Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: Another example of deception in "September Clues"
Indubitably wrote:
I have examined the broadcast footage that is used by 'September Clues' and can confirm it IS a faithful copy of the broadcast footage.
OK let's take a look at one short segment of "september clues" and see if what you're saying is true - or, alternatively - if your powers of observation are not very good and/or you're lying.
incidentally - this post is mainly a summary of a previous attempt to discuss the subject with sidlittle, zoomer and mason free party - but they ran off to play happy families on killtown's NPT sockpuppet forum when they couldn't answer my questions.
part 1 of "september clues" starts off with some rather dubious analysis of a few seconds of CNN footage shown on 9/11 and is followed by a similar attempt to demonstrate media deception by CBS.
the unedited CBS clip from the internet archive is here (the part shown in "SC" starts about 1:40 into the clip)....
....so it's interesting to compare the carefully edited segment that is shown in "SC" with what was actually shown on tv.
in "SC" - over an extremely grainy clip - we hear the CBS anchor talking to Theresa Renaud about the first plane crash, just before the second plane hits. 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 "SC", the words I've highlighted in bold have been edited out of the footage.
so, mr "indubitably" - did you somehow fail to notice this very obvious discrepancy while confirming that the footage in "SC" is a faithful copy of the broadcast footage?
and I wonder why those words were edited out?
"SC" then makes the unsubstantiated and somewhat ridiculous claim that she couldn't have heard the noise of the first impact from Chelsea, and also tries to make a big deal of the fact that she didn't actually see the first strike - although 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 that 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 somewhat ridiculous point, given that CBS had been discussing nothing else but the first plane crash during the previous 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.
"SC" then makes the completely false claim that she couldn't have seen the plane hit the wtc from her location in chelsea. and it's done in a very sneaky way (that doesn't prove the point at all) - by showing a panoramic view of manhattan and panning slowly across from the wtc to chelsea and then claiming that she must have had superhuman vision to see it from so far away.
of course there's actually no reason why she couldn't have clearly seen the twin towers from Chelsea (less than 3 miles away from the wtc) - these were huge buildings visible from any number of vantage points throughout manhattan (and far beyond). so I wonder why the maker of "SC" didn't just 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?
the following image of what she would have seen from her window was provided by "stilldiggin" (who is an NPT believer)....
....and it confirms that Ms Renauld did in fact have a good view of the towers from her window. if she was looking through her window she would have been able to see the second plane approach, based on this image (and common sense - if you've ever been to that area of NYC prior to 9/11).
as an aside - stilldiggin and others have used this interview (particularly her statement that the plane hit "right in the middle of the building") as "proof" that Ms Renauld is in fact just reading from a pre-arranged script on behalf of the perps, by saying that she would need x-ray vision to see an impact on the south side of the tower from a location to the north.
but while she obviously couldn't have seen the actual collision on the opposite side of the tower - if she was looking through her window and saw a plane arriving at high speed which disappeared behind the towers and then there was a huge explosion - I reckon it's entirely reasonable for her to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that the explosion was caused by the impact of the plane.
and based on stilldiggin's image, the huge fireballs caused by the impact could have looked like they were half way up the building from where she was looking (hence her "right in the middle" comment).
however, as well as removing the crucial segment of the dialogue, the maker of "SC" also edited out the second plane, which is visible in the unedited footage.
if you watch the unedited clip above, you'll see the edge of the plane in the bottom right hand corner of the screen as it approaches and disappears behind the towers prior to the impact (it's visible between 2:52 and 2:53). but if you watch the equivalent section of the edited clip shown in part 1 of "SC" you'll see that it has been removed.
so, mr "indubitably" - while confirming that the footage in "SC" is a faithful copy of the broadcast footage, did you fail to notice this as well?
and I wonder why the plane was edited out?
another thing to note is that a few seconds later in the interview (not shown in "SC") Theresa Renaud says that she thinks the plane definitely looked like a small plane and not a commercial jet. so if it's true that this interview was pre-arranged and scripted by the perps - then why would she contradict the idea that it was a 767?
in summary - this short segment of "SC" consists entirely of bogus claims and shows just how easy it is to take a small, carefully edited segment of broadcast footage and use it to deceive the viewer - something that "SC" is repeatedly guilty of.
isn't it amazing how a film that's apparently about deception and fakery in the media on 9/11 is so full of deception and fakery itself? how can you defend such a video, that is clearly guilty of the very thing it's allegedly trying to expose? and how can a video that lies to you so blatantly really be about truth?
Simon Shack (aka Social Service) says that:
"I, the lone author of September Clues, have not doctored any part of the broadcasts shown on TV. Please refrain from writing the most absurd thing you could ever write. Yes, that I would "doctor" those horrid TV videos is indeed out of the realm of possibility. I've done this research out of a sincere wish to diffuse my findings - with a good deal of personal sacrifice."
