Onebornfree's 9/11 Research Review

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs.The Holographic Plane Hypothesis - A Critique Part 3 :

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.]

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

Major Problems With The Richard Hall Hypothesis:

As I said earlier the above [part 2] criticisms of Mr Hall's thesis that I have made are perhaps debatable and minor [ although, I believe, still valid.]

One Last Digression : Plane Strikes Have Different Entry Points on Different Videos:

One last , errr... "minor" point I'd like to make the reader aware of before getting into my major points is this : different alleged "authentic" Fl. 175 strike videos show contradictory impact points for Flight 175, as demonstrated by the graphic analysis seen below:

Part 3 fig. 1 [Click on image to enlarge]

[N.B. Although the discrepancy between the left and centre samples above could perhaps be explained away as a perspective issue, it seems far less reasonable to try to explain away the 165' discrepancy between the impact points shown for Fl.175 in the far left sample and that shown on the far right.

N.B.2. original Youtube links in above graphic are now "mysteriously" deleted. The stills above, left to right are from these network or "amateur"sequences: [1]Fox5, [2]Herzakhani/CNN , and [3] "Park Foreman".

A Question [for anyone/ everyone]: if those videos are as real as Mr Hall and others automatically assume, how come they show different entry points for Fl.175 into WTC2?

Moving On....

Mr Hall's Primary Assumptions Regarding the Herzakhani and Courchesne "Impact" Videos :

Hall: " We clearly see, from two of the amateur clips , the impact videos , that they're not real impacts, so something else has to be going on, and we've discussed- it' either one of two things , either the videos have been faked......or, something else, which is what I've suggested in my film"

Mr Hall is here referring to 2 alleged "amateur" video sequences that clearly show the impact of Fl.175, one allegedly shot by a Michael Herzakhani, and the other allegedly shot by Luc Courchesne ["artist in media arts"]

N.B. unlike the 5 original live MSM sequences, neither of these 2 "amateur"sequences he refers to were ever aired live on 9/11.

N.B. [2]. As the Courchesne clip is to my eye even more of an obvious fake than Hezarkhani's, I will only for now only present evidence refuting the authenticity of the Hezarkhani sequence, which, as you can see from the gif file at below left, was actually broadcast on CNN within a day of the alleged event, which presumably gives it an added aura of credibility in the eyes of many- including Mr Hall, it would seem.

The two primary assumptions made by Mr Hall as revealed in his italicized statement[above] are :

Hall Primary Assumption [1]: That the basic [Newtonian] Laws of physics were not magically suspended on 9/11. That is, Newton's 3rd Law of Motion was in operation, as always :" ... the impacts show impossible physics..." [Hall 30:49]

[For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with this assumption of Mr Hall - as per Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, the alleged "impact" videos show a scientifically impossible event- the question is, why, 100% fake video, or real video plus holographic image? ].

Hall Primary Assumption [2]: " .. the videos were real, and the plane [image]was fake..." [Hall 32:00]

Hall Question 4: if Hall's initial question was: " it's either one of two things , either the videos have been faked......or, something else, " , why does he then mysteriously conclude, with no demonstrable justification, that in fact " .. the videos were real, and the plane [image]was fake" ?

After all, and as with the 26 other videos he uses in his analysis, Mr Hall presents zero evidence of ever having independently established either of these "amateur" videos [Herzakhani and Courchesne] authenticity, but instead presses on with an unproven assumption of authenticity in order to then reach his seemingly pre-ordained conclusion [i.e. that holographic plane images were employed on 9/11] .

So..... Is The Herzakhani Video Genuine?

You decide...

Part 3 fig. 2 : Hezarkhani gif from CNN boadcast

Above : gif[1] is a short gif file of the original Hezarkhani sequence as shown on CNN later on 9/11.

Part 3 fig. 3 Hezarkhani analysis gif [2] , by "teardrop"

Gif [2] above is an analysis [by "teardrop", from 2007] of the last few frames of the exact same Herzarkhani video sequence.

