Sunday, May 28, 2017

Hall & Johnson Admit Massive "Live" 9/11 MSM Video Fakery!

Hall & Johnson Now Admit  Massive MSM Live Feed  9/11 Video Fakery!   :-) .


Part 2 of Richard Hall's 2010, 6 part interview concerning 9/11 live media fakery, with Andrew Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsxOhuMQgdE

Post update: [ 06/18/17]: Whoops! It appears I made a mistake with these recent two posts about the Hall/ Johnson interviews. My mistake was to assume that the 2015 video I saw on Youtube was the original. That being the case, I had then thought "well, there is hope for messrs. Hall/ Johnson, yet", as they both seemed quite fair in their analysis of "September Clues" In other words, I assumed that Hall had  now changed his mind and rejected his own 2012 "holographic plane image" theory. 


However , further research has revealed that the 2015 Youtube video had actually been originally posted at Hall's site in 2010, meaning that while at first he had in fact first pretty much accepted Simon Shack's various observations,  later  [2012]  he'd decided that Mr Shack was wrong. 

His later retraction can be seen/heard here.  All I have to say about Hall's 2012 retraction is that it is far from satisfactory, more of an obfuscation than anything else, as he hardly even bothers to address Shack's primary observations that he [Hall] had earlier agreed with. For example, the "matrix shot" issue, which he conveniently dismisses while only referencing NBC's contradictory Fl.175  footage, when the "matrix shot " issue involves  all five stations, not just one.   In conclusion, whereas before I'd wrongly held out hope for Hall/Johnson, I now understand that both of them are "way beyond help".  And so it goes :-) ,Obf.


In my previous post, I brought your attention to the fact that researcher Richard Hall had in 2012, with his holographic plane theory, completely contradicted his own earlier [2010] statements about the plane paths not matching-  as he had  earlier concluded [2010] that researcher Simon Shack had already clearly demonstrated that the plane paths of Fl. 175 did not in fact match up in the "live" 9/11 footage; as indeed I had myself pointed out back in 2012, shortly after Hall's hypothesis was first made public.

After studying the relevant footage in part 3 of 6 of Mr Hall's 2010 interview with Andrew Johnson [who appears to have been the person responsible for pointing out at that time, the incongruity of the flight paths within the original "live" broadcasts ], I decided to delve a little further into Mr. Hall's entire 6 part interview with Johnson,  which originally appeared at Mr Hall's website: "9/11 TV footage and amateur video analysis"., back in June 2010.

  "What Gives"?

And what do I then find, in part 2 [of 6] of the interview [video at top of this post] :

1: Hall Again Admitted That Plane Paths Do Not Match

First of all, at the very start of the video segment, Mr Hall again re-confirms the disparity of the plane paths, [as he does in more detail in part 3 of the interview], as he reviews a segment of Simon Shacks "September Clues" movie that clearly demonstrates 2 different plane paths seen on [even] just one station , NBC. [Let alone the fact that the paths do not match station to station.

Of the two contradictory NBC sequences Hall says:

" This to me is the smoking gun" [at 3.00 to 3.05] and: "that is actually from the same camera, so they've actually removed all of the background from that shot" [3:20-3:30].

See my previous post for more on the plane path issue.

2: Onwards and Upwards: the Hall/Johnson Analysis of "The Matrix Shot"

Starting at 6mins and 30 secs in the interview [posted above], and ending at the 8 mins 20 sec point, Messrs Hall and Johnson then review what Mr Shack had called "the Matrix Shot", i.e. Shack's astute observation that the exact same perspective view of the towers is seen inserted into the live feeds of all 5 MSM networks [ ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, Fox], but, depending on the network, all 5 showed different back grounds and foregrounds, which again means that the imagery shown "live" that morning cannot have been genuine.

The "Matrix Shot": Hall/Johnson Admit Faked "Live" MSM Imagery and Network Collusion:

Hall:

"..the matrix shot"......"all 5 networks appear to have used the same shot, but they've tried to make it look different, different colors, different foregrounds on there, different backgrounds.."

......and then:   ".. so this suggests that all five networks were colluding somehow..."

