September Clues - Busted!

[Anthony Lawson]

September Clues - Busted!

A video by the author of "WTC7 - This is an Orange", Anthony Lawson.

Exposing the deception, insidious innuendo, misdirection and lies in the “September Clues” series of videos, which many scholars and others have mistaken for the truth about some of the events that happened on that terrible day: September 11, 2001.

Perhaps this video will make them realise that they have been deliberately mislead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

Note: The streaming quality is not great, but the download MPEG-4 is pretty good, given the file size limitations on Google.

Anthony

[gruts]

we've been discussing "september clues" in the controversies section recently. feel free to join in....

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11695
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664

[Stephen]

Shouldnt this post be moved to controversies ?

[chek]

Excellent work Anthony.
Your comprehensive exposure of September Clues' fraud comes across loud and clear.

[chek]

[John White]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=1913&st=0

[Dogsmilk]

Great work, Anthony. Essential viewing.

[Roadrunner]

Wow, 'essential viewing' ????!!!! The 'nose out' frames on this new video are the poorest quality anyone has ever seen. Why ? The fade to black is laughably dealt with. So the media corporations all decided to switch camera shots at the exact moment of the event at the South Tower ? Hahahahaha ! And the 17 second co-ordination of broadcasts is not even dealt with. It's pathetic. It's more than that. It's silly.

That video proves some people are really getting rattled by NPT. The best thing that's happened to support NPT since 'September Clues'.

[Killtown]

Can I see the source of your "nose not out" video?

[Dogsmilk]

[Roadrunner]

Dogsmilk,

I am happy the 'nose out' shot so closely resembles the nose of the plane (or 'plane') that seems to have approached the tower that it's the best candidate of anything in the entire video that can be compared to the supposed plane nose itself. In fact, the very frame before the 'nose out' we both see a plane nose (or 'plane' nose). Don't we ? With the 'plane' travelling hundreds of miles an hour, supposedly ? Which sort of makes us wonder if the frame afterward the film is also showing a plane nose ? I mean, you can surely see the logical basis for the query ? I concede that no 'perfect match' exists. But a remarkable likeness, a remarkable similarity, is evident. Yes ?

Now, can I ask you a single question ? Do you agree the 'nose out' shown as stills in this new 'Orange' film are the poorest images you've yet seen of this issue ? They're so poor they do nothing to persuade anyone that the maker of this film wants to deal with this valid subject honestly. They're so poor that any honest researcher must admit they're not worthy of settling, fairly, either side of this debate.

Where accuracy and honesty is most required this new film on this subject of the 'nose out' delivers neither.

[Dogsmilk]

I've seen most if not all of the 'nose out' shots and I never thought it looked like the nose of the plane. Indeed, if it were an accident of fakery, the nose of the plane miraculously exiting undamaged, it would look exactly like the plane, cockpit and all. I'm sorry, but this does not look like the nose of the plane to me.



though we can see something flying off here that has the same kind of shape. Total speculation, but no different from saying it's the nose of the plane. And I expect that photo is allegedly faked too.


However, Anthony is dealing with a specific claim - that of the 'perfect match' - and I think he does a pretty good job of showing that it isn't.

I was also slightly confused by your statement that all the live broadcasts just happened to be changing shot - are you sure they all were?

[John White]

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

1. In its final moments a plane (supposedly) approaches South Tower WTC at a speed estimated as being between 550 and 600 miles an hour.

2. Most of its final moments are (supposedly) caught on film

3. Video film captures (at the rate of around 30 frames per second) the approach of this plane

4. In the final moment before the plane hits the tower we can see the nose of this (supposed) plane.

5. Less than 1/30th of a second after the nose is last caught on film a shape (agreed by everyone to be remarkably like that of the nose of the plane) appears from the other side of the tower.

6. Less than 1/30th of a second after the agreed nose of a plane is seen the shape that emerges from the other side of the tower is seen to be in the very position where the nose of a plane would be had there been no collision.


CONCLUSION 1

There are therefore 3 logical grounds for assuming this object, the 'nose out', IS, for research purposes, the nose of the plane.

1. It is the right general size
2. It is in the right place
3. It appears at the time when a real nose would appear

Other films of this event exist, as shown above. But they look even less like a cloud of dust than the one we are discussing.

Several commentators on 9/11/2001 spoke of the plane going thru the building themselves. Again confirming the logical grounds above.

