[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.]
[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 [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:
Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs.The Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique -Part 2.
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
No one is saying that the planes were normal, regular holograms. Obviously, the technology used is not understood by the public. However, as a person trained in critical thinking, I can with no reservations say that the idea that 9/11 was a "LIVE illusion" (a magic trick done in real time) makes far, far more sense than the ridiculous theory of "it was all video-fakery," which would require 1000s of New Yorkers to be "in" on the conspiracy, or blind. If it had been "video fakery," the event would've looked perfect, and NOT like "a bad special effect." What, Hollywood can do it, but our MIC can't? That's a ridiculous assumption. If it had been "video fakery" or "a drone," then the plane would've been painted-up correctly.
ReplyDeleteInstead, both cameras recorded, and people saw, the same strange-looking grey/black plane which just "melts" thru a massive steel wall with no signs of deformation. Indeed, in many long-shot videos, you can see the "plane" disappear even before "hitting" the Tower.
Again, you think magician's like Copperfield can make entire skyscrapers appear to vanish, but our MIC (DARPA) can't create an illusion to fool people's eyes and ears? Of course they can, and that's what was done.
This is why, in 2 different shots, from different cameras, at different angles (front and side) show one of the wings disappearing from the plane. If it was "video-fakery" that wouldn't happen. The only rational explanation is that the plane was some kind of real-time illusion--LIKE a holographic projection, but obviously not a normal type of hologram. The military/intelligence agencies always have secret tech that's 30 to 50 years ahead of anything known about by the public.
BTW, Richard D. Hall actually believed the "video-fakery" theory, but his own analysis proved that this idea was not correct, and he admitted he was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI believe the "video-fakery" theory not only doesn't address all the evidence, and is a ridiculous theory, but is also deliberate disinformation designed to discredit/destroy the only evidence of this crime which remains--the amateur video footage. Simon Shack says we can't even say the Towers were demolished w/explosives, because those videos, too, are "fake!" Again, then we're left with the question, "if they were fake, why didn't they make them look like a collapse instead of a demolition?" But of course those videos are real. Shack is a disinfo agent.
Also, the Towers did NOT fall N2 their own footprints, like WTC7 did. The Towers were blown apart, top to bottom, in a violent, unconventional "demolition." WTC7 is the bld which fell N2 its own footprint, from a typical demolition. The Towers were blasted far wide of their footprints. This is 1 of the reasons why you can tell it wasn't a "collapse," as gravity can't hurl multi-ton steel beams laterally with such force to impale the beams N2 the concrete facings of blds many 100's of feet away, nor the energy to crush to talcum powder 1000s of tons of concrete, glass, marble, gypsum, etc.