Here we go again. Yet another 9/11 "anniversary". What's to say that I haven't said before? Very little, as I see it.
As for the so-called 9/11 "truth movement", it seems to be pretty much a lost cause for now.
Especially for people like me who, because of Simon Shacks amazing "September Clues" video series, understand that all of the original "live broadcast " US MSM footage from that morning [ i.e ABC, CBS,CNN, Fox, NBC] was/is prefabricated computer generated imagery [C.G.I.].
Meaning that all "live broadcast" MSM video sequences depicting Fl.175 colliding with WTC2 are fake, as are all "live broadcast " video sequences depicting the subsequent collapses of WTC's 1, 2, and 7.
Not only that, but it appears that all of the alleged, listed 9/11 victims never even existed .
And yet the "9/11 Truth movement" continues to studiously ignore almost all Mr Shacks research and analysis of the true extent of the fakery of all alleged 9/11 videos, and to studiously examine them as if they were all genuine sequences from which conclusions as to demolition methodology, or as to whether the planes were drones, holograms or flying saucers, can be safely drawn.
Year after year I've watched this silly process, from a never ending, wide swathe of "9/11 truth researchers", to no avail.
"Stupid is as stupid does" I guess. Oh well, so be it :-(
Here's what Simon himself says on this 22nd anniversary of the 9/11 event, after [I'm guessing] about 16 years of trying to awaken the masses from their slumbers :
Over the last 6 months or so I've been compiling alternative links to Simons "September Clues" video series, and all [hopefully] currently still active links are given below.
First of all, however, here are links to the official "September Clues" website, where you will find the main internal links to various 9/11 research subjects, as well as a link to the discussion forums which cover 9/11 as well as the fake moon landings, the fake JFK assassination etc. etc. : https://www.septemberclues.org/
Second of all, all of Simons work has been archived by him at the "Fakeologist's" excellent web site here:
Outside, Alternative Links To The "September Clues" Series:
Below, in no particular order, are current still active [ I believe] links to various videos in the "September Clues" series that I've tracked down, all posted by individuals who may, or may not be members of the "September Clues" forums.
However, I'd like to start off with a link to a none- "September Clues" video analysis, Killtowns "Air vs. Skyscraper", simply because I found it before I discovered "September Clues" itself, and it opened my eyes enough so that I was already pre-primed to then consider Simon's research, around one week later:
"In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam" "Dreams [Matrix Blues]"Fake-Eye "D"
Obf sez:This addendum to Simon Shack's main work [ i.e. the original "September Clues"], reveals, via close, detailed, frame by frame analysis, the complete fraudulence of all of the original, as aired, mainstream news networks "live" 9/11, broadcasts; complete with impossible scenery perspectives, impossible building dimensions, fake "view from helicopter" shots, and an impossibly mobile bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEM9quwi6yM
Please closely review these other excellent additions to Simon Shack's original September Clues movie available here
[obf sez: For those who still cling to the official 9/11 story and believe that it was/is impossible for their government to have planned an "inside job", the bare facts of the US government's now declassified, never implemented, 1962 Operation Northwoods scheme, complete with proposed fake plane flights, fake passengers, fake deaths/ and funerals, plus deliberate murder of US citizens, as revealed in this video, might get them to reconsider their own position vis a vis the claimed events of 9/11.]:
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." H.L. Mencken
obf disclaimer:links to authors articles or videos are not necessarily full endorsements of all of the views/positions of any of the individuals or organizations concerned!
Comments/questions/insults/death threats etc. - email: onebornfree at yahoo dot com
Fig.1 Above a revealing still frame from the movie "September Clues". Question: how could all 5 mainstream US TV stations apparently use the exact same camera line- of-sight at the exact same time on the morning of 9/11? For answers, watch the full movie here, or here.[Youtube]
At Jim Fetzers blogsite I recently came across a "9/11 truth" article by former pilot John Lear [ now involved with the 9/11 truth group called "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" ] , that he [Fetzer] had re-posted from another site, entitled :
Early on in his re-posted article Mr. Lear states :
"....No Boeing 767 airlines hit either of the Twin Towers, as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. All of the “evidence” to that effect, including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged......"