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:37 am Post subject:
I can't view the video segments until I get home, but your commentary makes its case plainly enough.
What's really interesting is the difference in the way that the new amatuer video by the driver exiting the tunnel is immediately condemned as a fake. According to top "researchers":
'This has the worst bunch of flying pixels i ever saw' and 'according to my theory, this video would have to be a fake. it's possible the 9/11 perps released this video to help authenticate the hezarkhani footage'.
And yet 100% provable manipulation and selective editing like September Clueless get a free pass and are recommended. They really are nothing but an out of their depth chimp's tea party.
Link _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
OK Gruts. I admit I am surprised a person who believes in planes hitting the Twin Towers should challenge on this particular issue. Yes, I am keen to debate with you on this subject.
Before I begin, perhaps you can first clarify a few preliminary points for me first and for those who will follow this debate. Let me begin by quoting this remark made by Ms Renaud on 9/11/2001 around the time of the second fireball at WTC.
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...."
Question 1 - Can you please tell us Gruts where, in New York, IS '8th and 16th' ? I mean, can you show us any map of New York showing where I (a British person or a non-resident of New York) can find that exact location ? '8th and 16th', I mean'. Thank You.
and -
Question 2 - Can you tell us, Gruts, is 111 8th Avenue the same location as '8th and 16th' ? Again, some evidence would be appreciated.
Looking forward to your reply and to having a fair debate with you on this testimony.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject:
Rule 2 of Trollery - get them jumping around providing information that you could easily find for yourself.
Idiotically, either look up Google Earth or if your PC can't handle that Google maps will do it. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject:
Indubitably wrote:
Chek,
Is there enough courtesy to allow me confirmation of these locations from someone who knows New York ? Surely it's not too much to ask, is it ?
Too much to ask? Possibly no: but it doesn reveal you've been uncritically backing a theory you havnt adequately checked out for yourself using tools easily and readily available to you _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
OK Gruts. I admit I am surprised a person who believes in planes hitting the Twin Towers should challenge on this particular issue. Yes, I am keen to debate with you on this subject.
and I admit that I am surprised you're still here at all, given that every claim you have made has been shown to be completely false and you have "resigned" from the forum so many times now.
what on earth are you hoping to achieve by continuing to repeat your 100% credibility free drivel?
Indubitably wrote:
Before I begin, perhaps you can first clarify a few preliminary points for me first and for those who will follow this debate. Let me begin by quoting this remark made by Ms Renaud on 9/11/2001 around the time of the second fireball at WTC.
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...."
Question 1 - Can you please tell us Gruts where, in New York, IS '8th and 16th' ? I mean, can you show us any map of New York showing where I (a British person or a non-resident of New York) can find that exact location ? '8th and 16th', I mean'. Thank You.
(sigh) if you look at a street map of manhattan, I'm sure that you can find the intersection of 8th avenue and 16th street without any problem.
believe it or not, it's in Chelsea....
and here's a reminder of what you'd have seen on 9/11 if you had looked towards the world trade centre from that location:
Indubitably wrote:
and -
Question 2 - Can you tell us, Gruts, is 111 8th Avenue the same location as '8th and 16th' ? Again, some evidence would be appreciated.
Looking forward to your reply and to having a fair debate with you on this testimony.
(sigh) try looking at a map....
and having done so - please address the issue which you are trying to duck, ie your claim that you have examined the broadcast footage in 'September Clues' and confirmed that it is a faithful copy of the actual broadcast footage.
it clearly isn't a faithful copy, as conclusively demonstrated above (and this is just one of many examples of how you are being deceived by "September Clues").
so the questions you need to answer are as follows:
1. are you a liar, or just not very observant, or both?
2. why do you think simon shack edited theresa renauld's words in the way that he did?
3. why do you think simon shack edited the plane out of the video?
4. how can you defend "september clues", when it is so full of deception and fakery?
5. how can a video that lies to you so blatantly really be about truth?
please answer these questions.
and once you've done that, perhaps you could also address all the other questions you've repeatedly ducked in numerous other threads on this forum.
In the self deluded world of ‘planes at the World Trade Center’ the laws of science and even reason must repeatedly be ignored and yet undeserved credibility must repeatedly be given to dubious witnesses. We are asked 'ad nauseum' to believe fabulous things. Things unknown to science. And, 6 years after the tragedy of 9/11 the self delusion continues with a ’truth movement’ whose chief claim to fame is that it believes and teaches more or less the same sorts of nonsense.
