911 truth site from Norway causing shock waves in movement

[mason-free party]

911 TRUTH...CHECK OUT : http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 5:25 AM
AUTHOR’S STATEMENT :

(please read this before commenting on september Clues, thanks for your time)

This statement is meant to clarify a series of issues and points which I find important to make, given the incredible response SC has had in only a month – a vast majority of positive feedbacks but also some odd and frankly gratuitious comments on a few websites – even on some I used to respect.

My motivations are to find solely in my personal quest for justice in the light of more... the most horrid and murderous hoax of modern times. My longstanding research (helped on by every single component of the wide 911 truth movement) reached its decisive turning point when I was able to analyze the footage/audio of the televisions’ broadcasts of that fateful day. I have double-checked every media (i.e.footage) that has come under my scrutiny and confronted it scrupulously with official television archives and other verifiable sources. Now, if anyone still questions the authenticity of this media, I will gladly help financing a FOIA act to retrieve the original, high-definition footage from the various tv networks.

I initially hesitated to publish this work on the www – if only for the sheer difficulty of displaying by means of low resolution video some of the more subtle details in this study. For instance, the pixel-count of the ‘nose-in/nose-out’ on Fox Tv (see SC part1) may be unconvincing on video but is formidably precise in full format / high-resolution graphics. So, anyone wishing to prove the nose-out is a different ‘object’ than the nose-in, has a formidable task on his hands.

Furthermore, I have reviewed all (over 20) of the existing shots of the 2nd plane hit including the Naudet brothers' footage (1st and 2nd hit). There are tell-tale signs of forgery in every single one of them. I'm putting my twenty years+ of experience in the audio/video field at stake by ruling out beyond any reasonable doubt that the planes seen on tv (and on 'amateur' footage) were real.

What does this mean for the honest, 911 truthseekers (all of them) ? It simply means having solid, tangible proof of foul play – something which has not been available for almost six years. This study does NOT invalidate the hard work of the many 911 truthseekers - let this be very clear. This is just the last - and most factual - piece of a frustrating puzzle which has taken too long to assemble.

I will gracefully listen to anyone's objections and suggestions - but I'll ask fellow truthseekers to cut the disinfo accusations. I understand the shock this is for many : to realize the extent of human evil and deceit is never a painless process.

Friday, July 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Sources and references to this research : (under completion)


HERE YOU CAN CHECK OUT ALL THE ORIGINAL NEWSCASTS OF 9/11 :
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

HERE IS A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE NOSE-OUT SHOT
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html

HERE IS PROBABLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ALL-ROUND RESEARCH OF 9/11 :
http://911logic.blogspot.com/

HERE ARE FACTS REGARDING THE 4 "PLANES"
http://w more... ww.arcticbeacon.com/articles/25-nov-2005.html

HERE IS A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL AVAILABLE FOOTAGE OF "2ND PLANE HIT"
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

HERE IS A STUDY ON THE 17 SECONDS DISCREPANCY :
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:lIB1nDgDujsJ:colorado.indymedia.org  /newswire/display/14211/index.php+9:03+SECOND+PLANE+911+SEISMIC&hl=it &ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=it

HERE ARE TIDBITS ABOUT SOME EYE-WITNESSES
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/earlyshow/main521131.shtml

HERE ARE SOME OFFICIAL TV TRANSCRIPTS:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/17/cp.00.html
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/cnn091101.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/abcnews091101.html

HERE IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE FRENCH FILMMAKERS :
http://www.media-criticism.com/Naudet_Brothers_09_2004.html

HERE IS AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE OF A THINKING MAN'S LOGICAL PATH TO UNDERSTANDING 9/11
http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

HERE IS THE BEST ARTICLE ON WHY THE TRUTH HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO SEEP OUT
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=closed_minds_on_911

[Micpsi]

Just more b.s. from b.s.registration, who refused as 'Fred' to admit on this forum that he was mistaken in claiming that the infamous CNN film footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower did not show the top of the 19 Rector St building and was therefore fake. When someone does not have the honesty to admit to an elementary error like this, how can anyone trust the rest of his ill-conceived claims?

