The True State of Affairs ?

[Newspeak International]

[chek]

[TmcMistress]

You know... we should really just start ignoring people like Indubitably and just let them run out of steam on their own...

It's like Spider Jerusalem getting skewered through the knees by frozen j**m in these threads.

[Indubitably]

Hi there Chek,

So glad you are addressing the problem. Hope you don't forget to tell us why the river and city skyline is blanked out in so much of the televised footage of the WTC from 9/11/2001. That was a point raised several times and it's right here in the evening broadcast. That's blatant manipulation of televised images also, since the skyline and river provide of course context for the entire clip. But you have said nothing of this so far. Anyway, we can only wait to see the results of your efforts.

Thanks

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Chek,

You mean, 'lack of perspective' ? If background does not even exist in film taken of a huge built up area such as this that's lack of perspective.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines perspective as -

The appearance presented by VISIBLE objects, in regard to their relative position, apparent distance, etc.

What objects are visible in the area of the Hudson River on the evening broadcast of this 'plane' ? None. Yet they are plainly visible in the morning broadcast of the same incident.

It's because the backdrop has been removed by media editors from the evening broadcast. Notice too that a banner across the foot of the evening broadcast prevents us from seeing the foreground of the Manhattan skyline in front of these twin towers also.

That's simple. Media manipulation. As usual. Compare the two clips and this becomes obvious.

Anyway, that's media fakery proved beyond doubt.

We now wait for your flight path of the 'plane' with great interest.

[chek]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

No more waffle. Let's see the promised mathematical explanation for the two clips of the south tower incident on 9/11 - these given in Part 3 of 'September Clues' and promised by Chek.

All film used on 'September Clues' was broadcast on television.

Well, we are still waiting. This promises to be very interesting !

I will reply to it in detail. And then we can see the truth. I strongly suggest that members of this Forum keep their minds open to accepting the findings of mathematics. Otherwise they might reveal themselves as nothing more than bogus members of the 'truth' movement.

[John White]

[Newspeak International]

[marky 54]

[Indubitably]

Well, like most people, my belief system on matters of history and science is able to be supported by evidence.

We have here a rare chance to 'put our money where our mouths are' and I simply ask that you judge the case fairly. That's what any fair-minded person expects, right ?

Chek believes there is NO media fakery with 'planes' on 9/11 broadasts. This is simply the first of dozens of examples. It is a great chance for us to establish the truth.

I will take time to reply to his own submission. Then we can all judge, having examined the evidence fairly. Nothing more is asked. It's virtually ideal.

[Indubitably]

Well, John White,

I can ask the same question of you. If this debate shows there was no plane it's up to you to change your own view, yes ?

That's only fair. I agree to change my view if evidence shows there WAS a plane.

[Indubitably]

Dear Gruts,

In answer to your question. For the record, I was one of the first people here in the UK to campaign for NPT (No Planes Theory) so, no, I did not accept anything wholesale. I studied the video/photographic evidence. I looked at the fake 'plane' witness information. I examined all the contradictions in the supposed hijacks, the lack of real information on crashes, debris, survival of body parts, etc etc etc etc. It became more and more obvious that the story of 'planes' was part of the crime. It justified the very rapid clearance of the crime scenes without detailed examination of the crime scene. It justified the illegal removal of steel from the WTC, for example. It seemed impossible there was any other explanation.

You will remember that for a long time the 'truth movement' consisted of analysis of 'pods' on the 'plane', for example. By the time that was debunked it became clear that planes themselves were a serious issue. At the Pentagon, for example. At Shanksville. And, of course, even here, at the WTC twin towers.

What we have is a giant attempt to fake 'planes'. To 'massage' background shots, to add 'planes' and even to add fake audio. At first it seemed astounding. But, to date, I think it's easily the simplest and most sustainable explanation.

The simple explanation is usually right. There were no planes. And several years later I am now certain that it's right. So are lots and lots of people round the world. They have studied these issues in great detail. They are genuine people too. And they have done a great job, often against ridiculous criticisms.

If fakery did not feature in these broacasts let's have some comment on the broacasts from the media corporations themselves. Have you noticed how quiet they are about them ? How absent these video makers now are about their footage ? Where are the 'eye witnesses' to planes ? Let's see them today ? OMG - they've all gone very quiet !

Let's go where the facts take us. The actual broadcasts aired on 9/11/2001. It's these which are at last getting our focus.

[John White]

[Indubitably]

Great John. Let's wait for Chek to submit his stuff on the South Tower 'plane' and we will hopefully resolve that 'plane' issue very fast.

Unless it's suggested more than one 'plane' hit the North Tower and more than one 'plane' hit the South Tower on 9/11 I think we can arrive at a solution to this quite quickly.

I will greatly respect it if Chek can submit his stuff. And if, for some reason, I can't submit mine, let others do so. Seems fair enough, yes ? I have every intention of submitting a reply to Chek here in the same sort of timescale.

