Create a Ning Network!
9/11 Scholars Forum
Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum
The report by NIST is probably off by a thousand feet ... going by their track record. If there were no planes, radar data would have to be faked, or like Mr Hall said: unmanned drone. I think there were war games going on just before (or during) the 9/11 events. When the underling came up to Cheney saying "Do the orders still stand?", I
think a war game might have been going on. I'm not sure about the interaction of a hologram with a color video
camera. My only experience with holograms many years ago just involved a black and white camera capable of
seeing the light from a ruby-red laser. I'm sure technology has advanced, but I'm not sure about a color hologram.
Mr Hall seems like a nice enough person .... I do question his interest in UFOlogy and such. I wonder if the 50 or
60 videos were like a class project of the Israeli art students? I'm afraid the hologram idea would be a little hard to explain to the herd. If the truth is complicated tho, so be it. We just need to be truthful about it all.
Thanks for your thoughts, Danny. I heard Dr. Fetzer mention this in his Seattle talk (that I posted links to). I looked in to it and found it quite interesting, but you are right. I probably should not have used the word "proof."
The video shows a report by NIST that shows the path of the "plane". Richard Hall obtained the military radar information and it shows another path, a path that misses the tower by about a thousand feet. But on comparing the two paths from the two sources, it is seen that the military radar path runs just about perfectly parallel to the fake plane's path. That is rather astounding information. Hall asked the question " coult this military radar path be a stealth unmanned vehicle that was used to project a hologram?" It is just his theory, not proof.
But the data that he obtained and compared showed somebody is lying and I doubt if it is the military radar data. The NIST person, who wrote the report with the fake data, whom he named in this video, just supplied "radar" plot data that was fixed to match what people "saw", not real radar data and plots.
So two very profound items were discovered by hall. A real trajectory of an aerial vehicle that ran just about perfectly parallel to the fake path in the NIST report. And NIST has been exposed, with naming the name of the NIST person and the report by name, as plain ole lying.
The perfectly parallel position is what would be required for a hologram to be projected. It seems pretty profound to me.
I do not know if we accept the hologram theory if it means that the hologram going into the building is what people saw on TV. That would knock down TV media participation in the deception, and even if the hologram theory were true, the media has shown that it was "in on it" in several different ways. That would also knock down the whole idea of CGI or the fakery being installed on the real video of the tower within the "17 second delay" between real time action and "live" tv broadcast.I guess I have gotten all confused again with the introduction of this hologram idea but it does look like profound info. Hall seems like honest person. Andrew Johnson is also an honest person in my opinion so his colaboration in this supports the information's credibility to me.
Dr. Judy Wood is also in on this Hall hologram theory. I was rather surprised as she has always pretty much stayed away from discussing the planes / no planes issue.
I just do not know the full implications of what we are saying if we say we accept hologram theory.
Another thing that I did not understand was how Hall said in the video that there are 50 to 60 known videos of the South Tower hit. I think he indicated he used clips from several of these videos to do his modeling and calculations. I sure did not know there were that many videos of the South Tower hit. If there are, that would seem to one among many things that rule out Simon Shack's (SeptemberClues) claim that there was some kind of device on that day that prohibited people from video taping anywhere near the WTC. There were a few videos that were allowed to be presented as real videos taken by people, but all of those have been shown strong indications of being faked. Shack makes some very strong claims and while much of his famous video is very very important, it becomes discounted when you see that he claims we do not have any videos of the destruction in progress of the towers and that Wood and Fetzer and others based their "theories" on totally faked videos. Shack also claims "no human beings were harmed in the making of the 9/11 blockbuster movie!" No human beings were harmed!
Jeannon: I would like to kindly disagree on the proof for holograms. Mr Hall says of all eyewitnesses asked, only 21 said they actually saw a plane. Only half of those heard a plane. Many other "eyewitnesses" say they saw no planes, only explosions. I don't know how far a hologram can be projected, or if such a thing was even possible. It
seems strange that only 21 people would see a huge plane approaching when half of New York was watching the North Tower burning at the top. There should have been thousands of eyewitnesses who saw the second plane coming in and "entering" the South Tower. The no-plane issue is a critical one, and we need to make sure we get our story right. The hologram explanation is only necessary to satisfy the 21 eyewitnesses. Otherwise there is no need for anything other than explosives and video fakery. Also, some of the eyewitnesses appear to have been actors or heads of large news networks. New York is also home to the largest congregation of you-know-whats outside of Israel. Anyway, thanks for posting.
CORRECTED URL: http://www.richplanet.net/911.php
Welcome to9/11 Scholars Forum
Sign Upor Sign In
© 2013 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.