General topic links:
Specific 9/11 Topics in This Section:
1] Dr. Fetzers Claim: "Holograms Were Used on 9/11"
2]Richard Hall's Hologram Theory Video Analysis.
3] Strange Change of Shape of Entry Hole in WTC1, Post Impact.
Dr Fetzer "Truth and Shadows" quote [September 2, 2012 – 9:56 am ] :
[Dr. Fetzer's quote is about 3/4th's or maybe a little further down the page linked to . N.B. quotes as printed there are NOT necessarily in chronological posting sequence due to Wordpress software peculiarities. ]
Dr Fetzers Working Assumptions?
My own work with individuals on personal freedom issues often involves examining a persons underlying , working assumptions.
We all make assumptions and then base our conclusions on those underlying assumptions; for 9/11, and for almost everything else, and then think/act accordingly.
Here are Dr. Fetzer's 4 most important [ i.e. admitted] underlying, basic working assumptions to date regarding his "Holograms Were Used on 9/11" theory [N.B. his conclusions were reached prior to the appearance of the Richard Hall video linked to below] :
Dr Fetzer Assumption [1] That Newtonian Laws of Physics [in particular Newton's 3rd Law of Motion were not suspended on 9/11.
[ I agree with Dr. Fetzer regarding this assumption] .
[ I agree with Dr. Fetzer regarding this assumption] .
Dr Fetzer Assumption [2]: That the Michael Herzekhani "amateur" video [see end of interview section 4] is genuine and depicts a holographic plane image entering a real tower image, in other words, it is a genuine video capture of a real time, real world, event.
[I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with this assumption- unfortunately, I do not get into any of the reasons for my disagreement with his assumption until the very end of the last segment {i.e. part 4} of my appearance on Dr. Fetzer's show. ]
Dr Fetzer Assumption [3]: that the Evan Fairbanks "amateur" video, like the Herzekhani footage, is also genuine and likewise depicts a holographic plane image entering a real tower image, in other words, it is a genuine video capture of a real time, real world, event.
[I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with this assumption also - unfortunately, because of time constraints I do not get into the reasons for my disagreement with his assumption at all during my appearance on Dr. Fetzer's show, but hopefully I will get a chance to go over some of the issues concerning the Fairbanks video in a future show, if he is kind enough to invite me back on. ]
Dr Fetzer Assumption [4] [used by Dr Fetzer to "confirm "what he already "knows", i.e. that the above Fairbanks and Herzekhani video sequences 1 and 2 are undeniably genuine "real time" videos that depict holographic plane images] : is that the verbal, alleged "eyewitness testimony" of one "Scott Forbes" is genuine and can therefor be relied on to further confirm the authenticity of the Fairbanks and Herzekhani video sequences. Fetzer / Scott Forbes interview here.
[I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the use of unverifiable, entirely verbal "eyewitness" testimony as a legitimate part of a scientific methodology- as you will hear, Dr. Fetzer does not share my "unschooled" opinion on this matter. ]
The Strange Case of the More Believable British Accent
Furthermore, as "Ab Irato" says in his August 14, 2012 4:43 AM comment concerning the unsubstantiated Forbes claims:
".......lets start with his British accent. What is it about us that
makes us automagically want to believe anyone with an Anglo lilt? Why
do we give instant bonus credit to Brits? Is it secret longing for our
old master the King?"
Exactly. I too have noticed the weird, downright ridiculous tendency for Americans in general to be impressed by a British accent- [God knows why], and to subconsciously believe it to be somehow more truthful. Not only in the case of the Forbes testimony, but even more so with regards to the ridiculous, over-the-top "plum in the mouth" BBC accent affected by Mr. Anthony Lawson in his god-awful September Clues "debunking video.
[My advice: don't believe anyone, about anything, on account of their "believable" accent, especially "Brits"!]
Dr. Fetzer Assumption 5 ? : The Richard Hall Video Analysis:
[WARNING! yet more "believable"British accents on display here sounding earnest, "scientific", and for some, more "honest"! Does it ever stop?]
Further "confirmation" [i.e. mental reinforcement] for Dr Fetzer's hologram theory [ i.e. of what he already "knows"] appears to be the newer Richard Hall video [ released 04/12] : Complete Richard Hall hologram video
This "confirmation" could well be called "working assumption no.5" for Dr Fetzer.
Further "confirmation" [i.e. mental reinforcement] for Dr Fetzer's hologram theory [ i.e. of what he already "knows"] appears to be the newer Richard Hall video [ released 04/12] : Complete Richard Hall hologram video
This "confirmation" could well be called "working assumption no.5" for Dr Fetzer.