Plane Image Stationary- Building Image Moves Left ! :

Notice that in gif [2] above, that the tail of the plane remains stationary and exactly centered in the frame [red line] and that in reality, it is the building image that moves towards the plane [i.e. right to left ] , and not the plane towards the building as it should be [i.e. left to right].

Question : how could the tail of the plane image possibly remain exactly in the center of the frame in gif [2], when the plane was allegedly traveling at 500 mph pre-strike? It is also worth noting that this video was allegedly shot by Mr Hezarkhani using a hand held camera, from the deck of a boat! :-)

Update 05/09/14: there is also the matter of the sheer physical impossibility of a camera-person, no matter how experienced or "professional" they might claim to be, being able to successfully track a plane image, holographic or otherwise, moving at 500mph [or even at 250mph], across their field of vision with their camera lens in order to produce what is seen in the Hezarkhani sequence. It simply cannot be done in the real world.

Moving On....

Yet More Proof That the Herzarkhani Sequence Is Entirely Fake:

Fake Perspective , Pixel Clouds and Other Herzakhani Video Anomolies:

Part 3 fig. 4

Youtube link: Fake perspective, pixel clouds etc.

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

Depending on Which "Official"Version Watched, Soundtrack is Different!

Part 3 fig. 5

and Youtube link: same Herzakhani video, yet different soundtrack ,

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

-Complete Lack of Vortices Post Collision/Explosion:

Part 3 fig. 6

and: Youtube link: Lack of plane vortices after collision/explosion

Hall Question 5 :

Why has Mr Hall made absolutely no attempt to research /track down the type of evidence I have presented here that clearly shows just how obviously fraudulent these videos are [Herzakhani, Courchesne etc.] ?

Years Old Research

There is so much of this type of [years old] research readily available on Youtube alone - I find the absence of any such search on Mr Hall's part slipshod, if not downright "questionable", especially from a [scientific] procedural perspective.

Conclusion:

Mr Halls hologram hypothesis rest on two primary assumptions :

[1] That the laws of Newtonian physics cannot be violated [agreed]

[2] That the Herzakhani [and Courchesne] "impact" videos [along with all the rest] are genuine.

I have presented a few good reasons that disprove Mr Hall's [and others] second assumption [which , strictly speaking, as a scientist, he should never have even made in the first place]:

1] the contradictory CBS and NBC footage in part [2].

2] the "teardrop" gif analysis of the last frames of the Hezarkhani sequence showing a stationary plane image in flight and a moving tower image in part [3].

3] the bsfredregistration analysis of the Hezarkhani sequence revealing pixel clouds, false perspective etc. in part [3]

4] The Killtown soundtrack analysis, which reveals contradictory soundtracks depending on which version is viewed, in part [3].

5] The complete lack of post explosion plane vortices in the flame/smoke in part [3]

And lets not forget the revealed contradictory entry points for Fl. 175 in different video sequences, as clearly demonstrated in fig. 1 of this section, [near top of page in part [3]].

In part 4 of this critique I give more examples that make the case for total video fakery as opposed to the employment of holographic plane imagery for Fl. 175.

Link To: Total Video Fakery vs.The Holographic Plane Hypothesis: An Examination- part 4 - Summary.

Total 9/11 Video Fakery Versus The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Hypothesis - Part 4

The Richard Hall 9/11 Holographic Plane Image Thesis- Video

Youtube link to same video

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

Question: As 9/11 research, is the Richard Hall hypothesis of any use to us at all ?

Although for myself, Mr Hall's hypothesis makes little sense because of the almost complete disregard for basic, simple, common sense scientific protocols, it is not entirely useless.

A Useful Reminder

I see it as being a useful reminder of just how far from truth it is possible to stray when using an almost entirely arbitrary investigative procedure, and that it vividly demonstrates, that for a truly scientific analysis and end result to be obtained, the VAST importance of NOT making initial, completely arbitrary assumptions about the trustworthiness of everything/anything to be used as evidence, other than, say, the applicable laws of physics.