[sidlittle]

[John White]

So how do we get in touch with "social science" to peer review his work as (so far falsely) promised in "September clues"?

Is there any objective evidence that "social science" from Norway even exists as anything else than an imaginary character?

And have you even thought to ask these questions MFP?

[gruts]

lol - would you believe it - ANOTHER "september clues" thread. how many is that now? I've lost count....

I've only watched part 1 of "September Clues" - couldn't stomach any more of it TBH, as it's just the same old NPT drivel repackaged - full of bogus claims and deliberate disinfo....

for example, the first section of the film is taken from CNN's live broadcast on the morning of 9/11. as I have about 3 hours worth of the unedited CNN broadcast, it's interesting to compare the carefully edited segment that is shown in "september clues" with what was actually shown on tv. like all the clips in "SC" it's very grainy and extremely low res (this is really apparent when watching in full screen mode), and what we see is that during a discussion about the damage to tower 1 caused by the first plane, the second plane arrives and crashes into tower 2.

first of all, this is actually footage from local new york station WABC and what "SC" doesn't tell you is that the news anchor is talking over the phone to a guy called Winston Mitchell, who is inside a diner that's somewhere just north of the wtc.

immediately prior to what we see in "sc", Mitchell has been describing the first plane crash and damage to wtc1.

when the second plane arrives he is looking through a window at the north tower and when he sees the explosion caused by the second impact he assumes that it's a secondary explosion inside tower 1 resulting from the first plane crash.

the screen briefly fades to black just after we see the plane disappear behind the tower and "SC" implies that there's something deeply suspicious about this without telling us what it is....

"SC" also notes that the anchor doesn't see the second plane and only comments on the explosion - although there's nothing surprising about this, given that nobody except the perps was expecting the second plane and the commentator isn't constantly watching the feed (and the witness would have no way of seeing the approach of the second plane from his position just north of the wtc).

so "SC" seems to be trying to create something out of nothing....

although the anchor then says "put winston on hold for just a moment" and in "SC" the clip comes to an end, the conversation actually continues for some time after that in the unedited footage - and it's clear that both the anchor and the witness still haven't realised that the second tower has been hit and are assuming that the explosion is taking place in tower 1 as an after-effect of the first plane crash. it's only about 30 seconds later that the anchor realises that the second tower is on fire (which kind of contradicts the NPT club's belief that all the media anchors were reading from scripts under the direction of the perps).

"SC" specifically tries to make it look like there's something suspicious about him saying "we've got an exposion inside" when the second plane hits (the words are displayed on the screen) - but doesn't let you know that the anchor man is commenting on what he assumes is a secondary event in tower 1 following the first crash (as he clearly states in the unedited footage that "SC" leaves out).

"SC" also tries to make a big deal out of the fact that the "on site reporter's mic picks up no impact sound", without telling you that there's a simple reason for that - he's inside a building talking to the anchor over the phone and we don't even know if he has a mic.

this first sequence lasts just under 2 minutes and consists entirely of misleading and somewhat desperate attempts to portray the CNN footage as suspicious - and whoever made the film clearly didn't edit the footage in this way by accident. so it already looks like the intention of "SC" is to deliberately deceive the viewer, which kind of makes a mockery of the film maker's stated aim of a "personal quest for justice" for what really happened on 9/11.

in summary - 2 minutes of worthless disinfo. and so it goes on....

[sidlittle]

[John White]

[gruts]

[zoomer]

[gruts]

[zoomer]

was it not you that said this, grut : "I've only watched part 1 of "September Clues" - couldn't stomach any more of it TBH, as it's just the same old NPT drivel repackaged - full of bogus claims and deliberate disinfo...."

so what are you going on with...?

[gruts]

[gruts]

you can then do the same for the second clip shown in "September Clues", which is taken from CBS. the unedited footage from CBS is here....