Let me repeat part of that statement [ in edited form for emphasis] :
"....All of the “evidence” to that effect, including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged......"
Veeeeeeery Interesting.....
This re-posting of Mr. Lear's article on Mr Fetzer's very own blog is very "interesting", to myself at least.
Let me explain.
Three [or more?] years ago I appeared 3 times on Mr Fetzer's radio show making the exact same claim; specifically that, to put it in Mr Lear's words yet again :
" ....All of the “evidence”.......including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged."
So Mr Fetzer now publishes the thoughts of this person who has now made the exact same claims as myself and others, who have been saying the exact same thing since around 2007-8, and who were then publicly ridiculed by Mr Fetzer in various articles and blog posts [ some of which archived here at the "Fakeologist" site ]?
Wh- wh-wh-wh- Whaaaaat?
Some Questions:
What exactly is going on here?
Does this mean that Mr Fetzer now believes what Mr Lear has, like myself, stated, i.e.:
" ....All of the “evidence”.... including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged." ?
Does this further mean that Mr Fetzer has had a change of heart and has now decided to "cease and desist" with the silly, childish name-calling that he publicly dished out towards myself, Simon Shack and others at his own blog and in his various "Veterans Today" articles [now deleted from the VT site]?
Or is this just some type of mental, or "technical" aberration/oversight on Mr Fetzer's part? Hmmm?
Or, perhaps Mr Lear did not really mean what he clearly implied in his article [i.e. that all video "evidence" of planes hitting buildings was fabricated] ?
I/we await with baited breath for some clear, straight answers to these interesting questions , although I expect that none will be forthcoming :-)
The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus Simple, Common Sense Logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUqqdoup6fU
Fig.1:A short clip taken from the Fox Networks original, on-line archive showing flight 175 striking WTC2.[ Question, dear reader: does anything in this sequence - foreground, background, tower images, smoke, plane image, explosion - actually look genuine to you?]
An Important Question For You, Dear Reader - assuming you are even interested in 9/11 "truth"- if not, stop reading right about now!
...on the other hand, if you carry on reading, and ultimately agree with my main point, then you will be light years ahead of 99% of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" :-) . Important Question:Is any part of the original, on-line, archived,"live" 9/11 footage of the 5 major US TV networks, all 102 minutes of it, to be trusted [for example, the short Fox sequence seen above]? I'll try to answer that question for you a bit later on. But first, in light of that question, a very important fact to consider that you might not be aware of.
A Very Inconvenient,Very Important, Very Ignored 9/11 Fact: Fact: There Are Two Distinct Classes of 9/11 Imagery: Specifically:
Class [1] The original "live" US mainstream media broadcasts of the morning of September 11th 2001[ i.e ABC, CNN,CBS, Fox, NBC] , as archived on line since 2003*, plus maybe similar overseas so-called "live" broadcasts [for example, the BBC].
For example :
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkp9AAhS6Ls Fig. 2, above: an example of Class [1] imagery. A still frame from a video depicting the collapse of WTC2, as allegedly recorded live by the only U.S. station to record the event "live" in its entirety, N.B.C., on what was, presumably, one of the "best in world" most sophisticated and advanced [and expensive!] TV cameras. [How's that for clarity/resolution/definition ? ].
Fig.3: another example of Class [1] imagery. A still shot taken from the video of the collapse of WTC1, as allegedly recorded "live" on the only U.S. channel to carry the event 'live" in its entirety, C.N.N., on what were at the time presumably the worlds most advanced/ expensive/best T.V. cameras. [How's that for clarity/resolution/definition ? ].
Class [2] Everything else.
That is: any and all "after the fact", never broadcast "live" when the event[s] allegedly happened on TV, videos, and "after the fact" published photos; whether or not these are from "amateur" or professional sources, including all not- originally "live", shown later, mainstream media video footage that was somehow altered [i.e. it was/is different from the original "live"broadcast by the same channel - which essentially makes it edited, "re-cap", "earlier today"- type of network footage].
Whether it be none-network footage or photos, or "professional, US network" re-edited, "re-cap", footage that was never actually broadcast "live" at the actual times of any of the 3 events earlier that day, no matter, there are literally 100's, and possibly 1000's of examples of this very broad, second class of 9/11 imagery.