Take, for example, the newly discovered and totally bogus properties of modified kerosene/jet fuel, a substance which can one second be the cause of giant fireballs made at the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 and the next is said to have contributed to total collapse of two giant, reinforced steel, plane-proof skyscrapers. We are next asked to believe (and this time by agents of the supposed ‘truth movement’ that jet fuel from two mythical ‘planes‘ (though already admitted to have been burned in those two fireballs) somehow even had a part in destroying by fire over 1,400 cars and trucks at ground level in Manhattan that same day, some of them parked city blocks away from the Twin Towers. Not content with such asurdities we are also asked to believe by members of the same ’truth movement’ that whole aluminium sections of a plane were somehow blasted through the outer and inner steel cages of the giant South Tower, exiting (so we are told) from it and somehow falling in still recognisable sections as parts of the same plane, some of several metres length and later photographed on the rooftop of a nearby building - this without exit hole in the back of the South Tower.
There is in fact no limit to the absurdities and silly things we are asked to believe by agents of the ‘truth movement’ about events that supposedly occurred at the South Tower on 9.11.2001. That is, by those who overlook and pervert the facts of science.
We can and must question the motives of a ‘truth movement’ whose members, seeing the huge amount of media fakery being discussed worldwide on 9/11 tragedy, still insist there are NO examples of broadcast fakery that have been proved. !
Take the following case - a supposed eyewitness.
Ms Renaut from Chelsea, New York (in a phone conversation carried live on television that happens to coincide with creation of a huge fireball at the South Tower WTC) claims also to have been an eyewitness to the ‘plane’ which supposedly caused it. In fact, this same Ms Renault (yet another relative to a media corporation employee) claims to have ‘heard’ but NOT seen the first supposed ‘plane’ that hit the North Tower of the same WTC complex.
I don’t mean to be rude. But much of the testimony of Ms Renault is absurd. Here’s why.
1. Ms Renault is calling the television station from Chelsea in New York. Her conversation is being carried live to viewers. Great. She tells us she is calling from the tallest building in the area. From 8th and 16th. Now, the tallest building in that area is 111 8th Avenue. Right ? It’s from here, she says, that she is watching events at the WTC, her attention having been drawn to it by the loud explosion associated with the earlier fireball at WTC North.
2. In actual fact, 111 8th Avenue is also to be found at the corner of 8th Avenue and 15th Street as anyone with a Google Map or Google Earth can easily see for themselves.
3. Let us say, therefore, (for the sake of accuracy) that her building is actually on BOTH 8th Avenue 15th Street and also 8th Avenue 16th Street. And that this large and tall building known as 111 8th Avenue is the place from which she is calling.
4. But there is an immediate problem. In saying she is really calling from ‘8th and 16th in Chelsea’, and in saying it’s the tallest building in the area, she ignores the fact that any caller from that particular address is (if they have a window to look out of) actually LOOKING NORTH, NOT SOUTH.
5. Ms Renaut CANNOT SEE THE WTC if she is where she claims to be. Not, that is, unless she has X-ray vision.
6. Ms Renaut CAN see the WTC complex from 111 8th Avenue only if she is looking out of a window that is facing SOUTH. But that is only possible from 8th Avenue 15th Street.
7. Ms Renaut is therefore NOT at ‘8th and 16th’. She can only be at 111 8th Avenue in Chelsea watching events at the WTC (I.e. from the tallest building in that area) if she is watching them out of a window in that building facing SOUTH, namely, from that part of 111 8th Avenue which intersects with 15th Street.
8. Ms Renaud begins with this error. And her call gets a lot worse.
Not only does Ms Renaut NOT seem to know, accurately, the location of the office from where she is calling the television station, but she goes on to tell us she heard (but did not see) the explosion at the North Tower WTC minutes before.
Which creates Problem Number 2.
9. If Ms Renaut heard the explosion at the North Tower minutes from her office location in Chelsea, it follows that MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN NEW YORK MUST SURELY HAVE HEARD THE SAME EXPLOSION, PEOPLE LIVING FAR CLOSER THAN THE ALMOST 3 MILES AWAY FROM WTC NORTH WHERE MS RENAULT WAS CALLING. RIGHT ? But if millions of other New Yorkers also heard what she heard, what chance is there that she would have been at the head of the queue to be reporting it on live television ? Was Ms Renaut destined to be the first human in New York to call the media about it ? Surely not. Since, as we see, she is actually online talking at the time of the SECOND explosion.
Has Ms Renaut been online since seconds after the explosion ? NO.
So, we are asked to believe several million New Yorkers heard the North Tower explosion. It just so happens that a woman, married to a media executive, is fortunate enough to get to the front of the phone queue to report it live - from 3 miles away and to still be online many minutes later (with nothing more of any value to report) when she also witnesses live the SECOND !!!
It gets even more improbable - Imagine this -
LADY CALLER - I’ve heard an explosion and now see the fireball at the WTC North
TV STATION - OK, stay on the line for many minutes - that’s something we must talk about specially with you
LADY CALLER - Great
TV STATION - (many minutes later and countless callers later) - ‘Oh, yes, you were saying - you heard an explosion at the North Tower. Wow !