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

....so again, it's interesting to compare the carefully edited segment that is shown in "september clues" with what was actually shown on tv.

in "SC" - over an even grainier clip - we hear the CBS anchor talking to Theresa Renaud about the first plane crash. she gives her location very precisely - in Chelsea at 8th & 16th - but what you don't know if you haven't seen the unedited footage is that what Ms Renauld actually says about her location is this:

"I am in Chelsea....at 8th and 16th....we are the tallest building in the area and my window faces south so it looks directly onto the world trade centre and I would say, you know, appoximately 10 minutes ago...."

in "September Clues", the words I've highlighted in bold have been edited out of the footage.
I wonder why?

"SC" makes the unsubstantiated and somewhat ridiculous claim that she couldn't have heard the noise of the first impact from there, and also tries to make a big deal of the fact that she didn't actually see the first strike - although again, there's nothing remotely strange about this - because nobody except the perps was expecting the first plane, so it's hardly surprising that she heard it first and then went to look out of her window to see what had caused the sound she'd heard.

then the second plane comes in while she's talking (and keep in mind the fact that "SC" doesn't want you to know - ie she's looking through her window in the tallest building in the area that faces south so it looks directly onto the world trade centre) - and she says "oh there's another one - another plane just hit"....

"SC" tries to make a really big deal out of this by pointing out that "no planes have been mentioned up to this point" during their edited clip. But again, this is a completely meaningless point, given that CBS has been discussing nothing else but the first plane crash during the past 10 minutes. The fact that a plane had hit the north tower is displayed prominently on the screen while the anchor and witness are talking and is presumably the reason why Ms Renauld was contacted by the station in the first place. so yet again - "SC" is trying to make something out of nothing.

the creators of "SC" then make the completely false claim that she couldn't have seen the plane hit the wtc from her location in chelsea. and they do it in a very sneaky way (that doesn't prove their point at all), by showing a panoramic view of manhattan and panning across from the wtc to chelsea and then claiming that she must have superhuman vision to see it from so far away.

of course there's actually no reason why she couldn't have seen the twin towers from Chelsea - these were huge buildings visible from any number of vantage points throughout manhattan (and beyond). I wonder why they didn't show a view of what she would have seen if she'd looked towards the wtc from her specified location (at 8th and 16th, through a south facing window in a high rise building) on this beautiful september day? could it be because it would have included a clear view of the towers?

so the second section of "SC" is even more pathetic than the first and also fails to prove anything - apart from the fact that "SC" is making bogus claims based on deliberate disinfo.

[sidlittle]

[gruts]

I'm not defending anybody sid - just looking at the evidence.

and thanks for confirming that Ms Renauld did in fact have a clear view of the towers from her window. if she was looking through her window she would have been able to clearly see the second plane approach, based on the image you kindly posted.

and while she obviously couldn't have seen the actual impact on the opposite side of the tower - if you saw a plane arriving at high speed and it disappeared behind the towers and then there was a huge explosion - I reckon it's entirely reasonable to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that the explosion was caused by the impact of the plane.

and I don't see why you're so excited about the fact that she says the plane hit "right in the middle of the building". please could you explain? based on the image you posted, the impact could have looked like it was half way up the building from where she was looking - so you seem to be arguing against yourself....

btw - what evidence do you have that she's a liar (or is this just another conclusion you've jumped to that's based on b* all)?

and as for defending liars - I have shown you clear evidence that "September Clues" is lying to you - so why are you defending it?

why do you think the makers of "September Clues" edited out the words "we are the tallest building in the area and my window faces south so it looks directly onto the world trade centre" from what Ms Renauld said? how can you defend a video about media deception that is clearly guilty of the very thing it's allegedly trying to expose? and how can a video which deliberately aims to deceive the viewer really be about truth?

if you don't like what I've said about "september clues" then instead of just believing what your NPT gurus tell you - why don't you check the evidence and find out the truth for yourself?

watch the unedited CNN footage here: http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

then watch the "analysis" of the carefully edited CNN footage in part 1 of "september clues".

then go through my comments and refute them if you don't agree....