Sunday, November 18, 2012

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.

1 comment:

  1. The point you make about a cameraman not being able to steadily track an object moving over a certain speed is exactly right. That plane was moving at something like 500 mph and he tracks it as steady as can be. But consider the fact that when you watch a Nascar race the cameras can rarely track the cars going right to left in a steady fashion; there is almost always a point where the camera tracks too fast and get in front of the cars or track too slow and get behind them -- and this is only at 190mph (not 500!).