

I have therefor been not an original 9/11 researcher myself so much, but more of a reviewer of others research. As such , I am familiar with all of the major alternative explanations out there to date. 

One characteristic of the various alternative theories I have reviewed to date is the disturbingly high lack of a sound evidentiary review methodology by the various researchers.

For example, speaking as a none scientist [I have no scientific "schooled"credentials], time after time  I have observed  supposedly trained scientists, consistently, entirely ignoring the very  protocols and methodological guidelines that [to me] are so important  in any  serious quest for truth supposedly based on the scientific method, and which would, if consistently employed, enable their research to  be  seriously labeled [ in my own "unscientific" eyes at least], as being " genuine scientific research".

Mr Hall Is No Exception

In this regard, Mr Halls thesis is no exception to that almost complete disregard for basic, common sense scientific procedure . 

Frankly, it continues to amaze me that his research could in any way be taken seriously by other scientists and laymen alike , and that other, decidedly unscientific, "scientific" 9/11 research has perhaps been taken  even more seriously to date than Mr Hall's. 

No Genius

That both Mr Hall and the other various 9/11 "scientific" researchers are taken so seriously by many others worldwide is, to me, an indication of the general severe lack of critical thinking  capability possessed by the average human being- and believe me, I am certainly no genius myself. 

To Be Fair- It's Just "Par For The Course"

But to be fair to Mr Hall, who has a background in electrical engineering [and should therefor be very familiar with standard scientific method], his  ritual violations of basic "common or garden variety" scientific protocol are "par for the course", and ultimately no more egregious than those of other, often  more prominent [at this time] 9/11 researchers who also wear the "scientist" moniker, which , I suppose, is just another way of saying that Mr Hall's research is every bit as unscientific as is theirs , and contains the exact same glaring methodological errors repeated endlessly, ad nauseum, so I guess he is in good company [from his point of view], and has learned his lessons well, if comparison to other "scientific" 9/11 researchers is anything to be cherished, I would guess.

OK, I have now "thrown down the gauntlet" . My aim in this review is to expose the  violations of basic, simple, "common or garden variety" scientific methodology/protocol that I, for one, can all too clearly see in Mr Hall's thesis.

End of part 1 

 Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs.The  Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique -Part 2. 

Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs.The Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique - Part 2.

The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Image Thesis- Video

[Article update 11/24/12: Last night I was an invited guest on the AbIrato radio show. The subject of my interview was this, my 4 part analysis of the Hall thesis. The mp3 file of that interview can be heard here  N.B. the interview is somewhat marred by an intermittent "Skype" connection, but if you grit your teeth you might be able to make it through the entire thing. Regards, onebornfree.]


Question: Save Time , Examine Major Problems First , Or Present Minor Problems First, Before Major Problems? :

Although I believe I could  save the reader a lot of time by simply reviewing some initial, seriously wrong-headed assumptions of Mr Hall's,  and thereby  quickly disprove  his thesis, I have instead chosen to more or less  stick to the order in which Mr Hall presents his evidence in his video - meaning that I will first address what are possibly only minor concerns,[ tedious as that might seem], and not simply "cut to the chase" and address what I see as major concerns . 

SaveTime? : For readers who  wish to simply  "cut to the chase" out of time management concerns or whatever [I'd hate to bore you] , please go straight to sections 3 + 4 , which is my attempt to address the main problems I see with the Hall hypothesis.

And So, Onward and Upward!

Minor Problems:

1: Data Sets: 

Mr Hall uses 2 sets of alleged "official" radar data [N.B. although that data apparently gives information for both AA Flight 11 and Flight 175, as the majority of Mr Hall's  thesis focuses on a data versus video comparison of the  alleged flight paths of Fl. 175 {2nd "strike" South Tower, or "WTC 2"},  my analysis of Mr. Halls hypothesis will also only address the alleged radar data for Flight 175 and related video sequences ] : 

Hall data source [ a] =   Alleged civilian flight radar data from the National Transportation Safety Board [N.T.S.B.] from a Feb. 7th. 2002 report by Daniel R. Bower Ph.D. :

Fig. 1 above NTSB [ civilian] data source

.. and Hall data source [b] :  Alleged miltary data . Mr Hall states : " this data was downloaded from the internet." 

