September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo

[chek]

Much has been made of the September Clues series (henceforth referred to as September Clueless, for good reason) by the re-invented No Planery splinter fringe group claiming it as a prime demonstrator of their new meme of 'Media Fakery'.

The elements concentrated on here are to clarify two major and contentious points.

Where ‘the missing backdrop’ of NYC went
and:
why the shots of the WTC2 second strike show a plane in one view but not the other.


The 'Media Fakery’ case is that the two camera views shown above are ‘virtually identical’, with the plane ‘inserted’ and the background 'removed' in the right hand frame.

However, closer examination reveals that the shots are far from identical.

The very low resolution (VHS tape copy?) Chopper 4 shots used in the comparisons made by September Clueless are taken from a minimum altitude of approx 1400 ft, (1500 ft if the chopper pilot was staying within NYC overflight regulations) as can be seen by the camera looking slightly down onto the 1362 ft high roof of the North Tower with its TV mast, and overlooking the WTC to view the Upper New York Bay area to the south west of Manhattan.

The only known practical way to look over something is to be viewing from a yet higher altitude.



The WNBC shot by contrast, is taken from the roof of the Rockefeller Centre - 850 ft high max. and home of WNBC studios - and is obviously from a lower elevation looking slightly above the horizontal plane at the damaged area 1200 ft up the North Tower.



Compare with this postcard and extract from the same known location showing the Empire State Building in the foreground and the twin Towers in happier days.

Note the green lines marking the relative positions of the roof levels which will be indicated again later.

As with the zoomed-in shot of WNBC’s 911 view, it can be noted that the city backdrop has also disappeared in the close-up.



As the red outlined area in the next photo, taken with a wider angle clearly shows, there is no ‘missing background’ – only sky could be the visible background in the well known zoomed-in horizontal shot of the plane's approach.



In conclusion, there is no case let alone evidence for 'Media Fakery' editing out the background.
WNBC’s camera angle and its content are perfectly logical and consistent.

Note that in the night time postcard shots above, a very slight gap is visible between the buildings, indicating that we are seeing the north faces (which are actually oriented north east) almost perfectly head on to within less than 2 degrees as in the WNBC 911 shots. Note also the red and yellow lines indicating the same spatial relationship of the Towers' roof lines.



The Chopper 4 shot is oriented differently, from both an altitude of approx plus 500 ft higher and also further to the east (by approx. 6 degrees relative to the Towers), as a comparative measurement of the visible sides of the Towers show.



As it is morning, the brightly lit faces of the Towers are to the east. In the Chopper 4 shot we can see 12 pixels of the East face, as compared to 2 pixels in the WNBC shot.
The angles of view are thus shown to be completely different in all three dimensions.



As the follow-on lo-resolution monochrome section from Chopper 4 that September Clueless 3 also shows, the plane’s approach from the south west can (just) be detected 10 seconds prior to impact due to the increased contrast in the black and white image.

Being small and round – like a ball – when viewed from head on (a B767 has a fuselage diameter of 15.5 ft) and seen from an initial distance 1.4 miles (calculated from the speed) travelling at approx 500 mph, it’s difficult to see the airliner against the dark land background and it gets completely lost over water before disappearing behind the Towers just after it passes Ellis Island, wholly due to the lo-resolution image source used.

The NBC shot on the other hand, being further west and from a lower altitude and with a lightened background provided by the sky, is able to capture the last seconds of the planes approach prior to impact from much closer in.

Illogically, September Clueless then superimposes the plane’s flight path from the hi-level Chopper 4 shot onto the WNBC lo-level shot, and then blithely advises that as two views of the Towers are ‘identical twins’ the difference in perceived flight paths proving some hypothetical missile actually hit the South Tower and the airliner image was ‘inserted’ by ‘Media Fakery’ afterwards.



Compounding its grossly misleading case, September Clueless then shows a much higher definition version of the Chopper 4 video from the WNBC archive (note the greater level of detail now visible on the North Tower TV mast) which does - would you believe it - in fact show the approaching plane, if blurred and in a not very photogenic fashion.

We are gravely advised - because Simon 'socialservice' Shack says so - that the ‘pencilled in ball’ we now see is an 'obvious fake' added afterwards.



Back in reality, the approach closely matches the official flight path as plotted by NIST in the diagram below, with the final curve at landfall as it crosses South Cove obscured by the Towers.



There is some mystery as to why Shack has used the lo-definition version of Chopper 4’s shots in his comparisons; whether it was used to mimic the image quality seen by the average TV viewer or to increase the brightness flaring of the sunlit faces of the Towers to make them seem more similar or to be otherwise deliberately obtuse and/or deceptive is unclear.

It may be that Simon Shack/Social Service is indeed the ‘Father Dougal’ of film making and really hasn’t got a clue about perspective, or it may be he is maliciously misleading those who have little in the way of functioning critical faculties and a tendency to believe whatever they see challenging ‘da official story’ as being gospel.

The subject of 911 – what happened and how it happened - is so serious and goes to the very top and heart of the world’s current power structure that I find I’m unable to easily accept the ‘idiot amateur’ explanation, particularly in view of the manner in which the absolute undiluted bullsh!t September Clueless unquestionably is, has been enthusiastically promoted from some quarters.

Make no mistake, No Plane Theory with its equally feeble minded cousins ‘Media Fakery’ and ‘Exotic Weapons’ are at the centre of the divisions tearing away at what can be termed ‘the 911 truth movement’ (no capitals). Every single 911 group from the Scholars on down to the various websites have seen nothing but division as a result of NPT and its offshoots.

And the biggest joke is that NPT adds nothing but a further layer of incredulity – yet claiming to be the very core! - whilst pretending it is presenting ‘conclusive evidence’.

