Chek sez: September Clueless-Dishonest or Disinfo?

[john white]

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo?

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.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-01.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-02.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-03.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-06-07.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-04.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-05.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-08.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-09.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-10.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-11.jpg

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.

.

[john white]

(Cont: post split due to picture limit)

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-12.jpg

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’

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations, Messenger White:

Thank You for the Time and Effort you expended to bring this to our attention. The 'Wheat MUST be separated from the Chaff'.

Have you examined: Pilots for 9/11 Truth website? Seems like a Damn Serious effort in my opinion. They seem to have gathered all the information concerning the Aircrafts used in the Event.

Seems 'Legit' to me. What is your opinion.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[john white]

Cordial Felicitations, Messenger White:

Thank You for the Time and Effort you expended to bring this to our attention. The 'Wheat MUST be separated from the Chaff'.

Have you examined: Pilots for 9/11 Truth website? Seems like a Damn Serious effort in my opinion. They seem to have gathered all the information concerning the Aircrafts used in the Event.

Seems 'Legit' to me. What is your opinion.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

Well, the key factor with Pilots for 9/11 Truth is that they don't make unsubstantiated claims, and to date not a single fault has been found examining their information

[john white]

More "September Clues" Fraud exposed:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

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)....

September 11th As it Happened CBS Part 2 - YouTube

....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? :roll:

"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)....

http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewFrom1118thAveRooftop.jpg

....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. :roll:

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? :roll:

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."

he's a liar and a fraud.

[rhodiola]

I noticed that Icke said there were remote controlled planes.

[matrixcutter]

I noticed that Icke said there were remote controlled planes.
That's what I think happened.

I don't think it is outside the realms of possibility to have manipulated people into believing that planes flew into the buildings (including the Pentagon) having not actually done so, even including people who were there, but I don't think that's what happened at the Twin Towers.

I notice that someone suggested that people there in New York at the time said that there were no planes. Unfortunately, the word of someone on an internet forum (themselves giving the word of someone else) is worthless, whether it's the truth or not.

[john white]

Well whilst we are on a roll, lets put the whole "TV fakery at the Twin towers" claim to rest. Here is a stonking 27 page pdf demolition of "September Clues"

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

Sample of content:

Introduction

The internet video series “September Clues” offers many apparent anomalies in the 9/11 television coverage which could be perceived to be evidence of ‘TV Fakery’. None of these alleged ‘proofs’ has been proven conclusively to be an artefact of ‘TV Fakery’. That quite a number of possible artefacts of ‘TV Fakery’ are presented together, does not mean that they add up to any kind of certain proof. Each alleged ‘proof’ has a far more rational and likely explanation.

The article is presented in table form, so the reader doesn't need to read all the way through, from start to finish. The reader can go directly to an episode or to a particular point in any episode very quickly, without having to wade through text looking for mention of a particular point. This article is meant to be a step-by-step guide, one to hold in your hand as you watch the video series.

“September Clues” asks us to believe not only that ‘TV Fakery’ took place, but that it was executed in an extremely shoddy manner, such that an endless supply of “clues” is hidden on VHS tapes across America, just waiting to be discovered. However, on closer inspection, none of these “clues” constitute conclusive evidence of any act of ‘TV Fakery'

[john white]

That's what I think happened.

I don't think it is outside the realms of possibility to have manipulated people into believing that planes flew into the buildings (including the Pentagon) having not actually done so, even including people who were there, but I don't think that's what happened at the Twin Towers.

I notice that someone suggested that people there in New York at the time said that there were no planes. Unfortunately, the word of someone on an internet forum (themselves giving the word of someone else) is worthless, whether it's the truth or not.

True Icke has favoured the possibility that the Planes were remotely controlled: the one thing that possibility has going for it is that it is completely consistant both with the film record, and with known prior planned operations (northwoods), and the technical ability cannot be disputed

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Ladies & Gentlemen, Cordial Felicitations:

I think the 'Computer Controlled' Aerocraft Theory has some 'Heft' to it. All modern Aerocraft are: 'Fly By Wire'. No direct Mechanical linkages for Controls. Transmitters, Recievers & Servos.

Beloved Comptroller of the Pentagon, Dov Ziekind(?), co-incidently is a prominent member of a corporation that develops this Technology.

Global Hawk and Predator Aerocraft are two products that come to mind.