For example:
Fig.4.: An example of Class [2] imagery. A still photo of the collapse of WTC1 that was [somehow] not published until 2007 [in the Far East, of all places]. Note the dramatic increase in overall clarity vis a vis both of the class[1] images presumably taken with the worlds best network video cameras that proceed it here. N.B. This photo,and others like it, with no easily provable provenance, [unlike the U.S. 5 network records, which are all archived on line], is frequently used to "prove" that the WTC towers were demolished, top down, with either "mini-nukes", or supposed "direct energy weapons".
Why is this "there are two classes of 9/11 imagery" fact important?
Because, the fact of the matter is that all of the class [1] original, archived, U.S. M.S.M. imagery that was actually broadcast "live" at the exact times of the alleged 3 events [i.e. 1 x plane crash, 2 x tower "collapses"] that they all captured that day, came to us first and allegedly"live" on TV, that is: before any of the class [2] imagery existed or was published, so it must always take precedence as the historical record of 9/11 [ I would think].
It must, therefor, naturally take precedence over any/all [class [2]] imagery for close study, assumingan individual is genuinely interested in trying to determine what did/did not happen on 9/11.
After all, proof of origin and authorship of everything in the class [1] imagery class has never been in serious dispute - it is all still online now [2017], and has been online since 2003, so obviously all 5 US networks, to this day, stand by their own archived historical records as being accurate footage capturing the "live" events of the morning 09/11/01.
Conversely, outside of the networks very own "earlier today" type re-cap footage, [which,as I said, invariably differs considerably from what any one network actually broadcast "live" that morning], authenticity and authorship of most of the 1000's of "after the fact" photos and videos in class [2] above can never even be satisfactorily verified without a lot of time-consuming and fruitless deep detective work.
Back To The Important Question Previously Asked: Question asked again: "Is any part of the original, on-line, archived,"live" 9/11 footage of the 5 major US TV networks, all 102 minutes of it, to be trusted?"
Answer [via a question]: "Is any part of the original archived on-line US network
footage of the 3 events that all 5 stations allegedly broadcast "live" that day [1x plane strike, 2 x tower collapses], provably fraudulent?"
I believe so. Consider this :
Blog entry update! 06/03/19 : Youtube has somehow disabled my ability to embed any version the original video I wanted to post in this blog [ which should tell you something :-) ] so I will just post the links to 4 versions that I have found on line. Hopefully, at least 1 of the 4 links will work for the reader :
Above, 4 alternative links to Simon Shacks original, now banned, study of the Fox TV's alleged live broadcast of Fl.175's impact on WTC2. That is, a close, frame by frame analysis of the same Fox 5 , class [1]on-line archived footage shown at the top of this page [fig.1], revealing the original on-line archive content to be fraudulent [ i.e. wholly pre-fabricated ] imagery. And Now-Time For a Little Simple, Applied, Logic! :
Which means, again by logical extension, that all class [2], not- "originally "live" broadcast network sequences", plus all still photos, regardless of source, showing the same alleged event must also be fabrications.
Furthermore, if we assume that all 5 networks "live" Fl. 175 crash into WTC2 footage was/is fake, then, by further logical extension, it should mean [for the honest researcher], that every other part of those 5 US TV networks claimed "live" coverage, including the two supposedly"live" sequences showing the 2 tower collapses [NBC and CNN], would, at the very least, be highly suspect as being fraudulent, before the researcher ever even bothered to take a close look at them.
And, if the only two extant, class[1] official, "live", still on-archive US network WTC1 and 2 tower collapse sequences turn out to be pure fabrications, then, by simple logical extension, any and all class [2] sequences and photos showing those exact same two events, regardless of source, must also be fabrications.
This Just In: The Only Two Originally "Live", On Archive, Tower Collapse Sequences [NBC & CNN] Are Frauds!
Well, surprise, surprise, close analysis does indeed reveal those two, lesser-known, class[1]on-archive WTC1 and 2 destruction sequences to also be pure fabrications.
