Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video [Hezarkhani]

                                                     
              Fig.1: short gif clip- image detail from the full, original Michael Hezarkhani video shown on CNN on 09.12/01                   

One Easy To See Reason Why The Hezarkhani Fl.175 Video [Above] Is   100% Computer-Faked.

[N.B.Update 03/26/14: this post originally contained 2 examples that   raised serious questions about the authenticity of the Hezarkhani video. One has now been removed until I can firmly establish whether or not it is factually relevant- regards, obf.]

Introduction:

Below is an example of a very simple imagery analysis that conclusively proves that the famous Michael Hezarkhani video of Flight 175 crashing into the WTC South Tower is a 100% digital fabrication manufactured wholly via computer simulation, and not a real live movie with  just a plane image inserted later , as Ace Baker [Colin Alexander] contends, nor is it a genuine movie with a projected holographic plane image captured in real time, as Richard Hall and  Prof. Jim Fetzer  contend. 

A Perfect Example Of Exactly What's Missing From Nearly All So- Called 911 Research!

Far  more importantly, this analysis serves  as  an excellent , simple example of the type of detailed imagery analysis that is, sadly, completely missing from the so-called 911 " scientific research"  of  persons such as Prof. Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker, Richard Hall, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Morgan Reynolds, and organizations such as "We Are Change", "Loose Change", "Pilots For 9/11 Truth", "Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth" etc. etc. [ad infinitum]

Naming The Guilty 

All of these persons and organizations listed above, as well as others not listed, are guilty as charged of elevating entirely unexamined/unverified  imagery [i.e. any/all alleged 9/11 imagery cited by themselves or others-  videos and still photos- including, but not limited to the here briefly reviewed Hezarkhani video], to the level of "genuine evidence" without ever having performed anything like the simple investigative procedures demonstrated in the example given here, or other, similarly related imagery verification tests. 

Symptomatic

In fact, this complete lack of any serious  concerted effort towards imagery verification by 9/11 "researchers" before citing that imagery as being " conclusive evidence" [of whatever] , is symptomatic of 99% of the 9/11 "research/truth" community, including all of those claiming some sort of scientific educational background! 

"A Prima Facie" Claim?

Indeed Professor Jim Fetzer, and others associated with him have gone as far as to specifically claim that  imagery like this [ and more specifically, the alleged "live" 911 US network broadcasts], has "a prima facie" justification to be regarded as genuine by any/all "legitimate" 9/11 researchers, and that the simple tests illustrated here [and similar] are not even procedurally necessary for the investigating 9/11 "scientist" !  [N.B. although never broadcast "live", as the MSM broadcasts were all claimed to be, the Hezarkhani clip was shown on CNN and elsewhere shortly after the events of 9/11.]

With all that I hereby submit: 

A Simple To Understand  Reason Why The Hezarkhani Video Is 100% Computer-Faked:

 The "Teardrop" "Fl.175 Stationary Plane Image" Analysis:

                             

 Fig.2 :Part of the Hzarkhani video with a line drawn in the exact center of sequential frames

Building Moves- Plane Stationary! 

 The short, gif Hezarkhani video analysis above is an older [2007 or 8, if I remember correctly] analysis [by "teardrop"],  of the last few frames of the Hezarkhani video. 

Notice that the tail of the plane remains exactly centered in the consecutive frames [red line], and that in reality, in this segment of the video, it is  the building image that moves towards the plane image from right to left , and not the plane image moving towards the building image from left to right as it should be, and  that that moving building image is what creates the optical illusion that the plane image is still moving toward the WTC2 building.

The plane  image is supposedly moving at over 500 mph across screen. 

Fact: 500 mph Objects Are Impossible To Track With Hand Operated Cameras

The simple fact is  that it is impossible for a camera held by an individual to accurately track an object moving at that speed, not without significant image blur from frame to frame.  