LADY CALLER - Yes
TV STATION - And can you tell us about it ? We are live on TV
LADY CALLER - Sure…..but……OMG - ANOTHER ‘PLANE’JUST HIT THE OTHER TOWER !!
It is a complete absurdity to suggest Ms Renault was in contact by phone with the TV station about an event at the North Tower for so long that she was able to witness the event at the South Tower. For, as said, millions must also have heard it. It was no longer news.
Never mind, in the surreal world on 9/11/2001 media anything goes, right ?
We then have the rather serious difficulty of trying to understand how Ms Renaud, staring almost directly due South at the WTC Complex could possibly have witnessed the event that occurred at the South Tower. For, as we see in the official ‘flight path’ the ‘plane’ that supposedly hit WTC South WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSCURED FROM HER VIEW BY THE TWIN TOWERS THEMSELVES. IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MS RENAUT OR ANYONE ELSE AT 111 8TH AVENUE IN CHELSEA OR ANYONE NEAR THAT SAME LOCATION TO HAVE SEEN THE ENTRY OF A ‘PLANE’ AT THE IMPACT POINT GIVEN ON THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT PLANE OF THAT SUPPOSED ‘PLANE’.
These and other reasons force me to say that Ms Renaud, as is also the case with numerous other 'eyewitnesses' of planes on that day, did NOT witness these events. I conclude, therefore, that the truth is very different from what we have been told by that televised broadcast and by Ms Renaut.
so as usual - you present us with a barrage of waffle while avoiding any attempt to answer the numerous questions that you've been asked. surprise, surprise....
In the self deluded world of ‘planes at the World Trade Center’ the laws of science and even reason must repeatedly be ignored as undeserved credibility is given to dubious witnesses. We are asked to believe such fabulous things. Things unknown to science. And, 6 years later, the self delusion continues with a ’truth movement’ whose chief claim to fame is that it believes and teaches more or less the same sorts of nonsense. Take, for example, the newly discovered and totally bogus properties and abilities of modified kerosene/jet fuel, a substance which can one second be the cause of giant fireballs made at the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 and the next is said to have contributed to total collapse of two giant, reinforced steel, plane-proof skyscrapers. We are next asked to believe (and this time by agents of this supposed ‘truth movement’ that this same jet fuel from two mythical ‘planes‘ (though already admitted to have been burned in those fireballs) somehow had a part in destroying by fire over 1,400 cars and trucks at ground level in Manhattan that same day, some of them parked city blocks away from the Twin Towers. Not content with these absurdities we are also asked to believe by members of the ’truth movement’ that whole aluminium sections of a plane were somehow blasted through the outer and inner steel cages of the giant South Tower, exiting (so we are told) from that tower and somehow falling in still recognisable sections as parts of that same plane, some of several metres length photographed on the rooftop of a nearby building - this without exit hole in the back of the South Tower. There is in fact no limit to the absurdities and silly things we are asked to believe by agents of the ‘truth movement’ about events at the South Tower on 9.11.2001. That is, by those who overlook and pervert the facts of science.
We must question the motives of a ‘truth movement’ whose members, seeing now the huge amount of media fakery being discussed worldwide on this tragedy, still tells us there are NO examples of fakery that have been proved.
we've already heard this kind of waffle over and over again from you. it may really impress your imaginary friends, but it's getting very boring and it's also completely irrelevant to this thread.
when are you going to start answering the questions you've been asked instead of ducking them over and over again? you claim that you have examined the broadcast footage in 'September Clues' and confirmed that it is a faithful copy of the actual broadcast footage.
it clearly isn't a faithful copy - so are you a liar, or just not very observant, or both?
why do you think simon shack edited theresa renauld's words in the way that he did?
why do you think simon shack edited the plane out of the video?
how can you defend "september clues", when it is so full of deception and fakery?
how can a video that lies to you so blatantly really be about truth?
Indubitably wrote:
Take the following case - a supposed eyewitness.
Ms Renaut from Chelsea, New York (in a phone conversation carried live on television that happens to coincide with creation of a huge fireball at the South Tower WTC) claims also to have been an eyewitness to the ‘plane’ which supposedly caused it. In fact, this same Ms Renault (yet another relative to a media corporation employee) claims to have ‘heard’ but NOT seen the first supposed ‘plane’ that hit the North Tower of the same WTC complex.
I don’t mean to be rude. But much of the testimony of Ms Renault is absurd. Here’s why.
1. Ms Renault is calling the television station from Chelsea in New York. Her conversation is being carried live to viewers. Great. She tells us she is calling from the tallest building in the area. From 8th and 16th. Now, the tallest building in that area is 111 8th Avenue. Right ? It’s from here, she says, that she is watching events at the WTC, her attention having been drawn to it by the loud explosion associated with the earlier fireball at WTC North.
