New 9/11 computer analysis regarding the attack on the twin towers provided by Richard D. Hall.

I did receive the link to this footage from a friend today, and must say that I find the footage and the given explanation quite remarkable.

Do any of you have some explanation for this all and especially for what that “ball” like object could be?

www.richplanet.net...


[edit on 3/8/10 by spacevisitor]

I thought I remember watching September Clues explain that the "Ball" clip had been edited.

Meaning... we didn't see the "Ball" live, but now when you retrieve their archived footage the "Ball" was later inserted.

IDK about this theory... I'm still a big supporter of September Clues... and I do think it's possible that something hit the towers that were not planes (missiles perhaps?), but I'm not ready to start suggesting to others that it was a top secret anti gravitational ball-like aircraft that hit the towers.

I do think it's obvious that the footage of 9/11 was faked.

I must say, that was a very amazing video, and alot of that stuff i did not even know about. Hopefully we'll get somewhere soon with this.

This guy says that the film he was working off of is compromised anyway, using words as "allegedly shot from a helicopter". So how can you base anything solid off evidence you don't trust anyway?

As soon as Richard Hall referred to Simon Shack's dreadful film "September Clues" as an "excellent film," I stopped viewing. Anyone who thinks that about this disinfo artist's deception is either another disinfo artist or someone whose engineering and scientific judgement cannot be trusted.

He plots the path of an object that he calls a "ball", but looks like a plane to me, and then acts like its revelatory when it conforms to the path of, er, the plane.

And he can't even be bothered not to rip off Jones' website name.

To the debunkers:

I am not saying this guys theory is 100% correct, but I did see things I have never heard before I would like you guys who know it all to explain.

The morning and evening shots of the scene (NBC footage) were different. One with city and skyline and one where it seems the city was edited and cut out of the picture.

How do you explain this?

They are Very Obviously the Same shot.



[edit on 3-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by micpsi
As soon as Richard Hall referred to Simon Shack's dreadful film "September Clues" as an "excellent film," I stopped viewing. Anyone who thinks that about this disinfo artist's deception is either another disinfo artist or someone whose engineering and scientific judgement cannot be trusted.

How dare you. You are so sure this is BS yet, wont even stick around so you can debunk what is shown to prove your point. YOU are one of the people who could be in a great position to prove or disprove my question about the city being erased above.. but.. you cop out and hide so to speak, not even bothering to watch this guys footage.

If you know so much, if your that sure, please watch this guys footage then reply to my above post. I kinda feel like i'm getting cheated here.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

It's all disinformation and none of us will truly know unless we were there that day and watching as it happened.
Shame cuz now the waters are getting muddied by yet another theory using old edited bad footage.
It's kind of like the JFK footage, it has been in a million hands before anyone saw it.

lol

Thats a highly technical no plane video.

But alas, I can't come to any conclusions this so called scientist has. And while I may not have the technical expertise to create the fancy schematics and cg diagrams that he has, I don't really need to to understand that the no plane theory holds no water.

I also wanted to stop watching as soon as it mentioned the "great film" september clues. But I watched up until Phil Jayhan, whom I used to hold some respect for came on. Something that happened between me and him on his board a long time ago pretty much showed me that he isn't after any truth, but is most likely delusional or real disinfo.

The guy put forth a real effort in "debunking" one video, but I have atleast 20 different angles of the plane coming in. Why didn't he address them all?

You can't pick and choose your battle, and say since this video has some kind anomoly we are going to pick it apart, but not address any of the other videos.

And once again, until people start analyzing actual first hand footage, and not youtube clips, then the whole debate makes no sense. I really think people find the worse quality footage they can, snicker, and then say HAHA you stupid sheep, THIS is PROOF (of bad video editing, horrible compression, errors that happen in any live broadcast).

Here, after you watch this video check out my etch a sketch image of a sidewalk chalk drawing of a mosaic of a drawing of this photo that was taken 10 years ago. Can you see the obvious CGI?

I have to say i thought that video was pretty cool. Thanks for sharing op

Why would a very expensive high tech NEWS camera be so poor quality- grainy?

This may shed some light on why they presented the footage (blurry) It would be open for interpretation by the observer as plane? ball? plane? ball?
The more people that say plane the more believe that it was a plane even if they weren't there.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
But I watched up until Phil Jayhan, whom I used to hold some respect for came on...he isn't after any truth, but is most likely delusional or real disinfo.

He is disinfo. A disinfo artist, to be exact. He's actually creating the disinformation like is found in his dead thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's why videos like the OP will never have any credibility and are automatically untrustworthy with people like Phil Jayhan in them or mentioning the no-plane disinfo.

Originally posted by micpsi
As soon as Richard Hall referred to Simon Shack's dreadful film "September Clues" as an "excellent film," I stopped viewing. Anyone who thinks that about this disinfo artist's deception is either another disinfo artist or someone whose engineering and scientific judgement cannot be trusted.

Agreed. Anyone who says anything positive about "September Clues" lacks proper judgment, intelligence, logic, and common sense. Their credibility is automatically damaged and can't be trusted.

reply to post by spacevisitor


I appreciate the post!

What I can't figure out, and I wish someone would help me. The news stations had fixed cameras facing the towers 24/7. It was often an opening shot, or a closing shot. Infact, I have seen video of them showing it in the area of 5 minutes before 1st impact.

WHERE IS THAT VIDEO?

edit add: 59 seconds in, at 8:02AM, they goto commercial to a live shot of the tower. www.youtube.com...

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Myendica]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Myendica]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Myendica]

Here the video.




And what is that SILVER DISK?

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

If you know so much, if your that sure, please watch this guys footage then reply to my above post. I kinda feel like i'm getting cheated here.

You are getting cheated if you believe the snake oil and whack-a-doodle BS that this Hall dude is putting out.

And that other guy? The short, funny looking side-kick on the couch that is about 3 feet below the Hall dude's throne? He was hilarious.

I'll keep saying it - if this is the best the Truthers have, *especially* 10 years after, we are guaranteed side-splitting entertainment for years to come.

reply to post by trebor451


Exactly. If there's really a living out there for a guy like this, then you really deserve everything you get.

I might start one of these myself. Trickplanet has a certain ring to it. Slap together a few sweatshirts and a couple of mugs, and hey presto - new car.

Why are you attacking them personally? How they look has nothing to do with what they are saying.

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
Why are you attacking them personally? How they look has nothing to do with what they are saying.

If the short guy on the children's play couch had been dressed in a clown suit, I would have taken what he was saying with a tad more credibility - at least his words would have matched his attire.

Personal appearance plays a great deal in carrying one's credibility. These two had none.