If you don't believe me [understandable], try asking  a professional sports photographer who has to photograph Formula 1 race cars  for a living,  cars which routinely travel at about one third of the alleged speed of the plane image in the Hezarkhani video - and they'll tell you the cars are impossible to accurately track at that speed [ 100+ mph]. 

This means that any/all 9/11 videos showing, and successfully tracking, from fairly close up, a plane moving across the sky,  where the camera operator is forced to track the plane image via "panning" the camera to keep it in view, and does so successfully [i.e without significant image blur], are fakes.  To do so  successfully [no blur] is physically impossible. 

And furthermore,  to keep the 500 mph plane image perfectly centered for several frames[as  it is been so miraculously tracked  is _doubly_ impossible.

Hezarkhani Video allegedly Shot From the Deck of a Boat !

 It is also worth bearing in mind that the Hezarkhani video was allegedly shot with a hand held camera, from the deck of a boat; that is, an unstable platform environment. 

Postscript: 

The Michael Hezarkhani video that allegedly depicts what happened when Flight 175  struck the South face of WTC2, is one of the most famous of the  911 "plane into building" videos, most likely because it was shown on mainstream networks shortly after the alleged events of 911, on CNN. 

Variations On A Theme

Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker and Richard Hall all contend that except for the plane image itself, the Hezarkhani video is genuine. 

 Variation 1: that is, Hall and Fetzer contend that the buildings shown in the Hezarkhani video and others like it are genuine, live, "real time"  images , while the plane image itself is a holographic image [ projected via an invisible, "cloaked" military plane flying alongside the holographic projection], captured in real time by the alleged photographer [Hezarkhani]. 

Variation 2:

 If I understand him correctly, Baker, unlike Hall, claims that the plane image is instead  an "insert", that is, a plane image that was later [i.e. post real time filming]inserted into an otherwise live filming of an explosion occurring on the south face of WTC2. 

Concluding Observations:     

1]: Like 99% of "9/11 researchers", neither Hall , Fetzer Or Baker have ever made any even half-way serious attempt to closely examine  either the Hezarkhni video , nor any other alleged live 9/11 video or photo, in the simple yet revealing manner depicted via the example shown here . 

2] More importantly, it can be safely concluded that NONE of the alleged 9/11 imagery, regardless of source, can be trusted. All of it would need to be thoroughly analyzed using both the methodologies briefly illustrated here as well others related, BEFORE any  alleged 9/11 videos or still photos could be  seriously used as "irrefutable evidence" to support any "9/11- what really happened" hypothesis. 

Regards, onebornfree.

More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant , a problem solver, and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel 

Home studio recording example "Somewhere Over The Rainbow Blues":Youtube link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oS9iI2zWU

Live solo example [own composition "Dreams [Anarchist's Blues]:

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

Onebornfree Personal Freedom Blogsites: 

                                                                                         

 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog

Onebornfree's Freedom Network Mythbusters blog

The Freedom Network

The Problem-Solver

9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood- Part 1 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to regular scientific methodology displayed by Dr. Judy Wood and all  other accredited "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

[The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go",  is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not  in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event. For 2 more examples of fraudulent photos being used as  "genuine" "evidence" by Dr. Wood and others, in order to "prove" their own 9/11 hypothesis,  see Part 4 of this report].

N.B. This 4 part report is a re-post/ re-edit of a badly written and badly presented article I originally posted here in 2008, that examined Professor Judy Wood's hypothesis that Hurricane Erin had some sort of direct involvement  in the events of 9/11.

Introduction [and Report Overview]

My Intentions/Goals

This article is not intended as a character assassination of either Prof. Wood or her associates, but rather as an expose of the almost complete lack of utilization of a consistent, everyday, "run of the mill" scientific methodology for any of her "research" to date concerning the events of 9/11. 

However, for the discerning reader, this to be demonstrated, consistent, almost total lack of utilization of the scientific methodology by Prof. Wood might, by itself act as a "character assassination" of both her and her various "professional" associates, as it points directly to an complete lack of professionalism on her/their part. But this is unavoidable, in my estimation. Sorry, but that's just "the way the cookie crumbles" in the real world.  