To answer Simon Shack’s embedded question, yes by now I do feel my intelligence is being insulted.
And the insulting is being done by your pernicious, false and bogus little internet ‘films’.

[Indubitably]

Chek,

Firstly, congratulations on putting together an article that tries to reconcile two different televised broadcasts of the very same event.

Whether you’ve managed in the above post to get to the crucial issue (the flight path of the supposed ‘plane’ that supposedly hit the South Tower WTC on 9/11/2001) is of course THE great question. But let me try to play my part - so that the neutral reader can compare two rival views. I will answer you point by point before I summarise this matter for neutral readers.

I will quote your post to do this. And I will reply very soon.

Sincerely

[John White]

*sigh* NPT pwned again

Being as you've bothered yourself to produce this guide to the bleedin obvious Chek, its the least I can do to honour your efforts by spreading this around a little

[marky 54]

what you mean 2 helicopters cannot share the same airspace and film the exact same angle at the exact same moment??????

wow you learn something new everyday! and there i was believing the angles were identical in every way.

ah well, maybe i need to rethink about 'the angles are identical' claims that i was told about and believed without even thinking about it for myself.

[eogz]

Nice post Chek, must have taken you a good while to get all you're info together. thanks for that.

Hope it is not all in vain.

[gruts]

[chek]

[chek]

[chek]

[my left bollock]

This is complete GIBBERISH

[John White]

[chek]

[chek]

[gruts]

further reading:

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

[chek]

[John White]

Still no reply from the NPT cheerleaders to this thread when I reproduced it elsewhere, so for good measure I stuck Gruts recent post at the bottom of it

[TmcMistress]

I still, to this day, can't watch the footage of the tower strikes without getting a shiver down my spine... I was awake in time to watch the 2nd strike live, and saw a shot of the plane coming in with just enough time to think "Oh s**t" before the broadcasters started talking about the explosion.

[Indubitably]

Does it matter that the high floors of this very address, 111 8th Avenue in New York, were being used as a television studio on that very day of 9/11/2001 ?

This IS the location though from which this supposed 'plane' eyewitness Ms Renaut was calling that live television station, right ?

Today this same address just happens to be the largest telecommunications centre in all of New York (one of the biggest in the world, in fact) and has several floors used by major media corporations such as Google and major television production companies. It had previously been home to the NY Port Authority.

Ms. Renaud is NOT a reliable witness as must now be very plain.

Furthermore, the skyline from 111 8th Avenue facing south (as Ms Renaud says) is remarkably like that which appears behind both CNN's televised broadcasts of the notorious Tower 7 collapse and also that from the BBC's Jane Standley.

Just coincidence, right ?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

The problem is of course that the actual whereabouts of the alleged plane 'eyewitness', Ms. Renaut, are not given. Who ever heard of an eyewitness whose precise location remains shrouded in mystery ? Yet It's the sort of thing that is a typical feature on 9/11/2001. amongst supposed 'eyewitnesses' to planes. Ms Renaut is talking from her office. Which office ? No answer. What floor ? No answer ? Is this the quality of 'plane witness' evidence ? Yes, as usual.

So, once again, a clear link to image manufacturers. The wife of a television producer, supposedly calling a television station live from a building housing a huge television studio !!!

And, as to the broadcasts of Aaron Brown of CNN and Jane Standley of the BBC on WTC 7 - a short analysis of both 'live' broadcasts they gave 'LIVE' show the background (the city skyline) to be added to their true location. In the case of Aaron Brown the skyline irregularities are ridiculously many. The 'bouncy castle' effects of entire districts of the New York skyline are blatant examples of fakery. Watch it !

Thus, Aarron Brown and Jane Standley (both posturing as broadcasting live to the world from a location near 111 8th Avenue in Chelsea) were, before the collapse of WTC 7 standing in a telecommunications centre somewhere else. Wonder where THAT was ?

Is Jane Standley of the BBC accountable for her coverage ? How about the BBC themselves ? Well, Standley ain't talking and the BBC, having for 6 years 'lost' much of their film on that day and don't want to talk about it.

This is the sort of attitude these broadcasters have to '9/11 truth'. It's a disgrace.

Where WAS Jane Standley ????? Where WAS Ms Renaut ?? Where WAS Aaron Brown ?

Fakery, manipulation, and downright lies.

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Well, the testimony of Ms Renault cannot be compared to that of a normal caller. She was related to a media executive and was reporting from a film studio building on an event which is very much open to debate and discussion. 6 years later we want to know from exactly WHERE she was making that call. Isn't that a reasonable request in view of the fact that she originally called about the FIRST 'plane', right ? Can we, 6 years later, establish her precise whereabouts. Otherwise we are entitled to disqualify her. A witness who does not give her exact location for an eyewitness event is a nonsense.

Secondly, (as can easily be shown) the locations of Aaron Brown of CNN and Jane Standley of BBC have NEVER been divulged despite 6 whole years having passed since that tragic day. Here too are further examples of reporters NOT giving us their exact location.

Can anyone tell us why the penthouse on WTC 7 bounces up and down in CNN's 'live' broadcast by Aaron Brown ? Or why entire streets of buildings behave like 'bouncy castles' ?

Can anyone tell us from which studio Jane Standley made her infamous broacast to BBC News in London.

NO ANSWERS - THE NORMAL LIES AND EVASION.

[chek]

[gruts]

[John White]

September clues= debunked load of cobblers

[chek]

[my left bollock]

What hit the Twin Towers Chek?

[chek]

[my left bollock]

What hit the Twin Towers Chek?

For someone who so violently opposes NPT you must know

So spill the beans, we can't wait to hear your pearls of wisdom

[chek]