Johnson: " That's what it looks like."

Moving On: The Original, "Live" MSM Tower "Collapse" Imagery:

 At this point, An Important Question For Hall/Johnson etc.:

So, if they both admitted, all the way back in 2010, that the original "live" broadcast  9/11 imagery they reviewed in the show was not in fact genuine, but  instead consisted of  poorly composited fake imagery made to look like genuine imagery to the casual observer, and, although none of the footage examined in the interview showed the two actual tower "collapses" as shown on TV that morning, why would they [and many others] still, [as of 2017], blithely assume/insist  that any actual, existing, archived  MSM "live broadcast imagery " of the two tower collapses themselves was in any way genuine?

Two Important Facts That Hall/Johnson May Not  Be Aware Of :

 Fact [1] :  While all 5 networks [ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, Fox] broadcast wholly faked imagery of a plane hitting WTC2 [as Hall/Johnson originally seemed to agree] ................

.[.......see Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the original, "live" plane hit footage..................]

......... Fact [2]: Only 1 of each of the 5 networks actually claims to have captured the "live" collapse of a WTC tower.

Specifically:

The WTC 2 "Live" Collapse Footage:

The first tower to go [WTC2] was caught "live" only on NBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkp9AAhS6Ls

ABC, CNN, CBS and Fox all mysteriously missed that allegedly "live" event [at least it's missing from the official on-line "live" archives for those 4 networks]

Question, dear reader : does this NBC "live" sequence really seriously  look like genuine live imagery to you?

The WTC1 "Live" Collapse Footage:

The second tower to go [WTC1] , was seen "live" only on CNN:
 

ABC, CBS NBC and Fox all mysteriously missed that event [at least it's missing from their official on-line archives for these 4 networks].

Question, dear reader : does this CNN "live", on archive sequence, complete with miraculously timed camera "zoom-ins" [that end at the exact moment that the tower starts its collapse],and 3x camera/viewpoint  live studio edits in the space of around 17 secs of a totally unexpected collapse,  seriously  look like genuine live imagery to you? 

See also Simon Shacks  excellent "The "WTC Collapse" Animation Sequences" presentations of the tower collapse imagery

Attention!,  Messrs. Hall and Johnson [and others too numerous to mention]:

That's It!

There Ain't No More Original, "Live" , Archived On-Line, Broadcast, WTC1 & 2  Tower Collapse Imagery!

That's right, no other original better quality, less fake-looking, "live" broadcast tower collapse imagery of the demise of WTC1 and 2 exists! [only those two short sequences on archive and displayed/linked to here, above]

Again, [in case you missed it  the first time :-) ] : these two clips above are the only two extant, official, live, MSM recordings of the "collapses" [or whatever you want to call them], of WTC 1 and 2, that can be found within the official MSM on-line archive for all 5 US TV stations.

Any/everything else Hall, Johnson [or yourself, dear reader], have seen to date regarding those collapses, be it photo or video, is simply not part of the original "live" MSM broadcast record, and only first appeared hours, days, months, or even years after the events themselves.

For example, this somewhat famous photo of WTC1, [used by various 9/11 "researchers" to "prove" that the towers were  destroyed top-down by this, or by that], which , according to online reverse-image search app. "TinEye", did not even appear until 2007 in an on-line newspaper in the far east [of all places], has nothing to do with the original "live" broadcast tower collapse imagery of WTC1's collapse, as shown "live" on CNN [see above] that morning:

         Fig. 1. A supposedly "genuine" image of  WTC1 apparently exploding, "top-down".

Important Questions For Hall, Johnson Etc.:

1] Are Messrs Hall and Johnson and associated now going to  claim, with straight faces mind you, that either of those two official MSM sequences of the collapses of WTC1 and 2 shown above are somehow genuine?

2] Or, perhaps, that a photo  of WTC1 collapsing/exploding that appeared mysteriously in a Far East online newspaper fully 6 years after the event [fig.1] is  genuine,  while the original live NBC and CNN sequences of WTC1 and 2's collapses are fake?

3] Or perhaps [shock, horror, egads ! ] , that the  2 video sequences of the tower collapses , and the photo above, plus others like it, are all fakes?