2. In actual fact, 111 8th Avenue is also to be found at the corner of 8th Avenue and 15th Street as anyone with a Google Map or Google Earth can easily see for themselves.
3. Let us say, therefore, (for the sake of accuracy) that her location of 111 8th Avenue is actually on both 8th Avenue 15th Street and also on 8th Avenue 16th Street. And that this large and tall building is the place from which she is calling.
4. But there is an immediate problem. In saying she is really calling from ‘8th and 16th in Chelsea’, and in saying it’s the tallest building in the area, she ignores the fact that any caller from that particular address is (if they have a window to look out of) actually LOOKING NORTH, NOT SOUTH.
5. Ms Renaut CANNOT SEE THE WTC if she is where she claims to be. Not, that is, unless she has X-ray vision.
6. Ms Renaut CAN see the WTC complex from 111 8th Avenue only if she is looking out of a window that is facing SOUTH. But that is only possible from 8th Avenue 15th Street.
7. Ms Renaut is therefore NOT at ‘8th and 16th’. She can only be at 111 8th Avenue in Chelsea watching events at the WTC (I.e. from the tallest building in that area) if she is watching them out of a window in that building facing SOUTH, namely, from that part of 111 8th Avenue which intersects with 15th Street.
8. Ms Renaud begins with this error. And her call gets a lot worse.
not really - this is a huge building which spans the short distance between 16th and 15th streets (north to south) and the considerably longer distance between 8th and 9th avenue (east to west). there is nothing strange about the fact that somebody could (for example) enter the building on the north side (16th street) and look through a south facing window on the other side (overlooking 15th). and if they had done that on 9/11 they'd have had a great view of the wtc....
I was in St James' Hospital in Leeds the other day, the official address of which is "Beckett Street", but over its entire length it encompasses several other streets as well (have a look on google maps). using your "logic" it would be impossible to see any number of local landmarks from St James' Hospital, because you can't see them from Beckett Street (which you can in fact see, depending on where you are located inside the hospital)....
Indubitably wrote:
Not only does Ms Renaut NOT seem to know, accurately, the location of the office from where she is calling the television station, but she goes on to tell us she heard (but did not see) the explosion at the North Tower WTC minutes before. Which creates Problem Number 2.
9. If Ms Renaut heard the explosion at the North Tower minutes from her office location in Chelsea, it follows that MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN NEW YORK MUST SURELY HAVE HEARD THE SAME EXPLOSION, PEOPLE LIVING FAR CLOSER THAN THE ALMOST 3 MILES AWAY FROM WTC NORTH WHERE MS RENAULT WAS CALLING. RIGHT ? But if millions of other New Yorkers also heard what she heard, what chance is there that she would have been at the head of the queue to be reporting it on live television ? Was Ms Renaut destined to be the first human in New York to call the media about it ? Surely not. Since, as we see, she is actually online talking at the time of the SECOND explosion.
more irrelevant waffle - lots of other people did hear the plane and the explosion, and nobody's claiming that Ms Renaud was "the first human in New York to call the media about it" except you.
Indubitably wrote:
Has Ms Renaut been online since seconds after the explosion ? NO.
So, we are asked to believe several million New Yorkers heard the North Tower explosion. It just so happens that a woman, married to a media executive, is fortunate enough to get to the front of the phone queue to report it live - from 3 miles away and to still be online many minutes later (with nothing more of any value to report) when she also witnesses live the SECOND !!!
It gets even more improbable - Imagine this -
LADY CALLER - I’ve heard an explosion and now see the fireball at the WTC North
TV STATION - OK, stay on the line for many minutes - that’s something we must talk about specially with you
LADY CALLER - Great
TV STATION - (many minutes later and countless callers later) - ‘Oh, yes, you were saying - you heard an explosion at the North Tower. Wow !
LADY CALLER - Yes
TV STATION - And can you tell us about it ? We are live on TV
LADY CALLER - Sure…..but……OMG - ANOTHER ‘PLANE’JUST HIT THE OTHER TOWER !!
we don't know if she called the station or vice versa and we don't know when this happened. you're just making up irrelevant waffle again....
and I know you think that everyone working for every media outlet that covered the 9/11 attacks was under the direct control of the perps and was actively involved in an attempt to brainwash us all with tv fakery, so in your view, the fact that she's married to a media executive must be suspicious - but it really isn't.
another bogus point repeatedly made in "September Clues" is that many of the early eyewitness reports were from people in the media so this somehow proves that it was all fake. let's take a look at that claim using common sense....
and let's say that you are in charge of a live news broadcast on one of the major american tv networks and all of a sudden THE MOST AMAZING NEWS STORY EVER begins to unfold in NYC. You need to find some eyewitnesses fast - so what do you do?