The Flight Analysis at: Pilots for 9/11 Truth. org indicate Skill Levels, as evidenced by Aerocraft Manouevers, that were substantialy superior than those of the alledged Hi-Jackers.

IMO, most evidence leads to this conclusion.

Thank You, & Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[dave52]

Well whilst we are on a roll, lets put the whole "TV fakery at the Twin towers" claim to rest. Here is a stonking 27 page pdf demolition of "September Clues"


Suprise, suprise, the very first "demolition" is just rubbish...

The maker of “September Clues” seems to be implying that because the phone did not pick up an impact sound, nothing happened to the Tower! Clearly, this is absurd.


That's not what September clues is saying at all. September Clues suggests that something (probably a missile) hit the tower and that the tower did indeed explode. September Clues is saying that it wasn't a plane and TV Fakery was used to cover up that fact.

Why don't you let it rest John, if it's such an absurd theory, the NPT will die it's own quiet death. The only people really going on about it are the people who don't believe in NPT. It's funny, I read an article about Dis-Info Agents the other day (specifically aimed at bashing the no-planers), and it was saying that all "we" do is disrupt and insult without bringing anything of use to the debate.

Here's Alex Jones on NPT, listen to his tone and his really deep, well thought out counter arguments... But be careful, if you don't concentrate it sounds very much like he's disrupting and insulting without bringing anything of use to the debate.

AJ on the NPT

[john white]

Why don't you let it rest John, if it's such an absurd theory, the NPT will die it's own quiet death

I'm sorry: why should I not do whatever I feel I should?

In particular, why should fraudsters and decievers go unchallenged? I don't pretend to be out to fix the whole world, but I make it my business to be partiocular in the area of 9/11 Truth: cos its important

And putting together a quality thread pulling together info is really not too difficult

I'm 100% sure NPT will "die a death": but that happens becuase people make sure the nessacary info is put out there... and in the end it will all prove a massive learning curve providing opportunity for everyone to become better truthseekers

[veritas2007]

I have to say that I'm dissapointed to discover that the voice clip of Theresa Renaud had been edited. I'd be interested to hear what the SC creator has to say about that.

I do note with interest though that the debunkers fail to challenge the nose out footage properly. They spend time debunking his close up before and after match but fail to offer an alternate theory as to why on the Fox footage, the nose clearly appears on the other side of the building.

I've only had a chance to briefly look at the .pdf document but from what I've read so far, its apparent that a lot of effort has gone into debunking the theories posed by the SC creator but no explanation has been offered for anomolies highlighted e.g. the nose out. The best I've seen so far is guesses to why the fade to blacks occured but no facts.

I think the anomolies raised in SC were very thought provoking and maybe the creator put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4 1/2. The edited Renaud voice over does trouble me though :(

[john white]

I have to say that I'm dissapointed to discover that the voice clip of Theresa Renaud had been edited. I'd be interested to hear what the SC creator has to say about that.

I do note with interest though that the debunkers fail to challenge the nose out footage properly. They spend time debunking his close up before and after match but fail to offer an alternate theory as to why on the Fox footage, the nose clearly appears on the other side of the building.

I've only had a chance to briefly look at the .pdf document but from what I've read so far, its apparent that a lot of effort has gone into debunking the theories posed by the SC creator but no explanation has been offered for anomolies highlighted e.g. the nose out. The best I've seen so far is guesses to why the fade to blacks occured but no facts.

I think the anomolies raised in SC were very thought provoking and maybe the creator put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4 1/2. The edited Renaud voice over does trouble me though :(

It's really not hard to do: just go looking for footage of WTC2 impact

Its easy to find clear footage showing that the supposed "nose out" was nothing of the kind, but was in fact the emergent fireball of the right hand engine and landing gear emerging from the other side after impact

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[barbitone]

My current thinking is that there weren't any planes used on 911.

If there's anything that you can correct me on then please do so.
Some main reasons at the moment are:

* no plane hit the pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania
* I would expect at least the tips of the plane hitting the tower to break off -
not just slice straight through
* it would be risky to use remote controlled aircraft
* both planes seem to just enter the buildings with no signs of the plane being damaged
* I have seen a few eyewitnesses now that say they were watching and saw
only an explosion - one of them was a reporter
* I have seen news footage with no planes (could be tampered with of course)
* some of the "eyewitnesses" that saw a plane seem dodgy.....