Why Pick On 9/11 Research"Scientists"?

Because they are supposed to know better, that's why! [which makes it fun to do!].

If I raised the same criticisms about a non formally trained 9/11 researcher, they have an easy "out" : they simply don't know any better. 

On the other hand, all scientists are "supposed" to be trained in a very exact methodology which must be adhered to at all times if their "scientific" conclusions are to be at all  credible to you and I,  in the final analysis.

Pure Bunk?

Therefor, if it can be easily demonstrated that Prof. Wood, [or any other "trained scientist"] has steadfastly refused to comply with some of the simple but exacting rules of their very own profession, then it stands to reason that their 9/11 hypothesis is most likely pure "bunk".

I am by no means singling out Prof. Wood here.[Full disclosure: I used to be a "fan" of her work].

 I have previously tried to draw attention to  the exact same lack of application of the scientific methodology to the hypothesis of Richard Hall, another individual involved in 9/11 research who supposedly has a formal, scientific, educational background, but who consistently demonstrates that he has entirely forgotten most of it- assuming he was ever actually taught the fundamental principles of his "trade" in the first place!   

My overall goal is to draw attention to the fact that any/all of the accredited 9/11 researchers with some sort of "official" designation that denotes them as being formally trained in the the scientific methodology are either deliberately , or out of sheer ignorance, entirely ignoring their own training in order to reach their conclusions [or hypothesis, if you prefer] about exactly what happened on 9/11. 

Naming Names

Let me name names, to get this issue of the almost complete lack of employment of a consistent scientific  methodology in their published conclusions about 9/11 out in the open. 

It reads like a  virtual "whose who", or "big 3" of 9/11 researchers, in fact : 

[1] Prof. Judy Wood [+ all associates/promoters of her hypothesis], 

[2] Richard Hall [ + all associates/promoters of his hypothesis],

[3] Prof. Steven Jones,  [ +all associates/promoters of his hypothesis]. 

My Claim: Every one of these three, formally [i.e. University] trained, "scientists" involved in 9/11 "research" is studiously avoiding the application of the scientific methodology in at least one crucial area  of their own research. 

I Said: "At Least One Crucial Area"?, But For Prof. Judy Woods, It Is Not One "Crime" Against Science, But Three!

In the case of Prof. Wood, to be expanded on in this article, [and just as with Richard Hall], I demonstrate that Prof. Wood has not only , like her "scientific" associates, consistently ignored  the required scientific methodology in the exact same way as those associates in that one crucial area  [briefly explored in part 4 of this report], she has also apparently deliberately "misinterpreted" official data in order to push her own agenda, even subsequently altering a particular graph plot at her own site in order to try and hide what the original graph/data showed, and she has, all to conveniently, also entirely ignored  one entire crucial area of meteorological research in order to conveniently reach her conclusion that a hurricane [Erin] was directly involved in the events of 9/11. 

Article Guide/Overview: 

This article is in four separate parts 

 Part [1]: Introduction article guide /overview[you are here!] .

 Part [2]: Dr. Judy Wood  Crime #1":  

Dr. Wood's deliberate [or extremely sloppy- take your pick], entirely unscientific, total misrepresentations  of official data on Hurricane Erin's actual position and movements relative to New York City [NYC] on 9/11, in order  to support her  hypothesis [i.e. that Erin was an artificially controlled event whose energy was in some way being utilized to facilitate the demolition of the WTC complex via something called "Direct Energy Weapon {you know, "D.E.W."}, technology".] 

Part [3]:  Dr. Judy Wood Crime #2":

Dr. Wood's complete [and very convenient] entirely unscientific ignoring of a far larger [than Hurricane Erin] natural phenomena that was present on 9/11 that has a proven, historical, meteorological record for deflecting hurricanes away from the U.S coastline. 