Fig. 2 above : Halls alleged military flight data for Fl. 175

 Hall Question 1 :  

What steps has Mr Hall taken to verify the authenticity of either/both sets of data? He gives no indication of having taken any steps to even try to authenticate either data set. 

And how does the mere act of downloading a data set from the internet validate that data set? Enquiring minds want to know ! : -) 

Moving on.......  

Mr Hall then proceeded to analyze the two , [unvalidated as authentic but mysteriously accepted as such], data sets. He  then says : 

 " immediately I realised there was a major discrepancy with the 2 paths.The military radar was suggesting that an object was travelling about 1400ft to the right of the official civilian radar. In fact, looking at the points on the miltary flight path, It looked as though the object would have flown past the towers, missing them by well over 1000 ft."

Hall Draws  A Purely Speculative Purple Line! :
He then  proceeds to draw a  purple line [since the rest of that supposed military data was represented by a purple line also, to distinguish that data set from the NTSB  supposed civilian data points shown in red to its right],  from the last  given military data point to an imagined  impact point on WTC 2 . 

He states: "I left both flight paths in the model and drew a line from the last [my emphasis]miltary radar return to the alleged impact point on the tower to complete the military radar path[my emphasis]:

Fig. 3 above : Halls speculative purple line drawn  from the last military data point given, to the face of WTC2 

Hall Question 2: why draw that line at all when there were  apparently NO MORE  military data points  given after that last one? What purpose does this new, entirely hypothetical line serve?

 Is Mr Hall implying that the invisible drone actually flew into the tower ?- if so, then why does he elsewhere state : " In fact, looking at the points on the miltary flight path, It looked as though the object would have flown past the towers, missing them by well over 1000 ft." ?  

Pure Speculation Or , Another Dimension? :

Obviously, the fact of the matter is that the data he found , if it is even genuine, does not contain any reference points beyond where it stops dead, well short of the WTC complex, meaning what, exactly? Did this mysterious, invisible drone just then stop dead in mid flight, or did it just disappear into another dimension, perhaps, only to  continue on the path Mr Hall speculates,  more than 1000 ft. to the side of WTC 2?  The fact of the matter is that the data [if it is even authentic] suggests neither a collision with WTC2, nor a flight past that misses by 1000ft. or more. 

Moving On...... Again:  The "Live" CBS Network Footage Versus the Rest.

Anyhoo, moving on.....the next step in Mr Hall's "analysis" involved comparing the flight paths for Fl. 175  shown in 26 video separate clips he selected for ease of viewabilty characteristics [interestingly, with both original alleged "live" network clips  and post-event released {i.e never broadcast "live"} alleged "amateur" videos, mixed in together so as to be virtually indistinguishable to the uninformed  viewer] , with the revealed flight paths from the two sets of data [red and purple lines] he uses in his 3d computer model. 

After completing that step Mr Hall concludes that all  26 clips he reviewed exactly match the flight path depicted in the NTSB data [represented by the red line in his video].

Hall Question 3: 

Mr Hall gives no indication of having taken any steps to authenticate any of the 26 video clips he uses - what , if any steps were taken by him to independently establish the authenticity of any of the video clips he used in his analysis?

However... Moving On [Again! ]: The Hall Video Clip No. 20 - The CBS Footage: 

 Hall Clip number 20 in his video, is the  original CBS "live" 16 sec. network footage  sequence [often called the "divebomber" sequence, for obvious reasons]:

Importance of CBS "Live" Footage- It's The Longest "Live" Network Sequence :

Many, [including Mr Hall, it appears], are entirely unaware of the importance of the original "live" CBS footage of Fl.175's pre-strike passage [see above video]. 

The fact is, that if you had been watching CBS on the morning of 9/11 and been paying close attention, you would have been amongst the first in the nation to witness alleged Fl.175's onscreen debut, simply because the CBS footage is the longest continual alleged "live" pre- "strike" network sequence , lasting a full 16 sec.s [The next longest is the original "live" NBC "ball" sequence, which is 14 secs long]. 

To reitterate: of the 5 available original alleged "live" network sequences [ CBS {long} CBS {short}, NBC, ABC, FOX ] , the  16 sec. CBS sequence picks up the action earlier than all of  the others, as can be seen in this brief gif file summary of all of the pre-strike network footage, by researcher Simon Shack :

ImageFig. 4 above: [gif taken from "September Clues" by Simon Shack  ] .  See also : . See also all of the  original archived 9/11 network footage here , and mirrored here .