For further clarification on this issue, please watch the following short, class [1], pre- tower collapse sequence that was broadcast "live" on ABC on 9/11 . [fig.6, below]
Notice - an ABC news "chopper", complete with "heli-cam", supposedly circles the two smoking [post-strike, pre-collapse] WTC towers 1 and 2 , and yet, those amazingly agile twin towers manage to constantly revolve so that they always face the camera lens, as if on a revolving platform . Crafty little buggers, weren't they? :-) :
There is, I submit, in light of the obviously fraudulent class [1] ABC sequence above, taken as it is from the original on-line archives, pre- collapse of either tower, absolutely no good logical reason to gaily assume the realness of any subsequent sequence, on any TV channel, that allegedly depicts the later "collapse" of either of those same two impossibly "spinning towers", surely?
[See also 67 seconds of Truth?" and "Addendum", below].
In Summary:
In summary, if all of the original, on-line, official US network archives for the morning of 09/11/01 [i.e. class [1] type footage], is revealed to contain nothing more than:
[a]: fabricated footage of a plane, [Fl. 175], hitting a WTC tower [WTC2] on all 5 US networks........ and........
[b]: fabricated footage of two towers falling on only two networks [WTC2 then WTC1]....
...then, by logical extension, any particular class [2] video or photo you care to name depicting and replicating any one of those exact same 3 "live" TV events cannot possibly be genuine.
Simple!
A Sad Fact:
However, 99% of the "9/11 truth movement"
is either completely unaware of the vitally important "two classes of
imagery" distinction, or intentionally chooses to ignore it regardless, and is
instead fully content to wallow around forever examining/scrutinizing
mostly entirely unverifiable class [2] video footage and/or photos that
have practically nothing to do with the original, official, MSM on-line
archived "live" footage record.
Another Sad Fact:
The "9/11 truth movement" will remain lost, and floundering around, getting nowhere, as long as it insists on completely ignoring the easily provable, "in your face" fraudulence of all of the official on-line, archived, US mainstream media network records of the three 9/11 events they all allegedly captured "live"; as, for example, demonstrated in the "Nosed Out" analysis above, [see also the addendum below for 3 more clear examples of "live" MSM video fraudulence], and instead chooses to myopically focus on any/all other, class [2], none-archived, none-verifiable imagery of those alleged events, plus other, related similarly unverifiable material.
Yet Another Sad Fact: with that tactic, the most it/ they can ever hope to agree on is some broad generality; for example: "9/11 was an inside job".
The rest of the time they'll be too busy idiotically and childishly fighting over whether or not it's been "proven" [usually via class [2] video sequences or photos], that it was tower destruction by nukes, mini-nukes or exotic beam weapons, or whether or not it is "proven" [via class [2] video sequences or photos], that the plane images had to have been holograms, or just clever inserts; and, with such never-ending internal fighting, succeed only in distracting peoples attention far away from the bald fact that almost none of these "9/11 researchers" various silly hypothesis' are ever based on close analysis of any of the original, class [1] "live", on-line, official archived footage for 9/11, particularly with regard to the original, archived tower collapse imagery. [See below]
Conclusion: Yet Another Sad Fact:
The vast majority of the "9/11 truth movement" [ including its various leaders/ main spokespersons - you know who you are :-) ], appears to be almost entirely ignorant of both simple, analytical scientific procedure and common sense logic.
Plane Strike Videos Fact: when added together, the total official"live" class 1, on-line archived coverage of Flight 175's approach + hit [i.e. ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, fox] amounts to around 40 secs . 40 seconds,that's it!
Tower Collapse Videos Fact: the total official "live", class 1, on-line, archived footage of the
collapses of WTC's 1 and 2 adds up around 27-30 secs. for the only two networks
that showed them [1 event for each channel]: the WTC2 collapse [approx.10-12 secs on NBC], and the WTC1 collapse [approx 17 secs. on CNN].
That is: to this day [2017] there are only around 27 to 30 secs. total of official, verifiable on-line, "live" archived footage of the collapses of WTC's 1 and 2 in the whole world - that's it! See also: "The "WTC Collapse" Animation Sequences"
In summary, the total amount of "live" , class 1, network footage for the 3 events the networks allegedly captured "live" on 9/11 [i.e.
{1} Flight 175's strike on WTC2, {2} the collapse of WTC2, {3} the collapse of
WTC1] is around 67 secs.