I have had specific problems with the Richard Hall analysis leading to his conclusion of the use of holograms on 9/11.
Here are two issues I attempted to raise during my radio interview:
Here are two issues I attempted to raise during my radio interview:
Screen shot [1] of Hall video data used to expound hologram plane theory:
[Click on image to enlarge]
My first question for Dr. Fetzer regarding the Richard Hall video was, approximately :
" You state that "only" the header ["UA-175 WORLD TRADE CENTER 11 SEP 01" ] of this data set has been changed by the government,and that the data set itself is still reliable and trustworthy. Why would you believe that? How do you know with absolute certainty that the entire data set issued by the government is not a forgery? If you believe that they would change the header, why wouldn't they/it fake the data beneath that header" . "
In other words, for Dr. Fetzer to believe that the data used by Mr Hall is all genuine despite the admitted fakeness of the header seems a little strange to me , and methodologically questionable as well,especially if his experience with the government's story of 9/11 is the same as mine, i.e. 100% lies to date about everything, including the victims! [but hey, I'm not a scientist :-) ].
Screen shot [2] of Hall video data used to expound hologram plane theory [ Clip 20 in the Hall video, which is the original CBS "live" 9/11 aired 16 sec. "divebomber" sequence- mistakenly called clip 21 by yours truly in my interview]
The Importance of The CBS "Live" Fl.175 Footage:
For those of you who do not understand the importance of the original "live" CBS "divebomber" sequence, if you had been watching CBS network TV on the morning of 9/11, as a CBS viewer you would have been the first to see the plane image come into view pre-strike. The CBS "live" sequence was the longest aired [a full 16 secs. pre-strike] of any of the original network footage. [The next longest is the NBC sequence, at 14 secs.] As an archived verifiable visual record, the CBS footage is important for that fact alone [its length], let alone for the obvious fact that the flight path it shows for Fl.175 is unlike that seen in any other network, or "amateur", "live" footage, and even strongly implies a completely different angle of strike/penetration compared to what is seen in other footage [right wing ahead of left- whereas most other footage shows a straight on collision, or has the left wing slightly ahead of the right when striking.]
No Differentiation:
Significantly perhaps, Mr. Hall's analysis makes no attempt to differentiate between original "live" network footage as archived,
and the 45 odd, subsequently released alleged "amateur" video releases of the same event, but mixes all sources together for this analysis.
[Click on image to enlarge]
The Importance of The CBS "Live" Fl.175 Footage:
For those of you who do not understand the importance of the original "live" CBS "divebomber" sequence, if you had been watching CBS network TV on the morning of 9/11, as a CBS viewer you would have been the first to see the plane image come into view pre-strike. The CBS "live" sequence was the longest aired [a full 16 secs. pre-strike] of any of the original network footage. [The next longest is the NBC sequence, at 14 secs.] As an archived verifiable visual record, the CBS footage is important for that fact alone [its length], let alone for the obvious fact that the flight path it shows for Fl.175 is unlike that seen in any other network, or "amateur", "live" footage, and even strongly implies a completely different angle of strike/penetration compared to what is seen in other footage [right wing ahead of left- whereas most other footage shows a straight on collision, or has the left wing slightly ahead of the right when striking.]
No Differentiation:
Significantly perhaps, Mr. Hall's analysis makes no attempt to differentiate between original "live" network footage as archived,
and the 45 odd, subsequently released alleged "amateur" video releases of the same event, but mixes all sources together for this analysis.
Screen shots [3] and [4] of Hall video data compared to clip 20 [i.e. to CBS's original "live" footage] and used to "prove" the holographic plane image theory [Mr Hall has drawn a straight line to show Fl. 175's last moments whereas the original footage shows the plane image as viewed "live" considerably to the left of that line, so that in the original {i.e clip 20} the plane image must make a massive swerve back to the viewers right in order to strike the building [plane image is just visible below the 45 deg. angle red line in pic. 4 below] :
3:
For original morning -aired CBS supposedly"live" "divebomber" sequence as re-aired on the afternoon of 9/11, click here.
3:
[Click on image to enlarge]
4]:
[From 19:11 in Richard Hall hologram video. Plane image is just visible below the 45 deg. angle red line above - Click on image 4 above to enlarge]
Extra material for section 2 :
Dr. Fetzer at one point mentions the strange change of the shape of the first hit entry hole in the Naudet video from a "Z" to a "V" shape.
Here is a link to Simon Shack's analysis of the strange change of the entry hole configuration allegedly made by Fl. 11 into the North tower [start at around 2:35 into video ]
Here is a link to Simon Shack's analysis of the strange change of the entry hole configuration allegedly made by Fl. 11 into the North tower [start at around 2:35 into video ]