I don't know... but I want to know...... I don't know anything about plane people against no plane people or any of that. Info is info. We just have to do what we can with what we've got....

If anyone can help me with visualizing exactly what happened that day then please do so.:)

[dave52]

Hey Barbitone, you seem to be kinda where I am.

I think false tv footage was shown to cover the use of Missiles. I think it's a valuable line of investigation, and one that should be considered by all researchers (instead of just getting angry and allowing things to degrade into a slagging match).

If TV Fakery was used, then the drag-net needs to be thrown a lot wider than most "mainstream truthers" think, because there are a lot more people involved in this conspiracy.

Anyone that thinks that the No-Plane-Theory is damaging the movement and alienating potential believers needs to wake up and smell the coffee. 9/11 Truth is still a very. very fringe subject. If the groundswell of support is so very large (as 911Blogger.com and Alex Jones would have you believe), why aren't the masses marching on the Whitehouse screaming for impeachement and a proper investigation.

Welcome to the NPT, it's really fucking cold out here, but well worth braving the elements for.

[john white]

Hey Barbitone, you seem to be kinda where I am.

I think false tv footage was shown to cover the use of Missiles. I think it's a valuable line of investigation, and one that should be considered by all researchers (instead of just getting angry and allowing things to degrade into a slagging match).

If TV Fakery was used, then the drag-net needs to be thrown a lot wider than most "mainstream truthers" think, because there are a lot more people involved in this conspiracy.

Anyone that thinks that the No-Plane-Theory is damaging the movement and alienating potential believers needs to wake up and smell the coffee. 9/11 Truth is still a very. very fringe subject. If the groundswell of support is so very large (as 911Blogger.com and Alex Jones would have you believe), why aren't the masses marching on the Whitehouse screaming for impeachement and a proper investigation.

Welcome to the NPT, it's really fucking cold out here, but well worth braving the elements for.

Look Dave, lets get this down shall we?

I don't find anything challenging about the notion that events can be faked or footage manipulated, and don't have any preconceptions about what technology may exist outside the public eye

But making fraudulent fake documentaries is hardly the way to demonstrate any of those possibilities represent the objective reality of what happened in NYC on 9/11

Its not the idea of believing it, or the relative perception of temperature, which matters with regards to 9/11 truth: its the balance of the evidence

And when the evidence all so cleary points to 2 jet airplanes hitting the towers that day: whats the point of believing otherwise, especially on the back of manipulation, deception and fraud???


In addition, do I care about "no Planes Thoery" harming the 9/11 truth movement?

No I do not: but I do believe people self-harming by willfully decieivng themselves represents a massive waste of potential and energy

As for the deliberate perpetators of Fraud like No Planes Theory, the Fred's and Killtowns and woods of this world:

They may well rue the day they decided to decieve the 9/11 Truth movement on the basis of their arrogance and contempt for the true truthseekers

[barbitone]

Let's simplify things guys,

Let's remember that we are living in an energy field of illusions.......
We have been shown a magic trick of vast proportions either way you look at it.
Watch the supernatural looking "collapse" of the towers.
Smoking hole in the pentagon,
Smoking hole in Pennsylvania,
Media sound like robots....
Eyewitnesses sound like reporters....
All live coverage of people supporting explosions never repeated afterwards....

Mass hypnosis....

Official story laid out as the towers were smoking.
Mantras begin being used, Bin Laden, terrorism, Alkeida, fear of more attacks,
then Bush and Cheney spinning their lies and getting people on side to go and kill people for reptilian minded gains....

Movie.

Could the media be deceptive?
On the pay roll so to speak?
hmm.....

Things line up fairly well in terms of there being, perhaps more deception then most may fully realize. A lot of money moved around as a result of the 911 attacks. People got rich. People obtained power.

[sidlittle]

Thanks for the ' stonking 27 page pdf demolition of "September Clues"' White.(excuse my hint of sarcasm)

Particularly enjoyed this bit from page 5;

“Steel-slicing aluminum”

The maker of “September Clues” is once again begging the question. In order to declare that the steel building is being sliced by aluminium, one must first rule out that there is nothing assisting the planes’ entry into the Towers. Obvious possibilities include:

1. The planes were “rigged” in some way to assist their entry into the Towers.
2. The Towers were “rigged” in some way to assist the entries of the planes.
3. Both the Towers and the planes were “rigged” in order to assist the entry of the planes.

