Video and radar analysis of WTC flights - Rich D Hall

DamagedTrax

I found this to be quite interesting. I'd previously disregarded Rich Hall for going along with the 'faked footage' theories. But it seems the guy has changed his mind after further research.

This is a good video that really opens up the seperate military radar data too, as not too many others haven gotten deep into.

I cant remember if he mentions it in this video but he has done a very cool animation showing the superimposition of a holographic plane over a missle. He shows how easy t would be to keep the tracking perfect.

Ive no idea if such holographic technology exists but he does make a good argument for the concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDf2Ue9hi7o

PeterTheEighth

DamagedTrax wrote: »

I found this to be quite interesting. I'd previously disregarded Rich Hall for going along with the 'faked footage' theories. But it seems the guy has changed his mind after further research.

Hi DamagedTrax, I've popped in to the forum every so often, under my previous (now banned :pac:) accounts as well, and found your posts interesting.

I would say two things about Rich Hall.

1. He does some really good work. Particularly that video you quoted would have taken quite a while to put together and in fairness to him he was prepared to accept that they DID all fit (i.e. none were fabricated). His analysis of the Madeleine McCann case is very thorough as well.

2. He does some terrible work. His doc on Derrick Bird (the guy who shot up Cumbria) was terrible. Everybody who didnt agree with his opinion he deduced was "in on it". And he's actually written off Steven Jones as a Government plant, while fully jumping on board with Judy Wood's Hutchison type weapon destruction theory for the demolition of the towers.

So there you go. that's my two cents.

DamagedTrax

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

Hi DamagedTrax, I've popped in to the forum every so often, under my previous (now banned :pac:) accounts as well, and found your posts interesting.

I would say two things about Rich Hall.

1. He does some really good work. Particularly that video you quoted would have taken quite a while to put together and in fairness to him he was prepared to accept that they DID all fit (i.e. none were fabricated). His analysis of the Madeleine McCann case is very thorough as well.

2. He does some terrible work. His doc on Derrick Bird (the guy who shot up Cumbria) was terrible. Everybody who didnt agree with his opinion he deduced was "in on it". And he's actually written off Steven Jones as a Government plant, while fully jumping on board with Judy Wood's Hutchison type weapon destruction theory for the demolition of the towers.

So there you go. that's my two cents.

I pretty much agree with you. The Maddy stuff is great and the Eriksonn twins stuff is very good too.

As for Judy Wood/Steven Jones... I have no idea where that all stemmed from at all or why he'd have an opinion on it. I usually just skip past his overly moral rants on Jones

To me both show very good evidence. Jones provides very good scientific evidence but Wood makes a compelling argument for the possible unknown, infact i recently ordered Judy's book (but dont despair, i already own the full toronto hearings!).

On that point, it really is a shame that 2 of the brightest minds in the truth movement cant seem to get their heads together for the better of all.

PeterTheEighth

With regard to the video analysis that he did, I'd say it was painstaking work. I dont know whether he put it together with Google Earth or something similar but it certainly wasnt the sort of software that you would employ to do the work if you were doing it every day. He does deserve enormous credit for this.

But he lets his innate paranoia get the better of him a lot of the time, and this leads to his work being subjective.

DamagedTrax

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

But he lets his innate paranoia get the better of him a lot of the time, and this leads to his work being subjective.

Until we get irrefutable proof on a matter, I guess we all deal in ideas that exist in the subjective.


Back to the topic on hand. It does raise some very interesting questions and given the plausibility, it opens up a new avenue for the 'no planes' theory.

The 'Planes.. but not the ones you thought' theory.

PeterTheEighth

But I thought the whole point to his radar analysis was that he was proving that all of the angles were consistent. This contradicts the opinion that some of the footage was fabricated, with the intent to cover up the fact that there were no planes at all.

I'll watch it again just to be sure I've got that right.

DamagedTrax

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

But I thought the whole point to his radar analysis was that he was proving that all of the angles were consistent. This contradicts the opinion that some of the footage was fabricated, with the intent to cover up the fact that there were no planes at all.

I'll watch it again just to be sure I've got that right.

In proving himself wrong, his research opened up another question. There are 2 official registered flight paths for the flight he studies. One from military and one from civilian authorities. The military flight path veers right of the tower at the last minute, leading him to some interesting ideas.