Importance of The Original Alleged "Live" MSM Footage:

Also, it is worth bearing in mind [ I've already mentioned it , but it bears repeating],  that although Mr Hall does not draw the distinction in his presentation, there are only 5 original alleged "live" pre-strike network video sequences on archive, meaning that all of the other 20+ clips he uses for his analysis were never shown "live" on 9/11 at all, but are what can be termed "after the fact" movies. [Possible exception : CNN footage or other cable network footage - at this time I have not positively identified the sources of all of the clips Mr Hall used].

FACT: The CBS "Live" Footage  of Fl.175's Flight Path Contradicts All Other Original "Live" MSM Sequences [ and Therefor Mr Hall's Red Line] :

The "live" CBS footage of Fl. 175's flight path contradicts  the flight paths shown in all 5 of the other original "live" broadcast network sequences, including the next longest, the NBC sequence,  and consequently, it also contradicts the flight paths shown in both  the civilian and military data sets Mr Hall uses in his very own analysis represented there by his red and purple lines, and, therefor contradicts the flight paths of all of the other videos Mr. Hall reviews as well, meaning that Mr Halls claim that the   civilian data he plotted matches all  of the video sequences he plots against it is incorrect:
Fig. 5  above :Screen shot [1] from Hall's clip 20

Fig. 6 above:  screen shot [2] from Hall's  clip 20:analysis-the red line Hall  uses represents the alleged  NTSB  civilian flight data  and forms the right side of the "V" above, the purple line for the military data forms the left side of the "V"]

Below is screen shot 3  of Hall video data used to support hologram plane theory [Mr Hall has drawn 2 straight lines [purple and red] extending from the bottom of the "V" to the face of WTC2 ] to demonstrate Fl. 175's  alleged final moments, whereas the original CBS footage [i.e. clip 20 in the Hall video] shows the plane image as viewed "live" considerably to the left and below those 2  lines, so that the plane image in the actual CBS footage must make a massive swerve back to the viewers right in order to strike the building[ In this still below, the plane image can be seen directly below the red line that is at a 45 degree angle from the left side of the frame to where it touches the WTC2 image] :
Fig.  7 above:   screen shot 3  of Hall's analysis of the CBS 16 sec. footage- [clip 20 in his analysis], showing the planes image below Hall's data  lines.


Fig. 8 above: A close- up  screen shot of the previous fig. 7, taken from clip 20 [ i.e. the  16 sec. CBS "divebomber" sequence] in the Hall analysis.

FACT: Morning and Evening Versions of The NBC "Live"  Footage  Contradict Each Other

The second longest "live" 9/11 network clip was aired by NBC. It is 14 sec.s long [pre-strike].  It is often called "the ball" sequence because the moving object [Fl.175] resembles a ball or disc some of the time. [n.b. This sequence was the also main subject for a previous theory and video presentation by Mr Hall. ]

 However, on the evening of 9/11, NBC also  broadcast an entirely different "live" clip showing Fl. 175's approach to WTC2. That footage entirely contradicts its very own original 14 sec. "live", "ball" sequence! :

Fig. 9 above:  Contradictory NBC live footage: Above left: A still from   NBC's alleged "live" , "the ball" 14 sec. pre-strike sequence. Above right, a still from the NBC 9/11 evening broadcast version of the same event. 
Above- Fig. 10 above : Same network,  same perspective, same plane, 2 flight paths, 2 backgrounds! Left side= NBC "ball" sequence still-shot, right side = NBC evening replay. Neither flight path matches CBS footage.

Above- Fig.11 above: Why was an entire background erased from NBC's evening broadcast?

Below- Simon Shacks video presentation/comparison of the original NBC morning and evening depictions of Fl. 175's approach to WTC2 from which the above 3 screen-shots were taken:

Missing NBC Background Scenery:

Incidental fact to consider :   as well as showing a different flight path from its original "live" version,[above],  the evening NBC broadcast also erased the entire background first seen in the original "live" "ball" sequence it had previously broadcast, when in real life, from that alleged  higher perspective [according to Mr Hall], even more of the opposite shoreline should be visible than can be seen in the later "live" NBC sequence [still-shot above, right side of picture].