One cannot jump from the apparent physical impossibility of aluminium slicing steel, to the conclusion that this event did not take place as depicted in the videos and photographs, and that therefore this is evidence that the videos and photographs were faked. You can't draw the conclusion of No Planes/’TV Fakery’ on the grounds of physical impossibility without first ruling out that the planes or the towers - or both - were rigged in some way.
Therefore, no case has been made that there is anything impossible about what is seen in the picture.

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


Good to see Nick Irving recognises the absurdity of an aluminum tube with wings(!) melting through steel columns and reinforced concrete floors, leaving a plane-shaped , cookie-cutter, roadrunner style hole in its wake.

Tell me John, were the planes packed with explosives 'to assist their entry into the towers' or are you now less cynical about Jayhan's 'pod and missiles' theory? :)


What a Joke!

Don't get distracted people. Don't let people marginalise TV Fakery and NPT (they are not even the same thing) into some sort of cult that worships 'September clues' or the '911 researchers'.

Do look at the images again. Get hold of the DVD's which show the impacts. Cynics always like to talk about video quality, resolution, artifacts. Fuck it then. Go and get hold of the best quality available, dvd's like 'CNN America remembers' and even ' 911 in plane site' . The absurdities are even more apparent.

Once again..
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6671/wingsya6.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5541/spiegelxl1.gif

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8506/cnnkz3.gif

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2045/butterplaneyn9.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3959/fswtc2ch5.gif
:);)

[veritas2007]

It's really not hard to do: just go looking for footage of WTC2 impact

Its easy to find clear footage showing that the supposed "nose out" was nothing of the kind, but was in fact the emergent fireball of the right hand engine and landing gear emerging from the other side after impact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmRWNucPmCM&mode=related&search=

You're missing my point john, the guys debunking the videos fail to address the "nose out" footage, mearly pointing out inaccuracies in the method with which the SC creator used.

I have reveiwed footage of WTC2 and the Fox tape is the only one to show a nose shaped protrusion which the debunkers fail to address.

Out of interest, what do you make of the French film student's footage of WTC2? I've seen it on different websites and it appears the same as it does on SC.

[john white]

You're missing my point john, the guys debunking the videos fail to address the "nose out" footage, mearly pointing out inaccuracies in the method with which the SC creator used.

I have reveiwed footage of WTC2 and the Fox tape is the only one to show a nose shaped protrusion which the debunkers fail to address.

Out of interest, what do you make of the French film student's footage of WTC2? I've seen it on different websites and it appears the same as it does on SC.


It looks like I'd expect it to

With the "nose out" claim its simple misdirection: stop the film at a precise frame, declare the emergent cone on the incadascent explosion is a CGI glitch, make leading statements and repeat, often with flashing lights

Thing is, if this was a CGI trick, there would be no subsequent event after the cut off frame: it would be gone: but clearly there is a physical event, captured from multiple angles on mulitple camera all of which match up, inlcuding with known physical evidence remaining (wreckage in the streets etc): its a real event, it really happened, but the fraud and deception is in claiming it is the "nose" of the aircraft and the attempt to manipulate of the audiences perceptions, not in the event itself. It is not, it is the right hand engine and landing gear with additional fuselage debris

Thats the view of the event looking from the east like in the clip above anyway: the "nose out" from the chopper footage looking from the west is an out and out and cyncial fraud by "social services"

[veritas2007]

It looks like I'd expect it to

Sorry, I meant with reference to SC. The impact to me appears edited visually but with continuous sound. I'm no photography expert but it appears that the impact has been removed and the explanation offered by SC seems plausible.

With the "nose out" claim its simple misdirection: stop the film at a precise frame, declare the emergent cone on the incadascent explosion is a CGI glitch, make leading statements and repeat, often with flashing lights

Thing is, if this was a CGI trick, there would be no subsequent event after the cut off frame: it would be gone: but clearly there is a physical event, captured from multiple angles on mulitple camera all of which match up, inlcuding with known physical evidence remaining (wreckage in the streets etc): its a real event, it really happened, but the fraud and deception is in claiming it is the "nose" of the aircraft and the attempt to manipulate of the audiences perceptions, not in the event itself. It is not, it is the right hand engine and landing gear with additional fuselage debris

Thats the view of the event looking from the east like in the clip above anyway: the "nose out" from the chopper footage looking from the west is an out and out and cyncial fraud by "social services"

I hear what you are saying john and I'm onboard with the theory of an inside job. Until all of the questions are answered, I will be as skeptical of the official version of events as many other people.