Inquiring minds want to know ! :-) 

Regards onebornfree[atyahoodotcom]

Addendum: 

And while we're on the subject, here are two more excerpts from the original "live" MSM broadcast  feeds of the morning of 9/11 that also clearly illustrate the fact that that original "live" footage we saw that day was not in any way, shape or form, actual live imagery, but instead , poorly fabricated digital imagery produced entirely via computers, pre- 9/11, then broadcast as "live" imagery on the morning of 9/11:

1] "The Incredible Moving Verrazzano Bridge: [ bridge is  impossibly big, plus it still moves while background/foreground remain stationary]:


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hyvcxYXRTA

2] "The Spinning Towers" : [towers magically turn to face the camera lens as it circles around them]:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSVdg5i9y0

Other onebornfree links:

Personal Freedom Consulting

Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports

OneBornfree's Mythbusters

Music/recordings [channel: Fake-Eye D]:

3 comments:

  1. Not to take exception to the commentary of OBF, but even though some of the plane footage is inconsistent--where at least one or even both have to be fake--Richard Hall's 3-D Flight 175 Radar Analysis still appears to explain the data more adequately than any alternative account. If he abandons it, while I continue to support it, attribute it to me rather than to him. I have address all four of the crash sites in "The Real Deal Ep #100 9/11 The crash sites" w/ Major General Albert Stubblebine (USA, ret.), formerly in charge of all US military signals and photographic intelligence, who no only agrees with me but adds further reasons why I am right. The Twin Towers were blown apart from the top down and were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which coated lower Manhattan. When it was over, there was no massive stack of debris in their footprints. I have explained this many places, including "The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference II", with fourteen (14) contributors. It is archived at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. The Simon Shack-led effort, which OBF promotes, to discount all photos and footage from 9/11 is something I regard as a brazen gambit to undermine serious research and which I condemn.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James Fetzer wrote:

    "The Twin Towers were blown apart from the top down and were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which coated lower Manhattan."

    Really? "Blown apart from the top down?" How so, Prof. Fetzer? Can you explain just HOW this was done? Could even "nukes" achieve such a feat? The onus is on you to explain it, Prof. Fetzer.

    James Fetzer also wrote:

    "The Simon Shack-led effort, which OBF promotes, to discount all photos and footage from 9/11 is something I regard as a brazen gambit to undermine serious research and which I condemn."

    Well, Prof. Fetzer... I personally regard your unfett(z)ered posing as a "serious truthseeker" to be a brazen gambit - and yes, I also "condemn it" (LOL). So I guess it's all par for the course.

    I have to wonder why you kept inviting me to the USA a few years ago - to speak at your "truth conferences". Why exactly is it that my work was of interest to you back then - whereas you now dismiss it as a "brazen gambit to undermine serious research"?

    Thanks for a due reply.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon, this is too funny!

      Richard Hall's holographic plane image theory was wholly dependent on him "proving" [to himself at least :-) ], that all of the plane trajectories of the the 23 odd Fl.175 videos he used matched.

      Now we have him admitting on camera that the plane paths did not/do not in fact match.

      Meanwhile, Mr Fetzer admits here [above] that:

      "..some of the plane footage is inconsistent--where at least one or even both have to be fake" .

      So Mr Fetzer now, [like Hall/Johnson ]_also_ now admits that plane paths do not match, and to video fakery, and yet, despite the fact that Hall's theory rested wholly on his "proving" that the plane paths matched, Mr Fetzer now chooses to ignore that key requirement of the Hall hypothesis and claim:

      "Richard Hall's 3-D Flight 175 Radar Analysis still appears to explain the data more adequately than any alternative account" :-)

      You gotta love it !

      On top of _that_ he apparently wants to now take credit for a theory even though its original creator has now publicly abandoned it, and even though Mr Fetzer has had nothing to do with its original creation! :-) :

      "....If he abandons it, while I continue to support it, attribute it to me rather than to him."

      Like I said, too funny! :-) [and thanks for all the entertainment, Mr Fetzer!]

      Regards, onebornfree

      Delete