Sunday, November 18, 2012

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 : http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html . 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]


*****************************************************************



No comments:

Post a Comment