I do not discount the possibility of CGI as this is a plausible theory when you consider the many inaccuracies of the day. The physical event after the nose out incident is not disputed by SC and IF it was a misile that hit, then the physical event would be consistant with said misile hit.

The wreckage can be explained: would you agree that airplane parts could have been present in the empty floors of the building?

Like everyone else, I don't know what happend on that day fact by fact and I prefer to remain open minded on the subject. I thought the SC creator put an overall, good point of view across.

[john white]

The wreckage can be explained: would you agree that airplane parts could have been present in the empty floors of the building?

Well could is something of a magic word, isnt it? There could have been aircraft parts rigged to be exploded out of the building, the same as there could have been 10,000 gallons of aircraft fuel ready to "create" the fireball stashed inside the tower (google cruise missile hits, the fireball is clearly much much larger than that produced by missile detonations), the same as there could have been shaped charges placed on the outside of the towers ready to detonate to create the aircraft shape exact matching hole with steel bent inwards, and there could have been teams of experts ready to deploy wreckage strategically across the streets and rooftops, and NYC could have been wired for sound to create the sound of aircraft flying overhead, and everybody with a camera capturing the events in NYC could have been working for the "perps"

But should we consider the above "could" scenarios as being the highest probability explanation for the known evidence of events?

For me that choice is NO: and fraud on the part of the maker of September Clues is now established with clear evidence that HAS to be addressed if the scenario could continue to be considered valid on the evidence presented

[veritas2007]

I don't disagree that the SC series contains flaws as I mentioned initially with the Theresa Renaud comment but imo it is wrong to ignore much of the visual and audio evidence which highlights discepencies in the live footage.

Your emphasis on my use of the word 'could' is just semantics. Rephrased:

Would you agree that when you consider the hypothesis of a government plan to carry out the attacks on the day, the placement of aircraft wreckage at the scene by surreptitious methods is possible?

To quote the debunkers of SC:

"The “Fades to Black” could be caused by interference to the signal which is external to the TV stations, thus affecting both networks simultaneously and in much the same way."

Page 4 of debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

If you or anyone else has come to their own conclusions on how the events of 9/11 unfolded that's fine. Personally, I am still investigating those events and it would be wrong of me to discount all theories or aspects until I had reached my conclusion.

[barbitone]

inlcuding with known physical evidence remaining (wreckage in the streets etc): its a real event, it really happened,

What physical evidence is this John? I haven't seen it or even heard about it...
Any chance you can direct me to where I could see physical evidence of plane debri on 911?

[veritas2007]

What physical evidence is this John? I haven't seen it or even heard about it...
Any chance you can direct me to where I could see physical evidence of plane debri on 911?

I don't mean to steal john's thunder here, but several photos were posted in another thread (which I can't find right now!) but here are some of those pics which I found on google images:

http://nomoregames.net/911/helping_jones/WTC5_debris.jpg

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/engine.jpg

[veritas2007]

Found the thread.....

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9698&highlight=planes&page=10

[john white]

I don't mean to steal john's thunder here, but several photos were posted in another thread (which I can't find right now!) but here are some of those pics which I found on google images:

http://nomoregames.net/911/helping_jones/WTC5_debris.jpg

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/engine.jpg

No thunder stolen. That and the other stuff on the thread are a fair sample

[barbitone]

Cheers Veratis.:) See I've never seen these pics, so the plot thickens.:D

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations:

To the 'best of my knowledge' the Nose-Cones of these Aerocraft are formed from a Materiel known as Aluminium. A Light Weight Metal. Maybe Carbon Graphite?

For the Nose-Cone to remain intact, and not grossly deformed, after plowing through Steel, Aluminium, Glass, Steel Reinfoced Concrete, Steel Beams & Columns, Cube Farms, the Nose-Cone would have had to be Fabricated from the Materiel known as Unobtainium, the rarest & most expensive of all Metals.

Twice as costly as No*drillium

Messenger White: Correlation of perceived trajectories, asto known Debris on Ground. Is there a 'Comprehensive Debris Map'?

Would this Nose-Cone, exiting from the Known Face of the Tower, have landed where they found the engine or landing gear?

