Essential viewing - September Clues

[Garrett Cooke]

I watched these 4 'September Clues' videos today. Essential viewing I suggest.

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Garrett

[scar]

Cheers Garrett.
I think thats the best compilation of the stand out 'anomalies' that ive seen.
A few clips i hadnt seen before.

[plane son on 911]

[Martin J]

What a splendid series of videos

[John White]

[scar]

[ollieb]

nice try disinfo crew,
recommend you check out this collection of counterevidence, including video, photos and eyewitness testimony
provided by nameless
http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html

[Andrew Johnson]

This is a good video presentation and highlights further anomalies in what you should be a fairly clear cut case.

Let's not confuse "clips being debunked" with the "insult count".

Also, as I repeat, people like Rick Rajter (a materials science graduate) have looked at the photographic evidence of the impacts (as well as the video) and concluded the damage is not consistent with a plane impact.

Read this, in case you haven't already done so:


The video anomalies only add more evidence. Relative hardness of materials cannot be "debunked" - aluminium is softer than steel - no matter what the speed. Boeings cannot travel as fast in thicker air as they can in the stratosphere. Don't be sucked in by phrases such as "the plane was travelling so fast". Why do think armour piercing bullets and missiles were ever developed if aluminium could do such damage when travelling at high speed?

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

Perhaps the hardest thing to believe here is that all those TV people shown in that video were "pushing the plane story" and lying when doing so. It's pretty hard so swallow, isn't it?

[John White]

Mind you Andrew, to the best of my knowledge front line battletanks arn't constructed from a lattice work of steel girders supporting a surface area mostly of glass sheets.... if they were, would AT rounds be nessacary?

[Martin J]

ollieb

Have you actually watched all the September Clues videos, or did you have a glimpse and decide it didn`t fit in with your preconceptions ?

I`m interested in your analysis. Can you enlighten me on which parts are erroneous?

Thanks.

[ollieb]

just a thought,

could the planes have been reinforced in order to cut through the steel etc and enter the towers?

[gruts]

[ollieb]

martin j,
yes i watched all parts of 'september clues'.
i just found the other evidence more convincing.
why were not all the video's showing a plane, the eyewitness', and photo's not included in the film, seems a bit one sided.

[Martin J]

Let`s take for example the beginning of part 3, the live footage from chopper 4. Where is the plane? It ain`t there.

Even if there are planes in other videos (which look like CGI fakery to me) it doesn`t get away from the fact there is no plane in this and other news footage from the morning of 911. It only takes one video at the end of the day to show fakery was taking place.

You can rely on what `eyewitnesses` tell you to think if you want (although there were some terrible actors in New York that morning) , but when we use our own eyes we can penetrate the illusion that has been created.

[ollieb]

maybe the perps messed around with footage, so people would think they faked the planes and create confusion amongst analysts.
also how do you explain all the wreckage found.

[chek]

[marky 54]

christ are people still going on about planes car'nt punch holes in steel buildings that are made up of lots of square sections?

[marky 54]

oh my god, don't be fooled by people saying the plane was moving so fast?

what the.........

yes lets just remove and dismiss the most important factor in the crash.
anyone saying speed isnt a issue is missing the point or understanding of the crash so much.

drop a coin from 6ft what happens if it hits a car? ok now drop it from the empire state building, will there be differant results? if so what coursed the differance?

speed speed speed speed, infact the more speed you have the more force the impact will have.

speed does matter and isn't fooling anyone, i'd say those who think speed dos'nt matter have already been fooled or just are fools.

the speed was the main factor and people are being told to just dismiss that. well you have to inorder to believe no planes but i will not as i know 100% speed matters and is the main factor.

[alfsevic]

gruts wrote

[Craig W]

Saw this yesterday. Some of it easily debunked, rest probably selectively done and or faked (but probably not by the TV companies!).

A couple of points from memory:

- a lot was made of a woman who said she hadn't seen the first plane hit (yet clearly believed it to have been a plane for whatever reason, perhaps the plane-shaped hole or witness reports, whatever) and yet when she sees the second one she said something to the effect of "another plane" or that's "two planes" or some such. The video makes out that this is some kind of deception. That is nonsense. Her words are exactly concordant with what you would expect someone to say if indeed two planes (one unseen by her and the other seen) had hit the buildings.