So What About "Eyewitness" Testimony?

And , by the way, before I forget, alleged "eyewitness" testimony does not get a free pass either. In my opinion, no alleged eyewitness testimony should be used as part of a so-called scientific investigation unless it can be verified as true beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot be verified via appropriate means [ e.g. private investigation of eyewitnesses background, personal history etc.] then frankly, such "testimony" has no part in a legitimate "scientific" investigation for 9/11, or for anything else, as far as I can see. [ And yet, everywhere I look, I am confronted with the never-ending spectacle of straight-faced, "serious", 9/11 "researchers" using entirely unverified , non-cross-examined alleged "eyewitness testimony" as absolute proof of something or other - and invariably, as "proof", to further bolster their already "irrefutable", "scientific" "verifiable", "logical" conclusions about what happened on 9/11.]

Assumtions, Assumptions, Asumptions [Or, Garbage In, Garbage Out]

All final hypothesis' inevitably rest on the initial assumptions made by the person presenting the final hypothesis.

A logical argument and final conclusion about an alleged closely related group of events such as 9/11 can only follow after initial assumptions have been made. The importance of correct initial assumptions cannot be overstated, for if those initial assumptions are incorrect, then it follows that the final conclusions [derived via logic] are also likely to be incorrect, no matter how "logically correct" they might appear to be.

Mr Hall's [Important] Initial Assumptions Are Not Readily Apparent

The initial assumptions made by Mr Hall and from which his logic inevitably follows in order to reach his final conclusion [i.e that on 9/11 holographic imagery via invisible drone aircraft was employed] , may not be immediately apparent to the casual viewer of his video presentation, as his presentation does not clearly proceed from those initial assumption[s] made, but instead presents his conclusions first ; in fact, the important, initial assumptions he actually made before he reached his final conclusions are not revealed until later on in his video, when he gets around to discussing what he calls the "impact" videos; that is, after he has already demonstrated the results/conclusions of his research via diagrams and 3d presentations.

As with anything else, obviously, if any of his initial assumptions are indeed incorrect, then it follows [logically!] that his final "logical" conclusion [holographic plane imagery was used] must also most likely be wrong.

It seems obvious to myself, and as I have already tried to demonstrate in parts [2] and [3] of this examination, that nearly all of Mr Hall's initial assumptions made to formulate his 9/11 holographic plane image hypothesis are entirely unjustifiable, when compared to everyday, common sense scientific evidentiary verification procedures that even I, a mere unschooled "layman", can understand .

Hall Question 6 : Why has he, as a person presumably trained in correct scientific methodology [with a degree in electrical engineering, apparently] , with no further investigation, simply assumed that all of the data sets and video sequences he uses in his analysis/hypothesis are genuine? On exactly what scientific procedural basis are his various assumptions based?

A Major Violation of Scientific Procedural Methodology?

For regardless of whether you and I think that the 26 videos or 2 data sets he analyzed are ultimately genuine or not , how is the pre- assumption that they are on his part, in any way remotely connected to a sound scientific methodology wherein the only assumptions made as to genuineness should be regarding laws of physics [surely?].

As far as I can see, everything else [ including all video and /or other alleged "eyewitness testimony"] must, strictly speaking , be regarded as questionable [i.e. neither necessarily true or false], by the investigating scientist until definitively proved otherwise, one way or the other.

Is it not a major violation of scientific investigative procedure/methodology to automatically assume, with zero justification, that the data and videos he reviewed are all genuine and to then use them to formulate his hypothesis?

Other, Equally Guilty, "Scientific" 9/11 Researchers

As I hinted in my introduction, Mr Hall is far from the only offender under the "scientific investigation of 9/11" umbrella. His "crimes" [i.e. unreasonable, unsupported, unjustified assumptions] are in fact identical to those committed by at least two or three other prominent "science- based" 9/11 researchers, that I am aware of at this time.