A Case of 'Mistaken Identity'?.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[john white]

Good to see Nick Irving recognises the absurdity of an aluminum tube with wings(!) melting through steel columns and reinforced concrete floors, leaving a plane-shaped , cookie-cutter, roadrunner style hole in its wake.

Tell me John, were the planes packed with explosives 'to assist their entry into the towers' or are you now less cynical about Jayhan's 'pod and missiles' theory?

I'm not cynical at all: merely deidicated to seeing "what is": and as an adult I don't have to concur with 100% of anyone elses POV in order to hold that their over all thesis is sound. Being as you asked, my opinion is that the mass and velocity of the planes was more than sufficient to allow them to break through the lighter construction of the exterior of the towers without the need for any "enhancments"

And being as you have chosen to use the image from killtown site regarding "what a bird does to a plane", lets expose another peice of Killtown's fraudulent behaviour

the comment and picture below were posted by killtown on this forum ( www.nineeleven.co.uk ) on Thursday 4th October....

Just look what a bird does to a wing

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Hanisko/3423.jpg


the next day he was corrected by Chek, as follows....


As the placement of the BuAer serial number shows, that is actually a hollow, non-fuel filled tail plane (NOT a wing) at the rear of a Beech King Air (or T-44A trainer to the US Navy)

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/T-44A-161058-1.jpg


killtown's response?

on his own NPT sockpuppet forum on 17th October, he started a new thread with the title "Wings, too fragile for birds" and this image as the opening post....

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6671/wingsya6.jpg

:roll:

I think it was merely trying to illustrate how easily a plane's wings can be damaged when they collide with airbourne objects. THAT is the point. That point is well shown in these photographs.

No, not at all and far from it.
The first point is finding out what happened on 911.
The second point is that Killtown is manipulating the perceptions of the ignorant who hang on his every word, as your completely unevidenced defence clearly shows.

Even after being warned, did you think to check for yourself?

Of course you didn't.
That would require some effort on your part and God forbid why would you do that?

Much easier just to take good old Killtown's worthless word for it.

The main point is that aircraft structures are designed to handle the loads they will encounter using the absolute minimum weight, and the tailplane of that Beech T-44A trainer is designed to handle the loads applied by an aircraft in the 11,000lb max take off weight class, and is built accordingly to handle those stresses.
Beechcraft King Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To even insinuate it is comparable in strength to the tailplane of a B767 designed to handle the loads applied by an aircraft in the 400,000lb max take off weight class, let alone be comparable to the fuel-filled wings (and remember - liquids are not compressible) of an aircraft structure capable of supporting that much weight in flight, and then slamming it down onto the deck at 180+mph for decade after decade is grossly misleading.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

As we're comparing like with like, here's an actual B767 tailplane after flying through a flock of Canada geese. If you look closely, you can just see the dings.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/B767tailplane.jpg

Because I'm honest, I'll also include the damage done to a wing slat in the same incident, which as you can see, bent the thin metal between the ribs on the slat.

Note, that's not the main wing structure itself, but the lightweight movable hi-lift airfoil that deploys from the leading edge at slow speed to increase lift.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/B767slat2.jpg
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80113

All of which is probably a complete waste of time.
When have cultists ever been open to reason or logic when belief is so much less work?

[john white]

Cordial Felicitations:

To the 'best of my knowledge' the Nose-Cones of these Aerocraft are formed from a Materiel known as Aluminium. A Light Weight Metal. Maybe Carbon Graphite?

For the Nose-Cone to remain intact, and not grossly deformed, after plowing through Steel, Aluminium, Glass, Steel Reinfoced Concrete, Steel Beams & Columns, Cube Farms, the Nose-Cone would have had to be Fabricated from the Materiel known as Unobtainium, the rarest & most expensive of all Metals.

Twice as costly as No*drillium

Messenger White: Correlation of perceived trajectories, asto known Debris on Ground. Is there a 'Comprehensive Debris Map'?

Would this Nose-Cone, exiting from the Known Face of the Tower, have landed where they found the engine or landing gear?