CONCLUSION 2

To suppose that the first visual evidence on this footage of a plane being destroyed in collision with this tower consists of a 'nose out' at the place, time and general apprearance of nose is absurd, since the plastic nose of a commercial plane would not, could not, have survived its supposed travel thru the mighty steelwork and concrete of that huge tower. So the very existence of a 'nose out' in such a location, at such a time, in precisely that location, is preposterous, even if a real plane did hit that tower.

CONCLUSION 3

The whole 'plane' argument is debunked. Beyond reasonable doubt this 'nose out' is the product of an overlay error caused by those who manipulated broacast material on 9/11/2001.

The makers of the 'Orange' film did themselves and their cause no good by presenting viewers with images of the 'nose out' which are unanimously agreed to be the poorest in visual quality of any yet seen on this particular subject. This new film proves that in November 2007 material of poorer visual quality than that already available from many sources is now being used, so as to falsely and inaccurately 'prove' the argument of the film maker. We can only regret that such low grade arguments are being used. If these are now the standards being used for these kinds of debate we can only hope that Agent Orange is no more invited to muddy the waters on such serious matters.

[Dogsmilk]

Any debris would burst out of the building at roughly the same time and place as the nose would appear. Your assumption is just that - an assumption.
If it were the actual nose, it would not be the same general size, it would be exactly the same size and shape. Which SeptClues deceptively tries to claim it is. Are you happy with Shack's deceptive tactics?

[Roadrunner]

I am happy the two planes supposedly involved are now agreed by the airline and by the aviation authority not to have flown that day. Nor were they scheduled to fly. Seems to me that 9/11 researchers have to acept these facts, even those who don't like them. Unless they have evidence to the contrary, that is. In which case please submit it to these two bodies.

Case Closed.

The two commercial flights never existed. They did not board. Nor did they fly on 9/11/2001 to the Twin Towers of the WTC. Get it ? I mean, how stupid are you willing to get on this issue ?

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

This forum is supposedly a truth forum. The truth is now established that the airline and the aviation authority say these two flights were not scheduled for that day. They also say they never took off. There is today nobody at these airports - not a single person - who said they took off.

If you want to ignore multiple requests for evidence to the contrary, then ignore them. But I won't waste my time with people who choose to be foolish. Nor would anyone else. Time to realise your theory is busted on the grounds that it has not a shred of evidence in its support.

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

Your'e busted John White. The airline says so. So does the aviation authority. The two commercial flights never happened on 9/11/2001.

If you have any evidence to show otherwise let's see it. Coz it just gets a lot tougher from now on.

Will you finally abandon belief in these two flights hitting the Twin Towers ?
Flights which, we now see, never existed and were never scheduled.

Busted. Big time.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

No, it's that those who believe these flights happened and who believe they were scheduled on that day cannot provide a shred of evidence. That there is not, in fact, a shred of evidence these planes hit the Twin Towers.

Unless you provide some you are simply floundering, again.

[Mark Gobell]

So Chek, what efforts have you made to disprove the authenticity of the BTS data or the Wiki edit ?

Or, alternatively:

[Anthony Lawson]

Sorry I’m Late

I checked ‘Watch this topic’ when I opened this thread, but, apparently, it didn’t register, so I’ve been over on the thread which ‘gruts’ kindly directed me to. However, it is heartening to see some of my old adversaries supporting my efforts on the video fakery issue. Thank you for your help holding the fort, John and Dogsmilk.

I note that Roadrunner is just as unpleasant here, as he is on the other site. Here’s an example and my reply:

Accused of Being a Charlatan

[gruts]

hey roadrunner - as you're such a crusading truthseeker, perhaps you could give me a truthful answer to the following question.

have you ever been banned from this forum?

btw - have you worked out the difference between a missile and a helicopter yet?

[gruts]

[Dogsmilk]

And Roadrunner - when you've finished trying to divert attention on to matters you already started a whole thread about, can you please given your opinion on this 'perfect match' business. Thanks.

[Roadrunner]

Let the video recorded broacasts (held on video tape and recorded by many people) stand, this together with material released by the broadcaster on DVD and other formats. This all contains far more detailed images of the 'nose-out' than Salter/Lawson uses - AS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL.

Now stop wasting everyone's time.

[gruts]

so please could you show us these more detailed images?

especially one that actually is a precision match - because all the ones I've seen are anything but....

and do you know where we can get hold of simon shack's pixel study which is apparently available for peer review? as you're into public accountability maybe you could persuade him to release it.