"Business As Usual", "Par For The Course"

To reiterate what I already said in part 1 of this critique, in fact, Mr. Hall's "crimes" are no worse than those of the other "scientific" 9/11 investigators - simply "business as usual" and "par for the course", as they say.

A"Comedy of Errors"[Or, Mr Hall's Investigative/Procedural "Crimes"]:

Here is a recap of Mr Hall's Investigative "crimes", a veritable "Comedy of Errors", to quote the esteemed Mr W. Shakespeare [ a phrase which could be equally applied to all of the so-called 9/11 "scientific investigators", as far as I can see] :

1] Data Set Verification

Hall has not proved that either data set he used is genuine. Has any effort been made to authenticate the data? If so, how? At one point he says :

"If we consider the 2 official flight paths, it stands to reason that both sets of radar data cannot be correct. either one, or possibly both, have to be forgeries."

But he then later assumes [ with no explanation/justification given] that the alleged military data is genuine : Hall [31:25] : "let's make an assumption, that the military data is correct".

How does he know that even the alleged military data is genuine- on what basis? If genuine, how does he explain the fact that that data set ends well short of the towers?

And let's not forget, he then falsifies the last part of the alleged genuine military data series by drawing an arbitrary, purely speculative purple line from that data's last given point to the face of WTC2, when no data apparently existed to justify extending that line!

2] Video Sequence Verification

[First of all, and maybe seemingly a minor point, but as I mentioned before, Mr Hall has made no attempt to distinguish between the original alleged "live" MSM network footage [5 clips] and the other 21 alleged "amateur" clips used in the Hall video analysis.]

More importantly, no attempt has been made to verify the authenticity of even 1 of the 26 clips he used. All were automatically and mysteriously assumed to be genuine. With, NO scientific, procedural justification for that important assumption ever given/explained.

How Could He Verify Video Clip Authenticity?

I'm glad you asked :-) .

I'm no expert on this either, but even I have become aware, via self education, of some fairly obvious clues left behind within most, if not all of the 9/11 network and amateur footage:

Obvious Video Fakery Clue 1: Composite Layering/Masking Errors

For example, the "still" frame video extract below clearly shows the plane image [or dust cloud if you absolutely insist], running into an [until then] invisible masking layer that runs down the exact center of the original, complete frame.

The existence of that invisible layer in an allegedly "live" network sequence [ Fox 5] means that there is no way in hell that that sequence can have been filmed live, and that in fact it is a digital animation composite, composed of different layers, one of which has become exposed because of the ineptitude of the composite/layering technician.

Nose of Plane or Dust/Smoke Cloud? Who Cares?

And just to be clear, in my opinion, it matters not whether the image is actually supposed to be a plane nose that has miraculously emerged intact through the other side of the building , or [as some claim] simply a post-penetration dust cloud, the fact of the matter is that whatever it is, plane nose or dust cloud, it STILL runs into that invisible layer :

Part 4- Fig. 1

Above still frame extracted from Simon Shack's "Nosed Out" examination of the original "live" Fox 5 footage below:

[
Part 4- Fig. 2

Coincidentally, in the 3rd part of his [Hall's] own video holographic plane presentation,Mr Hall addresses the very same Fox 5 footage sequence as examined by 9/11 researcher Simon Shack [above 2 image samples], and, whether out of ignorance or convenience, entirely dismisses it, completely sidestepping/neglecting to mention the abundantly clear evidence of a layer that runs top to bottom of that clip which occurs in the exact center of the frame , and thereby conveniently missing the point that ultimately it does not matter what the post-collision image really is meant to be -plane nose or dust/smoke - that image still becomes entirely flat as it runs up against the until then invisible layer . Conclusion: Mr Hall is either blind as a bat or deliberately obfuscating on this issue.