 Part [4]: Dr. Judy Wood Crime #3 [A far more egregious "scientific methodology crime" than either of the first two listed. ]  : 

Dr. Woods [and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and others] total non -compliance with standard scientific protocol that alway requires the verification of the authenticity of any all "evidence" to be used to formulate a theory of what happened on 9/11. 

In this case, Wood and Reynolds have consistently [to this day, and just like other 9/11 research"scientists"Richard Hall, and Steven Jones, previously mentioned],  completely ignored the standard scientific procedural requirement  to fully verify the authenticity of any and all video and/or still photographic imagery  that they have studied/used to reach their so-called "scientific" conclusions to date. 

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

End of part 1.  

Part 2 of "9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood"

9/11 Scams: The Junk- Science of Dr. Judy Wood -Part 2 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to the traditional scientific methodology displayed by any and all of the "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

9/11, Professor Judy Wood, Directed Energy Weapons, and Hurricane Erin

Professor Judy Woods is a scientist somewhat famous  in 9/11 research circles for her claims that some type of Direct Energy Weapon [D.E.W] was responsible for the deliberate destruction of both of the WTC1 and WTC 2 towers and for the destruction of  other buildings within the 9 building World Trade Center. 

As such, she maintains her own website to publicize her research/claims, and has also recently published her book "Where Did The Towers Go".

One interesting facet her research has uncovered is the mostly uncontested fact that on the morning of 9/11 a very large hurricane named "Erin" was bearing down on New York City, only to seemingly inexplicably  turn sharply away to the right, further out to sea that morning. 

From what I understand, Professor Woods has theorized that Hurricane Erin was in fact used as some type of energy source to power the D.E.W. weapon that she theorizes was used to destroy the WTC buildings. She  claims that the sharp turn that Erin made on the morning of 9/11 is proof of its direct involvement in the destructive event of 9/11. 

A Personal Admission - It's a Great Idea! 

If truth be told, I would have to admit that the idea of a large Hurricane having a direct involvement in the events of 9/11 had a lot of attraction for me personally- I often like unusual, counterintuitive ideas. 

So initially, Prof. Wood's claim was very attractive to me- it was, at the very least, an original idea that deserved consideration , I thought.

20  year + Inhabitant of The S.E., Coastal U.S.

I initially considered Dr Wood's claim that Hurricane Erin was directly involved in the events of 9/11 from the viewpoint of a 20 + year inhabitant of the S.E. coast of the U.S.[ i.e myself]. 

Hurricanes pass close by almost annually and so one naturally becomes hyper-aware of both the storms themselves, and of the types of natural conditions that are needed to prevent them from endangering my approximate area.

So in considering Dr Wood's claims, I was very interested to see if she had considered/allowed for the one natural event which both myself and any other experienced hurricane watcher knows will stop a hurricane dead in its tracks every time, and that would cause  significant changes in direction.  [She did not, and has not, to date- this is what I call attention to in part 3 of this article]. 

Busted! Judy Wood Crime # 1:  Professor Judy Wood's  Apparently Deliberate, 6 Hour Misrepresentation of Hurricane Erin's Official N.O.A.A. Time and Position Data.

Professor Judy Wood Radio Interviews:

 Regarding Erin's alleged position and movements on 9/11 according to Prof. Wood, I came across 2 archived radio interviews at Prof. Wood's site [both with Andrew Johnson on Jim Fetzer's "Dynamic duo" show.]

In These Radio Interviews, Dr. Wood Claims That  Erin Was Closest at Around 8am EDT on 9/11

In the first of those 2 interviews Dr Woods said that Erin was :

"....closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. And then it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out"

Dr Wood made other, related comments/claims regarding Erin's position and behavior , including claims that Erin's behavior on 911, as revealed by her own graph [ fig 7 here ] exhibited classic signs of it being an artificially controlled environment.