(a) call one of the many employees of your network who live and work in NYC.
or
b) find an NYC phone book and call people at random.
alternatively, let's say that you are an employee of one of the major american tv networks (eg a reporter) or a close relative (eg a spouse), you live and work in NYC, you know the phone number of the studio and all of a sudden THE MOST AMAZING NEWS STORY EVER begins to unfold in front of your very eyes. what would you do?
(a) call the studio.
or
(b) ignore it and go about your day as if nothing had happened.
if you think about it honestly using common sense, you'll see that there is nothing surprising, strange or sinister about the fact that many of the early eyewitnesses on CBS were employees of CBS who live and work in New York, or that many of the early eyewitnesses on CNN were employees of CNN who live and work in New York, or that many of the early eyewitnesses on ABC were employees of ABC who live and work in New York etc etc etc....
Indubitably wrote:
It is a complete absurdity to suggest Ms Renault was in contact by phone with the TV station about an event at the North Tower for so long that she was able to witness the event at the South Tower. For, as said, millions must also have heard it. It was no longer news.
Never mind, in the surreal world on 9/11/2001 media anything goes, right ?
the only person suggesting that she was "in contact by phone with the TV station about an event at the North Tower for so long that she was able to witness the event at the South Tower" - is you.
and your statement that the first plane strike was "no longer news" a few minutes after it happened couldn't be more ridiculous....
Indubitably wrote:
We then have the rather serious difficulty of trying to understand how Ms Renaud, staring almost directly due South at the WTC Complex could possibly have witnessed the event that occurred at the South Tower. For, as we see in the official ‘flight path’ the ‘plane’ that supposedly hit WTC South WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSCURED FROM HER VIEW BY THE TWIN TOWERS THEMSELVES.
IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MS RENAUT OR ANYONE ELSE AT 111 8TH AVENUE OR ANYONE NEAR THAT LOCATION TO HAVE SEEN THE ENTRY OF A ‘PLANE’ AT THE LOCATION GIVEN ON THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT PLANE OF THAT ‘PLANE’.
yes, you still don't understand perspective.
Indubitably wrote:
These and other reasons force me to say that Ms Renaud, as is also the case with numerous other 'eyewitnesses' of planes on that day, did NOT witness these events. I conclude, therefore, that the truth is very different from what we have been told by that televised broadcast and by Ms Renaut.
back to the drawing board mr indubitably - and please try to think of some answers to the questions you've been ducking for so long....
Last edited by gruts on Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
The only surprise left is the 'truth movement' are the only people left on this planet who don't get it.
The real truth still not revealed to slaves of the 'truth movement' is that media fakery, false witnesses and misinformation are a complicit part of the crimes of 9/11/2001.
Since Ms Renaut ('the eyewitness' to a 'plane' at WTC South) is in your view reliable and is north of the Twin Towers can you tell us which floor of that huge building she was calling from ? Or is this crucial information not answered and left vague ?
Who but a fool can say the 'plane' is heading North to collide with the South Tower if its nose is not pointing North during its approach ??? But its nose is pointing East !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys are simply incredibly stupid
Last edited by Indubitably on Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject:
Shucks, you beat me to it gruts.
Still it cheered me up no end. Two dimensional buildings was a particular classic I'll not forget in a longtime. As was the surprise of finding media people living in Manhattan, that well known stronghold of the working classes.
I especially like the way (even after all this time) Mr. Idiotically claims to be such greatest, bestest mates with facts and science - often calling on them by first name terms - while everytime he does they're bitchslappin' his sorry arse round the room for all to see.
You could sell tickets, if cruel sports weren't outlawed. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject:
Indubitably wrote:
The only surprise left is the 'truth movement' are the only people left on this planet who don't get it.
The real truth still not revealed to slaves of the 'truth movement' is that media fakery, false witnesses and misinformation are a complicit part of the crimes of 9/11/2001.
You haven't yet shown an example of 'media fakery' that isn't itself fake - or do you still not understand that point yet?
What you have, and continue to amply demonstrate is how easy it is for your handlers to pull the wool over the eyes of blind fools with the merest of suggestions. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Since Ms Renaut ('the eyewitness' to a 'plane' at WTC South) is in your view reliable and is north of the Twin Towers can you tell us which floor of that huge building she was calling from ? Or is this crucial information not answered and left vague ?
Who but a fool can say the 'plane' is heading North to collide with the South Tower if its nose is not pointing North during its approach ??? But its nose is pointing East !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Still it cheered me up no end. Two dimensional buildings was a particular classic I'll not forget in a longtime. As was the surprise of finding media people living in Manhattan, that well known stronghold of the working classes.
I especially like the way (even after all this time) Mr. Idiotically claims to be such greatest, bestest mates with facts and science - often calling on them by first name terms - while everytime he does they're bitchslappin' his sorry arse round the room for all to see.
You could sell tickets, if cruel sports weren't outlawed.
well the irony is that I've used stilldiggin's images, which he created to somehow prove the same case that indubitably is failing to prove....