Obvious Video Fakery Clue 2: Pixel Clouds:

Another useful indicator of video manipulation/forgery that Mr Hall is apparently entirely unaware of is the tell-tale presence of "pixel clouds" .

In 9/11 video imagery these are most commonly found around the plane image itself.

If you watched the video in part 3 of this analysis entitled " 9/11 TV Fakery: The Hezarkhani File" , you will have already seen a clear demonstration of a pixel cloud [and therefor of video fakery].

Here are two more other clear plane image pixel-cloud examples:

Part 4- Fig. 3

....and [again from the Fox 5 sequence as analyzed by Simon Shack in "Nosed Out" and related videos]. The pixel cloud can in fact be seen to surround the plane image for the entire Fox 5 broadcast sequence as analyzed above in Mr. Shack's "Nosed Out" video:

Part 4- Fig. 4

Yet More Clues To Video Fakery -

More Entirely Incompatible Flight Paths of Fl. 175:

Mr Hall claims that all of the various video flight paths for Fl. 175 matched.

Here are yet two more glaring exceptions that refute that claim [both gifs made by Simon Shack]. Notice that for the last 7 seconds of Fl. 175 as shown in both sequences, one depicts an almost completely level approach, while the other [CBS- clip 20 in the Hall analysis], shows the plane image angling downward in its own last 7 sec. approach:

Part 4- Fig. 5

"Meanwhile, back at the ranch"..., err.., I mean, on the other side of the "pond", the BBC aired a sequence that shows Fl. 175 mysteriously lifting upward in its final moments:

FINAL ASCENT - as aired on the BBC:

Part 4- Fig. 6

More Fakery Clues: Contradictory Sunlight/ Shadows:

Many alleged live 9/11 videos and stills show entirely contradictory sunlight angle and resulting shadows. For example [n.b. Fl.175 allegedly struck the south face of WTC2, so the opposite side to where that plane image is seen is the North side]:

Part 4- Fig. 7

Part 4- Fig. 8
[both above illustrations courtesy Simon Shack]

Conclusion:

The Hall Hologram thesis is an at first interesting, but ultimately severely flawed and unsatisfactory 9/11 hypotheis, that in no way attempts to adhere to standard common sense scientific protocol/methodology, and which therefor is invalid as an explanation of what did/did not happen on 9/11.

Still Not Enough Evidence Of Video Fakery For You?

The above examples, plus the others given in parts 2 and 3 of this report, may still not be enough to convince you, the reader, of 9/11 video fakery. That's OK, it makes no difference to me, one way or another, personally.

It Took Me Two+ Years of Daily Review To Reach My Conclusions!

These are just a few of the many examples that helped convince me - but you need to know that over several years I looked at literally hundreds of examples similar to these, and others displaying other , different signs of fakery, [of which there are many more], before I ever became convinced that the evidence [ i.e."the sum of all the evidence"] overwhelmingly supported the case for total video fakery on 9/11 as presented by Mr Simon Shack. Over those years, I was often reviewing/reviewing the evidence presented at Mr Shack's site 3 times a day or more.

The Sum of All the Evidence ?

In other words, to use a strangely forgotten, [ with regard to most 9/11 research] legal term, for me ultimately, it was all about "the sum of all the evidence" reviewed, and not about any one particular piece of evidence or type of evidence in isolation, that has lead me personally to my own final conclusion to date.

Article addendum/ update 11/23/12:

Yet More on The Contradictory Plane Paths Shown in different Videos [all images and text below courtesy Simon Shack]:

"The"LUIS ALONSO shot"

"Now, in this alleged "amateur video" credited to one Luis Alonso, "FLIGHT 175" also seems to make a final ascent. However, just how this final ascent is depicted appears to be a physically/aerodynamically impossible feat. I trust every honest airline pilot and aeronautical expert will agree with this claim. By all means, if you find fault with this analysis, please let me know" :