Those radio interviews [ with Mr Andrew Johnson] can be heard here:

[1] http://www.drjudywood.com/media/080730_Wood_Johnson_Erin_DD.mp3

[2] http://www.drjudywood.com/media/080731_Wood_Johnson_Erin_DD.mp3

N.B. update 06/01/13]  Dr Wood's Two Distinct Claims About Hurricane Erin: 

Dr Wood's statement that Erin was "....closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. And then it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out", contains two distinct claims:

Wood Claim [1]: Erin was  "....closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. "

Wood Claim [2]: "around 8am..... it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out".

N.B. The Purpose of Part Two of This Report Is To Directly Refute Those Two Claims.

Wood Claim [1]: 

FACT: Dr Wood's Own Site-Published N.O.A.A. Data Refutes Her  Claim That Erin's Eye Was Closest To NYC at around 8am on 9/11 :

Here below is a graph plot of Erin's track , taken from : http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html

Fig.1 :  screen-shot of graphic plot from J. Wood's site, of Erin's path made from official N.O.A.A. data,  [N.B. This image was originally screen-grabbed from J. Wood's website in 2008.]

The bottom , blue line in  Fig. 1  above indicates the distance for Erin's eye from NYC, based on NOAA data. The lighter blue points along that line indicate times for those distance readings given in Eastern Daylight Time[ EDT] , taken every 6 hours.

Here is a close up of the relevant part of the bottom, blue line that represents position of Erin's eye relative to NYC on 9/11:

                    Fig.2 :Detail of fig. 1 [Click on illustration to enlarge]

[N.B. This image was originally screen-grabbed from J. Wood's website in 2008.]

Notice how the purple line above the blue plot line gives a 2am EDT 09/11/01 reading , that lines up with the 2nd. from farthest left, unlabeled light blue plot point on the blue line directly below it, making that 2nd. farthest left blue plot point below it also a 2 am EDT plot point. Directly to the right of it on the same blue line is the labelled, 8am EDT plot point.

[Readings were taken every 6 hours, as per standard N.O.A.A. storm protocol] :

Fig. 3 : [unlabelled blue plot point corresponds with 2am plot point on purple line directly above it. Question: why wasn't the 2am plot point ever labelled as such?]

Also notice the 2 upward steps in the blue line [look closely now!] between the unlabeled [i.e2am] light blue plot point and the 8am EDT plot point directly to its right:

                            Fig 4: Closeup/detail of fig. 3

Notice also how the 8am plot point itself is slightly higher than the [unlabeled] 2am plot point to its left, [indicating that Erin's eye was closer to NYC at 2am than at 8am], and how this blue plot line continues at an increasing upward angle as it moves to the right of the graph and as Erin's eye continued to move further away from NYC.

Obviously, the unlabelled 2am EDT  light blue data point on that blue line depicting Erin's eye's path is in actual fact the official closest point to NYC for Erin, as per N.O.A.A. data,  and not the 8 am EDT point claimed by Prof. Wood.

N.B.  Attention, FRAUD ! Dr. Woods 2012 [?] Image Update Deliberately Eliminates Those 2 Upward Steps In the Bottom Blue Plot Line, Replacing Them With One Single Downward Step!:

The above images [figs.3 + 4]  showing the slightly ascending ["2 step"] blue line showing Erin's position from 2am EDT to 8am EDT on 9/11 were "screen grabbed" by me in 2008 for the original article I posted.  

For clarification here is the latest [March 2013] screen grab of the same image in question from the same page and illustration :

 
             [Fig 5 above: a 2013 screen grab/update of the same page from Prof. Woods site]

   

                                  Fig.6[a] above: 2008 screen-shot

                                 

                          Fig. 6[b] above: 2013 screen-shot

Fig.6 a&b : a close-up/comparison of the original 2008 screen-shot vs. the March 2013 screen-shot 

Notice how now, the original [circa 2008] in Fig. 6[a], above left, shows 2 upward steps depicting a movement away from NYC  for Erin that commenced around 2am EDT, while in the new [2013?] screen-shot, Fig. 6[b], those 2 upward steps in the blue line are no longer present, but have been replaced by a single downward step shortly after the unlabeled 2 am data point.  :-) 

However, even in this 2013 version of the  same graph, the exact same, unlabelled 2am EDT blue plot point [directly to the left of the 8am EDT blue plot point] as is present in the 2008 graphic [Fig.3] still appears to be closer to the bottom of the page than the labelled 8 am EDT plot point , meaning that Erin's eye was still, as per Dr. Wood's displayed NOAA data, closest to NYC at around 2 am EDT, [and not 8am as she claims].