Regards

[gruts]

[marky 54]

[Indubitably]

Hi marky 54,

Well, it's now the third day since two very different points of view, (NPT and Plane Huggers) agreed to debate two different video clips of the 'plane' incident at the South Tower of WTC in New York - clips that everyone agrees were televised on 9/11.

I don't think you're right to suggest NPT supporters are altering video material. They are doing the very opposite. They're leading the way in having video material analysed and here's another example, right here on this forum.

Chek says he will submit the flight path of the 'plane' at the South Tower very soon. Frankly, I doubt whether he can do it. But let's see. I think that as time passes he realises it simply can't be done. Still, out of respect for his effort, I am happy to wait with others here.

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

You ask -

In your study of "september clues" - did you compare any of the carefully edited clips that are shown in the video with the unedited media footage?

Which 'carefully edited clips' are you speaking about ? Please be specific.

There is a mass of 'plane' footage which seems to show a plane hitting the South Tower. But only a fool can miss the fact that the 'plane' appears to approach the tower for very different angles. It's nonsense. So let's see from Chek the correct angle of approach - the approach that he says can reconcile the morning live footage and the evening news broadcast.

[gruts]

well, first of all - you will never prove whether or not planes hit the towers by speculating about the videos.

secondly - I'm not sure how much more specific I can be....

did you try to verify any of the claims made by september clues by comparing the carefully edited footage it contains with the unedited footage that was actually shown - or not?

do you believe everything that is claimed by "september clues"?

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

Each time you ask this question I answer it -

Here is your latest question -

Did you try to verify any of the claims made by september clues by comparing the carefully edited footage it contains with the unedited footage that was actually shown - or not?

And here is my answer -

I have examined the broadcast footage that is used by 'September Clues' and can confirm it IS a faithful copy of the broadcast footage. 'September Clues' is showing us footage that can be traced back to broadcasts. You can see the same footage from archive sources without even going to 'September Clues'.

Does that answer your question ?

[chek]

[John White]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

Gruts,

I have resigned from this forum although I feel entitled to defend myself against your insults. Here is my final word on this matter.

Yes, mathematical proofs would usually be sufficient to settle such questions. But in this case the images in question are made contradictory or are of such a kind that the question cannot be resolved. In the mass of televised 'plane' material are dozens of cases where measurement can be agreed only within a context that has itself been purposely contrived and manipulated. I agree the helicopter filming for the morning live broadcast, for example, IS filming at the ONE spot where, as Chek says, its approach would have been obscured if a plane took the flight path suggested by NIST and Chek. That phenomenal and amazingly improbable fact is one that I was compelled to accept and do accept. The likelihood of such a filmer being blind to any plane approach of that kind is astronomically small. Yet it's a truth that I cannot deny. This is what I mean by the context being contrived.

These 'plane' videos were each made to contradict one another. The object of their makers was to confuse, not to explain. And in this objective (made with very careful planning) the media criminals have, so far, been very successful.

Mathematically, yes, the sum total of all the 'plane' material broadcast by these corporations on that day DOES leave the NIST approach path as THE ONLY APPROACH PATH THAT A PLANE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE TAKEN TO HIT WTC SOUTH. THAT TOO WAS CLEVERLY DESIGNED.

I have to credit Chek for arguing as he does. He opened my eyes and mind to the fiendish planning of these criminals.

But I have to say to Chek that such mathematical facts DO NOT PROVE THAT ANY SUCH PLANE TOOK SUCH A PATH. In fact, fake eyewitnesses were used. These followed later by images of a 'plane'.

CAN THIS MATTER OF PLANES OR NO PLANES EVER BE RESOLVED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER MATHEMATICALLY ?

Yes, but not by using the measurements we obtain from such broadcasts. THIS I know realise.

There remains one last possibility of exposing the whole fakery. But I will not attempt it here if you still believe I am motivated wrongly.

John White asked if I agree September Clues has NOT proved fakery. My view is that the maker of that video series (like all others) HAS made errrors in certain areas but is accurate in others. I believe 'September Clues' has produced some truly extraordinary material that has taken us in to a far better, more accurate approach to these issues than has featured in the past 6 years. For this it deserves to be respected. The view that televised 'plane' material was broadcast that day in a synchronised fashion certainly appears to be true. That foregrounds and backdrops were edited out/in etc. - this also seems true. That eyewitnesses of a certain kind to support 'planes' were quickly produced for these television channels, etc etc.

I do not believe in the 'perfect crime'. The criminals made serious errors. I think the mistakes they made must be of a basic, fundamental, kind. Perhaps THIS is an outline of how such analysis can be conducted in the future, rather than acrimonious debates about shifting horizons and landscapes.

Is there a 'truth movement' ? Yes. I think there is the certainty that the sun will shine on darkness in its own time. In its own way.

[marky 54]

im sure they just rant to convince themselves, i never see anything that confirms a word they say.

all i see is misleading examples, speculation, claims, heresay, and what ever else avoids actually proving it.

but from that they expect everyone to believe them.

[chek]

It's been said, by a wiser man than me (Axl Rose?), that the hardest thing in life is to lose your illusions.

But that was ridiculous.

[gruts]