Primary fact to consider:  both versions of the NBC footage, as well as contradicting each other, also contradict the Flight path for Fl. 175 shown in the 16 sec. CBS "divebomber" clip. 

Although it might be argued by some [including , apparently, Mr. Hall], that because of a supposed higher viewing angle and perspective for the evening  9/11 NBC broadcast [although I cannot really see much, if any, difference in viewing angle myself],  that the flight path of Fl.175 is actually the same in both original "live"NBC  morning and  evening NBC clips shown here, and  regardless of that debatable perspective issue, if the Hall analysis concludes that two different NBC flight paths still conform to the red line of the alleged civilian data set he uses, obviously, neither NBC  flight paths shown above conform to the path shown in the original CBS "live footage, as in both sets of NBC footage the plane image never makes an appearance  below the red line drawn by Mr. Hall , as the CBS live sequence does, [if it did, obviously, Mr Hall's red line would have had to have been drawn differently, as indeed it should have with regard to Fl.175's flight path as represented by the CBS footage[ clip 20] that he uses].  

As it stands, Mr Hall conveniently ignores the aberration that is the "true" path of Fl. 175, at least as represented by the "live" CBS 16 sec. "divebomber" sequence. 

N.B. : for more glaring examples that directly refute Mr Hall's claim that the flight trajectories for Fl. 175 match each other [and therefor,according to him, match the lines drawn from his data sets], please see Part 4 of this report

End of section [2]


Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs.The Holographic Plane Hypothesis - A Critique Part 3 :

 The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Image Thesis- Video

[Article update 11/24/12: Last night I was an invited guest on the AbIrato radio show. The subject of my interview was this, my 4 part analysis of the Hall thesis. The mp3 file of that interview can be heard here  N.B. the interview is somewhat marred by an intermittent "Skype" connection, but if you grit your teeth you might be able to make it through the entire thing. Regards, onebornfree.]


Major Problems With The Richard Hall Hypothesis:

As I said earlier the above [part 2] criticisms  of Mr Hall's thesis that I have made are perhaps debatable and minor [ although, I believe, still valid.] 

One Last Digression  : Plane Strikes Have Different Entry Points on Different Videos:     

One last , errr... "minor" point I'd like to make the reader aware of before getting into my major points is this : different alleged "authentic" Fl. 175 strike videos show contradictory impact points for Flight 175, as demonstrated by the graphic analysis seen below:

Part 3 fig. 1 [Click on image to enlarge]

[N.B. Although the discrepancy between the left and centre samples above could  perhaps be explained away as a perspective issue, it seems far less reasonable to try to explain away the  165' discrepancy between the impact points shown for Fl.175 in the far left sample and that shown on the far right.

A Question [for anyone/ everyone]: if those videos are as real as Mr Hall and others automatically assume, how come they  show different entry points for Fl.175 into WTC2? 

Moving On....

Mr Hall's Primary Assumptions Regarding the  Herzakhani and Courchesne "Impact" Videos :

Hall: " We clearly see, from two of the amateur clips , the impact videos , that they're not real impacts, so something else has to be going on, and we've discussed- it' either one of two things , either the videos have been faked......or, something else, which is what I've suggested in my film"

Mr Hall is here referring to 2 alleged "amateur"  video sequences that clearly show the impact of Fl.175, one allegedly shot by a Michael Herzakhani, and the other allegedly shot by Luc Courchesne ["artist in media arts"] 

N.B. unlike the 5 original live MSM sequences, neither of these 2 "amateur"sequences he refers to were ever aired live on 9/11.

N.B. [2]. As the  Courchesne clip is to my eye even more of an obvious fake than Hezarkhani's, I will only for now only present evidence refuting the authenticity of  the Hezarkhani sequence, which, as you can see from the gif file at below left, was actually broadcast on CNN within a day of the alleged event, which presumably gives it an added aura of credibility in the eyes of many- including Mr Hall, it would seem. 

The two primary assumptions  made by Mr Hall as revealed in his italicized statement[above] are : 

Hall Primary Assumption [1]:  That the basic [Newtonian] Laws of physics were not magically suspended on 9/11. That is, Newton's 3rd Law of Motion was in operation, as always :" ... the impacts show impossible physics..." [Hall  30:49] 

 [For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with this assumption of Mr Hall - as per Newton's 3rd Law of Motion,  the alleged "impact"  videos show a scientifically impossible event- the question is, why, 100% fake video, or real video plus holographic image? ].