Since Ms Renaut ('the eyewitness' to a 'plane' at WTC South) is in your view reliable and is north of the Twin Towers can you tell us which floor of that huge building she was calling from ? Or is this crucial information not answered and left vague ?
Who but a fool can say the 'plane' is heading North to collide with the South Tower if its nose is not pointing North during its approach ??? But its nose is pointing East !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys are simply incredibly stupid
lol - you're the one who believes that she couldn't have seen the 2nd plane, based on your pre-existing belief that there was no second plane.
you haven't proved either of these beliefs yet (although you have proved that you don't understand perspective).
and you still haven't answered any of the questions I asked you (and many others).
you claim that you have examined the broadcast footage in 'September Clues' and confirmed that it is a faithful copy of the actual broadcast footage.
it clearly isn't a faithful copy - so are you a liar, or just not very observant, or both?
why do you think simon shack edited theresa renauld's words in the way that he did?
why do you think simon shack edited the plane out of the video?
how can you defend "september clues", when it is so full of deception and fakery?
how can a video that lies to you so blatantly really be about truth?
have a think about it old chap....
toodle pip - I'm off for a 3 dimensional curry....
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject:
Indubitably wrote:
Since Ms Renaut ('the eyewitness' to a 'plane' at WTC South) is in your view reliable and is north of the Twin Towers can you tell us which floor of that huge building she was calling from ? Or is this crucial information not answered and left vague ?
Who but a fool can say the 'plane' is heading North to collide with the South Tower if its nose is not pointing North during its approach ??? But its nose is pointing East !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys are simply incredibly stupid
Listen carefully - it's been told to you and documented with diagrams and short of taking you there, it can't be explained any more clearly so listen up.
Big bird in sky fly in from west south west direction and swing round to south west direction (heading, sorry - nose pointing - north east) to crash into big building in its south face (which admittedly and rather confusingly and unfairly for some, faces south west).
In TV terms for the geographically challenged, this means that for someone viewing from the north, big bird enters the frame from right edge and flies towards the left edge, smacking into big building on the way.
As you clearly show that 3-D world directions confuse you, hopefully this 2-D version will be more clear for you.
Or maybe not - after all, we're incredibly stupid here.
If I wasn't doing this right now, I'd be looking for someone to tie my shoes, me. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Choose any mathematics teacher in the entire world. I can get one for you if you like.
The object you call a 'plane' which is supposedly flying in to WTC South in various video clips appears (to we who may be watching from the North of the WTC) to be flying from right to left of our vision. Yes ? And yet, you say, the 'plane' is definitely flying NORTH in to the South tower. The official flight path is generally NORTHWARD, right ?
But what we see on video after video is very different. We see a 'plane' whose nose is heading always generally EAST. We see the 'plane' is NEVER at any time heading NORTH. Its nose NEVER faces towards us in the NORTH. Its wings are visible and they prove it is NOT flying NORTH. At any time.
Now, unless the nose of a plane points NORTH to us who are observing from the NORTH it cannot, by any rational definition, be flying NORTH. If a plane flies across our line of sight from right to left and at NO point points NORTH then, mathematically, it at no point flies NORTH.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject:
Indubitably wrote:
OK Chek,
Choose any mathematics teacher in the entire world. I can get one for you if you like.
How kind of you, though a geography teacher might be more appropriate, don't you think?
Indubitably wrote:
The object you call a 'plane' which is supposedly flying in to WTC South in various video clips appears (to we who may be watching from the North of the WTC) to be flying from right to left of our vision. Yes ? And yet, you say, the 'plane' is definitely flying NORTH in to the South tower. The official flight path is generally NORTHWARD, right ?
No, 'north easterly' is different to 'northward'.
That's why it's called 'north easterly'.
From the south west, pointing north easterly
Indubitably wrote:
But what we see on video after video is very different. We see a 'plane' whose nose is heading always generally EAST. We see the 'plane' is NEVER at any time heading NORTH. Its nose NEVER faces towards us in the NORTH. Its wings are visible and they prove it is NOT flying NORTH. At any time.
No. What you see on a video screen is 'left to right' and 'up and down'.
Two dimensions you see? Thats why it's called 'two dimensional'.
Simple really when someone explains it, isn't it?
Indubitably wrote:
Now, unless the nose of a plane points NORTH to us who are observing from the NORTH it cannot, by any rational definition, be flying NORTH. If a plane flies across our line of sight from right to left and at NO point points NORTH then, mathematically, it at no point flies NORTH.
Right ?
Oh God ... do you have someone who minds you that I could speak with instead? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject:
Indubitably wrote:
Well, if a plane is flying GENERALLY Northwards its nose must GENERALLY be pointing Northwards.
Which part of this message do you not understand ?
No, the question is what part of 2-dimensional do you not understand?