- the "nose in" "nose out" shot. As we cannot know what the object is, whether it is the nose, an engine, something else or an insubstantial phenomenon the fact of its location is suggestive of exactly nothing. Sure, it can be seen as superficially like the nose of the plane and therefore appear to be anomalous in that location. But we simply do not know what it is. Further, the suggested hypothesis as to why the nose in/nose out "error" occurred (ie due to faulty TV fakery) was obviously flawed. The film suggested that a CGI operator would have installed the fake "plane" on to the real-time shot and may have used as a guide the left-hand vertical face of the tower in question. The film then suggests that the nose out "error" was caused by the shot drifting meaning that the nose was now out instead of inside the building. However, ask yourself why the CGI operator would put the line in teh suggested location, on the left-hand side. It makes no sense to put it there as the plane is disappearing into the right-hand face of the building. The obvious place to draw the guide line would be in the middle of the building so as to allow for drift in either direction without exposing the fakery of the shot.

- the wide shot with no plane (which would be extremely easy to fake, ie to blot out the plane or for that matter to install a fake plane) makes no attempt to explain the distance from the extreme right of the shot to the tower and to see whether the alleged speed of the plane would have made it possible for it to have made it without having yet been in the shot. Why not? Wouldn't that be the scientific thing to do? Or are they just looking for things to support the idea that there were no planes?

There were several other things that struck me as deliberately overlooked or highlighted for the purposes of heightening the apparent evidence for fakery. But there was nothing here that made me seriously consider the fakery angle.

[Craig W]

[chek]

[gruts]

[gruts]

[Stefan]

Gruts,
A good outline.

You're also forgetting:

All evidence of explosives was faked by the "perps" so that people would be misled.

This was done on day one, because the "psycic perps" feared Fred might bring TV fakery to the world one day and they'd better cover their "perp arses" fast!

Concealing the method the crime was committed in was more important than concealing the crime, so they were happy to implicate their "perpness" for all to see, so long as people didn't work out how they did it.

This might be hard to understand with a Phd in "Perpology Psycology"...

[marky 54]

the towers were not some type of armour plated steel, they were steel beams made into square sections, they had gaps inbetween each beam.

the plane was travelling at 500mph and weighed around 150 tons which will both combine into the force of the impact. the momentum before meeting resistance is one direction of which a small portion of wall which is made of steel sections needed to absorb.

parts of the plane will pass through the gaps in the beams along with feul, the rest of the plane is destoryed into tiny pieces.

the steel sections are punched in creating the hole, they fail at joins rather than all being severed.

the only people claiming the aliminium severed steel is no planers.

there is video footage of bits of tiny debris coming back the way they came and an explosion from inside the towers as the feul ignites(for all we know setting of possible charges on those floors making the explosion more dramatic).

the plane hitting and all these things happening happen in around 2 seconds or a little over and is then slowed down a great deal and people expect to see things as though they are in real time.

the plane did'nt destroy the steel, it punched in some of the sections.

we don't see a plane in the hole because it is destroyed into pieces, some could be embeded in the steel, some goes through the gaps and some come back the way the came(yes if you get the correct angles to see them you will).

there are steel sections sitting in the impact holes as though they have fell away or been puched inward rather than being severed.

steel sections are only as strong as there weld/join/bolts connecting them to the next section and so and and so forth.

can someone explain why what im saying here is either wrong or impossible, im not after links because i want your opinon why so i can understand why you think it inorder to understand where my thinking is either wrong or differant, i dont want links to some guy who has told you what to think which you then just repeat to me which is about why they believe no planes, rather than you explaining what YOU think should of happened if the planes could'nt of entered the towers.

what should we be seeing? a plane half in half out? a crumbled plane at the base of the towers? explain in your words what should of happened.

[plane son on 911]

If you listen to Vince Cellini in part 4

He sees a missile

This is given away when he says

Mi..................Plane

Also in part 4 Dick Oliver quotes bystanders as seeing a missile, only for the news host to quickly butt in that it was a plane

Then we had Don Dahler who said it definitely sounded like a missile

Then in part 1 we have the tv producers wife saying she saw the second plane from a place called Chelsea where she could not possibly have seen a plane

Then in part 3 we have the earlier footage showing the twin towers from the same perpective replayed on evening tv but this time with the backdrop from the right hand side gone presumably to stop anyone seeing the missile.

Then we have the second hit shown again on tv a few minutes later with the tv logo deliberately placed so that the nose out cannot be seen

In fact most of the eye witnesses shown on tv were employees of or relatives of the tv companies

FFS how much evidence do you want.

[marky 54]

[plane son on 911]

[gruts]