Hall Primary Assumption [2]: " .. the videos were real, and the plane [image]was fake..." [Hall 32:00]  

Hall  Question 4: if Hall's initial question was: " it's either one of two things , either the videos have been faked......or, something else, " , why does he then mysteriously conclude, with no demonstrable justification, that  in fact " .. the videos were real, and the plane [image]was fake" ? 

After all, and as with the 26 other videos he uses in his analysis, Mr Hall presents zero evidence of ever having independently established either of these "amateur" videos [Herzakhani and Courchesne] authenticity, but instead presses on with an unproven assumption of authenticity in order to then  reach his seemingly pre-ordained conclusion [i.e. that holographic plane images were employed on 9/11] .

So..... Is The Herzakhani Video Genuine?

You decide...

user posted image
        Part 3 fig. 2 :          Hezarkhani gif from CNN boadcast

 Above :  gif[1] is a short gif file of the original Hezarkhani sequence  as shown on CNN later on 9/11. 

user posted image

                            Part 3 fig. 3   Hezarkhani  analysis   gif [2] , by "teardrop"

 Gif [2]  above is an analysis [by "teardrop",  from 2007] of the last few frames of the exact same Herzarkhani video sequence. 

Plane Image Stationary- Building Image Moves  Left ! : 

Notice that in gif [2] above, that the tail of the plane remains stationary and exactly centered in the frame [red line] and that in reality, it is the building image that moves towards the plane [i.e. right to left ] , and not the plane towards the building as it should be [i.e. left to right].  

Question : how could the tail of the plane image possibly remain exactly in the center of the frame in gif [2], when the plane was allegedly traveling at 500 mph pre-strike?  It is also worth noting that this video was allegedly shot by Mr Hezarkhani using a hand held camera, from the deck of a boat! :-)

Update 05/09/14: there is also the matter of the sheer physical impossibility of a camera-person, no matter how experienced or "professional" they might claim to be,  being able to successfully track a plane image, holographic or otherwise, moving at 500mph [or even at 250mph],  across their field of vision with their camera lens in order to produce what is seen in the Hezarkhani sequence. It simply cannot be done in the real world. 

Moving On....

Yet More Proof That the Herzarkhani Sequence Is Entirely Fake:

Fake Perspective , Pixel Clouds and Other Herzakhani Video Anomolies:

Part 3 fig. 4
Youtube link: Fake perspective, pixel clouds etc.


Depending on Which "Official"Version Watched, Soundtrack is Different!

Part 3 fig. 5
and Youtube link: same Herzakhani video, yet different soundtrack ,


-Complete Lack of Vortices Post Collision/Explosion:

Part 3 fig. 6

Hall  Question 5 :

Why has Mr Hall   made absolutely no attempt to research /track down the type of evidence I have presented here that clearly shows just how obviously fraudulent these videos are [Herzakhani, Courchesne etc.] ? 

Years Old Research 

There is so much of this type of [years old] research readily available  on Youtube alone - I find the absence of any such search on Mr Hall's part slipshod, if not downright "questionable",  especially from a [scientific] procedural perspective. 


Mr Halls hologram hypothesis rest on two primary assumptions : 

[1] That the laws of Newtonian physics cannot be violated [agreed]

[2] That the Herzakhani [and Courchesne] "impact" videos [along with all the rest] are genuine. 

I have presented a few good reasons that disprove Mr Hall's [and others] second assumption [which , strictly speaking, as a scientist, he should never have even made in the first place]:

1] the contradictory CBS and NBC footage in part [2].

2] the "teardrop" gif analysis of the last frames of the Hezarkhani sequence showing a stationary plane image in flight and a moving tower image in part [3].

3] the bsfredregistration analysis of the Hezarkhani sequence revealing pixel clouds, false perspective etc. in part [3]

4] The Killtown soundtrack analysis, which reveals contradictory soundtracks depending on which version is viewed, in part [3]. 

5] The complete lack of post explosion plane vortices in the flame/smoke in part [3]

And lets not forget the revealed contradictory entry points for Fl. 175 in different video sequences, as clearly demonstrated in fig. 1 of this section, [near top of page in part [3]].

In part 4 of this critique I give more examples that make the case for total video fakery as opposed to the employment of  holographic plane imagery for Fl. 175.