Well, that and why you're avoiding all the questions about your phoney media fakery theory gruts has been waiting some time for your input on. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Does it matter that the high floors of this same 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' witness 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.
Furthermore, the skyline from 111 8th Avenue is remarkably like that which appears behind both CNN's broadcasts of the notorious Tower 7 collapse and also that from the BBC's Jane Standley.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject:
Indubitably wrote:
Does it matter that the high floors of this same 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' witness Ms Renaut was calling that live television station, right ?
Yep, to show host Brian Gumble(?) who was at 59 and 5th.
Indubitably wrote:
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.
Yep, this one:
"The property, the third largest building in New York City, is fast becoming one of the most important high-tech facilities in the world resting atop one of the main fiber optic arteries in New York City the Hudson Street Ninth Avenue "fiber highway." 111 Eighth Avenue houses sophisticated high tech telecommunications centers for major global telecommunications networks, including the busiest switching stations in the world. With a tenant list including BT Americas, Google, MCI, Sprint, Level 3, Qwest, NTT, XO Communications, Doubleclick, Cable & Wireless, it is widely acknowledged as New York City's most important carrier hotel.
A tall building with a southward view and company employees who witnessed the strikes
Indubitably wrote:
Ms. Renaud is NOT a reliable witness.
She sounded pretty compos mentis and clear about what she saw to me.
Mind you, Brian's sense of direction sounded worse than yours.
Indubitably wrote:
Furthermore, the skyline from 111 8th Avenue is remarkably like that which appears behind both CNN's broadcasts of the notorious Tower 7 collapse and also that from the BBC's Jane Standley.
Er...yeah. It's called 'looking at downtown Manhattan'.
Lotsa big buildings in what some call the worlds most unmistakeable skyline.
Indubitably wrote:
Coincidence, right ?
Of course, what else would you call all these people being in NYC on the very same day as the signature event of the 21st century.
Fate? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject:
The real irony of the procession of charcters like "Indutiably" we've had tramp through here in the last few weeks/months is the more they bring their material over here, the more proficient we become at bothering ourselves to point out the bleedin obvious, until we are now getting to the point where we have conclusively demonstrated just how poor the whole case has been shown to be
I mean, in a sense of cosmic ennui and thinking to myself "well one can't save people from their desire to delude themselves" I'd decided I wasnt bothered about NPT on the Icke forum enough to seriously counter it. But along comes Indutiably inspiring my fellow forum members here to greater efforts, and all of the sudden we've put together some devestating material leaving NPT in shatters and now the mood of the Icke forumers is "Hmmm Yes... September Clues.... Its a peice of *, walk away!"
Cracking result, and it wouldnt have happened without you indutiably, becuase we certainly wouldnt have been arsed
So thanks! Your providing a vital social service inspiring the demolition of the vapid manipulations of "social service", and we salute you for it _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject:
John White wrote:
Cracking result, and it wouldnt have happened without you indutiably, becuase we certainly wouldnt have been arsed
So thanks! Your providing a vital social service inspiring the demolition of the vapid manipulations of "social service", and we salute you for it
What, you mean like Mr Indubitably, by his actions alone, might personally if unwittingly be the unlikely catalyst for the unravelling of the whole phoney NPT/Fakery/ExoW circus?
Wouldn't that be achieving something!
But ...won't they be a bit cross with him about that back at HQ? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:37 am Post subject:
chek wrote:
John White wrote:
Cracking result, and it wouldnt have happened without you indutiably, becuase we certainly wouldnt have been arsed
So thanks! Your providing a vital social service inspiring the demolition of the vapid manipulations of "social service", and we salute you for it
What, you mean like Mr Indubitably, by his actions alone, might personally if unwittingly be the unlikely catalyst for the unravelling of the whole phoney NPT/Fakery/ExoW circus?
Wouldn't that be achieving something!
But ...won't they be a bit cross with him about that back at HQ?
Cosmic justice Chek, as I feel out early NPT pwnings unwittingly were part of the reason for the apparent slickness of "cloos" when we pointed out that making a half decent film without octopuses may at least indicate a way NPT should go
Regretably, (for NPT) a theory still needs some TRUTH behind it if its ultimately going to last _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Thank you John White, for saying that my posts have been of real help to the 9/11 truth movement. One tries, of course.
As to media fakery, there are literally so many examples that it's embarrasing.
Speaking of which, wonder if you can say why the media corporations themselves are so silent on the vast numbers of forums, clips and other material now available worldwide proving their duplicity. As a member of the truth movement you are of course keen that they should be accountable for their output, right ? Who knows, we might one day get some action through you on that John.
I mean, the 9/11 forum would welcome the media guys speaking about how this footage was made. Isn't that part of the 9/11 truth movement ? If not, people might start to wonder what on earth the role of people like your goodselves IS in establishing truth.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