To re-emphasize:
despite the appearance that there are 100's of minutes of authentic
"live"9/11 imagery, in actual fact, there exists , to this day, no more
than around 67 secs. of original, verifiable [class [1] ] on-line archived footage of the 3 main televised events of 9/11 .
************************************************************* Addendum:
For Your Further Viewing Pleasure!:
Two more short analysis' demonstrating the complete fraudulence of the original online, archived 9/11 "historical" record provided by the 5 US national TV networks:
1] Oversize bridge caught on the move by stationary camera :-) :
See also, "September Clues" starting at the 14 min mark, through to the 15 min. mark, the "Matrix Shots", where all 5 networks used the same twin tower image, but each inserted [impossibly] different foregrounds, backgrounds, and colors to give the appearance of different, independent, coverage.
And finally, here's a good example of what CGI could achieve back in 2014 :
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:
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?
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=wag2XVRR5Dc [youtube 2015] [The whole 6 part interview originally appeared in 2010here ] 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.
Richard Hall Eats His Own Words ?
Starting at 3:58 of the above video [first published on 06/18/2010 on his own site, and then at Youtube June 9th. 2015], and using clips taken directly from Simon Shacks "September Clues" series, Mr Hall along with interviewee Andrew Johnson, revealed the different, contradictory flight paths of Flight 175 shown in the various MSM and "amateur" videos, to his viewing audience.
At around 4:40 in this interview with Mr Johnson we have him [Johnson] stating:
"....you get different trajectories for the plane....If this is the same plane, then you should be able to determine what the trajectory is from the video clip".
Hall then agrees with Johnson, and in doing so directly contradicts his very own, subsequent "holographic plane image" hypothesis first aired publicly in his own May 19th 2012 "NEW 9/11 Video and Radar Analysis"
Briefly, his whole hypothesis rested on the idea that if all of the plane trajectories in the various 9/11 videos showing Fl.175's approach and strike on WTC2 matched, then that "proved" that :
1] The videos were all genuine.
2] if the flight paths matched, that because the plane images in some of the videos defied known laws of physics , then they could not have been of a real plane, so "therefore" [he, Hall, assumed "logically"] , a single, fake, moving plane image was projected holographically by a "cloaked" [i.e. invisible to the live camera] plane flying close alongside the projected holographic image. [Yes, really :-) ]
Mr. Hall then tried to demonstrate in his video that all of the flight paths for 20 odd video clips of fl. 175 matched ["therefor" all of that footage was genuine].
{Hint: the flight paths he so carelessly analyzed never did match}.
What My Refutation of the Hall Hypothesis Tries To Demonstrate:
If you bother to go back and look at my own, long, 4 page refutation of the Hall hypothesis, you will clearly see that I demonstrate [ as Messrs Hall and Johnson originally appeared to agree], that the flight paths of Fl.175 do not match even within his own video presentation of his theory.
Hall Eats His Own Words
So now it seems that Mr Hall agreed with Mr Shack and myself back in 2010 [when this interview was first aired on Hall's site], but later [2012] "ate his own words" to come out with his own grandiose, wholly contradictory, holographic plane image idea of 2012 Is Hall's Backpedaling Important?
Why did Messrs Hall and Johnson originally publicly state [2010] that the plane paths did not match, only to later [2012] emerge with a bogus holographic plane theory which almost exclusively relied on Hall "proving" that the plane paths matched, even when it had been obvious to themselves back in 2010, that they did not in fact match?
What's Next?
So what's next? Are we ever going to witness the gloriously comical sight of Messrs Fetzer and Reynolds, the two most prominent supporters of the Hall hypothesis, publicly "eating their own words" regarding Hall's 2012 holographic plane hypothesis?. Let alone Messrs Hall and Johnson, who certainly do not seem eager to draw attention to their entirely contradictory statements on the issue.
Will Pigs Fly?
Personally, I would love to see this. However, if my own personal experience with these persons is anything to go by, the egos of at least two of these three "gentlemen" are way to big to ever acknowledge publicly that the whole holographic plane hypothesis was bunk right from the "git go", so I'm not holding my breath on this issue, that's for sure :-) .
But maybe, just maybe..... "pigs will fly", after all, it's happened before, as this photo clearly shows :-) :
