tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post7507391533049616665..comments2023-03-24T16:40:13.496-07:00Comments on Onebornfree's 9/11 Research Review: Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall's Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique - Part 1Onebornfreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-86228522012550385322014-05-08T21:11:00.801-07:002014-05-08T21:11:00.801-07:00BTW, Richard D. Hall actually believed the "v...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.<br /> I 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.<br />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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-16204933488570909452014-05-08T20:54:27.215-07:002014-05-08T20:54:27.215-07:00No one is saying that the planes were normal, regu...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.<br /><br />Instead, 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.<br /><br />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.<br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com