"A Minor Point- An Insignificant Difference", You Say?

If you believe that what I show above is an insignificant [ a couple of millimeters ?] difference between the height above the baseline of 2am plot point versus the 8am one, all I can tell you is that it is inevitable that it looks this way, given the format within which the data is presented.

Regardless, my Fig. 6[b] shows a clear difference in height above the graph baseline.

Next Up, A Refutation of Wood Claim [2]: 

[Reminder of Wood claim [2]:"around 8am..... it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out".]

A  Far Better View of Erin's Actual Path : An Overhead [Satellite] Depiction

In order to check Dr. Wood's claim [2], the best view for actual position would be shown in a pictorial that plots NOAA data for actual times and positions looking down on Erin's path, as if from a satellite, or high-flying aircraft directly above it.

Best Overhead Plot For Hurricane Erin Movement's?

I found that the best, clearest  plot of Erin's actual path,  based on the official NOAA data,  is here.

Breaking! :The Animated Java Plot/ Screen Shot Below From That Site [linked above] Shows That Erin Actually Started It's Move Away From NYC  at Around 2am On 09/11/01, Not At 8am, As Wood Claims ! 

         Fig. 7 , above: Hurricane Erin position 2am EDT 09/11/01

Animated Hurricane Erin Java plot here. 

Fig.7[a] above: [cropped enlargement of Fig. 5]: Hurricane Erin position 2am EDT 09/11/01

Fig. 8 above:Hurricane Erin position 8 am 09/11/01 [N.B. Erin's curve to right, away from NYC, has already happened ].

Animated Hurricane Erin Java  plot here.

Fig. 8[a] above:enlarged crop of Fig. 8: Hurricane Erin position 8 am EDT 09/11/01 [N.B. Erin's curve to right , away from NYC, has already happened ] 

Animated Hurricane Erin Java plot here. 

              Fig. 8[b] above: cropped enlargement of Fig. 8[a]: Hurricane Erin position 8 am 09/11/01 [N.B. Erin's curve to right , away from NYC, has already happened] 

             Fig 9: Erin's position as of 2pm , 09/11/01

Fig. 9[a] [cropped enlargement of Fig.9] Hurricane Erin position 2pm EDT 09/11/01  

             Animated Hurricane Erin Java plot here. 

Q: Was Erin "Still": "A Controlled Environment" As Prof. Wood Claims?

  "Well O.K." you  might say, "Professor Wood was off on her claim about Erin's position by 6 hours according to the official data, but that does not mean that she is wrong about it being an artificially controlled environment". 

Well first of all, I would advise you to be extremely wary of the claims of someone [anyone, even a "Professor", with "credentials" no less!], who has already been shown to have blatantly misrepresented the official  data regarding this hurricanes position on 9/11, in order for it to bolster/fit their grand 9/11 theory. [Not that I'm a big fan of "official" data, however, in this case its all we have to go on].   

But if that's not enough "evidence" for you, or sufficient grounds for suspicion of her claim that Erin was an "artificially controlled environment", then part three of this analysis may be of interest to you, as it shows how, in order to formulate her grand "hypothesis",  this particular "Dr.", or "Professor" with society's formal "credentials"has also entirely ignored consideration of  the on-record 9/11 presence of a far larger [than Hurricane Erin]  natural phenomena in the continental US; a natural phenomena which, furthermore, has a proven historical record for deflecting hurricanes away from the US coast line. 

END OF PART 2

********************************
 PART 3 of "9/11 Scams: The Junk- Science of Dr. Judy Wood "