A Case of 'Mistaken Identity'?.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

To some extent, its a grey area, as its difficult to ascertain exactly when various photos were taken and if any of the debris may have moved prior to photography as a result of the clean up. As no air crash investigation has ever taken place regarding any of the alledged planes on 9/11 (and I say that becuase evidence of a plane at the pentagon and shanksville remains poor: not in itself proof that a plane was not there) a detailed mapping of the exact placement of debris was never done

However, there is a high level of certainity that the larger pecies of debris have been documented in situ, and this was documented in the NIST report. The following diagram is also entirely consistant with the video evidence:

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/5472/wtccomplexoverviewcr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[matrixcutter]

I'm not sure if this has already come up, and hopefully there won't be more naughty points in it for me if it has, but if there were no planes, why would one of the "planes" have hit the second tower at an angle and on the edge instead of head on and more centrally?

I'm not suggesting that this question proves anything at all, but I would be interested in an answer.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations:

Messenger White: Thank You

Silly me, I forgot there were no Crash Investigations.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[travisbickle]

However, there is a high level of certainity that the larger pecies of debris have been documented in situ, and this was documented in the NIST report. The following diagram is also entirely consistant with the video evidence:

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/5472/wtccomplexoverviewcr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



Who NIST and FEMA to support their beliefs about what happened on 911?

[john white]

WhoNIST and FEMA to support their beliefs about what happened on 911?

nice of you to drop in... and nice of you to show that you have no defence to offer of "september clues" in the light of it being exposed as fraudulent deception

As for your question, if you had a genuine understanding of how spin and manipulation are used you would know that they cannot be based on fantasy, but on mostly fact. The problems with the FEMA and NIST reports is not in the evidence gathering, but the conclusions derived at from that evidence

In the meanwhile, the problem for No Planes theory is that its evidence is imaginary

If your ready to stop letting liars distract you from being an effective campaigner, its never to late to give Fred and co the finger they deserve and come in from the cold and fearful land they have dumped you in

[sidlittle]

Cheers Veratis.:) See I've never seen these pics, so the plot thickens.:D

oh christ, the 'found under a canopy', 'non-757 engine' pictures have been dragged out again!! :rolleyes:

What is that about if you repeat a lie often enough??...


No time for this now, I have a world cup final to watch

[castle]

Thinking they would go to all of the trouble of planting a huge part of an engine in the street smashing the floor up to make it look like it landed there and by mistake use the wrong engine part is laughable. Loose change attempts the same thing with the Pentagon parts. The trick they use is they contact a subsidiary of the company that makes the engine but the not that particular one. When they are told its not part of any engine that person has seen they take it as not being part of any engine that company makes. Its like going to a ford car plant showing a worker part from a ford truck and asking if they make that and because they dont assuming that ford dont make that part.

I have to laugh at the pilots for truth rubbish. They say the data recorder shows the plane didn't hit the building because of its height. So if the plane didn't hit someone must have planted a data recorder with information showing the plane didn't hit. Why would you do that? What pilots for truth dont let on and must know is the electronics use (the pressure transducer) to measure altitude were not designed to work and do not work at such a low altitude at such a high speed. They are simply not calibrated or designed to do that and thats why there are false readings on the data recorder the equipment failed.

[john white]

Well castle, noting you appear to be something of a 9/11 sceptic, I take it you can at least confirm you consider "september clues" to be load of hoey. Not sure thats overall helpful from my POV, but thats the way it goes

But could you link the Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim you are referencing? Thanks.

Being as it plays no part directly in examining the fraud of "september clues" though, a new topic would be appreciated to look at "Pilots", if that is what you wish to do

[john white]

Still lost in space then Prole? September Clues is in tatters, come back and deal when you've become grown up enough

I tell you what, i'll do you a deal:

If your so sure about this "rise" of your point of view, go onto the Uk forum and make a Poll in General chat:

Do you think the case for No Planes TV fakery has been Proved?

YES
NO
or UNDECIDED

You and I both know you havnt got the balls: bet you can't get over 5%

[castle]

Hi John,

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has already been mentioned in this thread at least once by yourself. You posted:

Well, the key factor with Pilots for 9/11 Truth is that they don't make unsubstantiated claims, and to date not a single fault has been found examining their information


Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim the data shows the plane was to high to have hit the pentagon.

The assumptions they come up with from examining the data can be called into question. As i said The pressure transducer is not optimized (calibrated) to accurately record at low altitudes and very high speeds. They base their assumption that the plane was flying to high to hit the building on a piece of information from a piece of equipment that is well known and expected to give false readings in the very situation the plane was in. Pilots would know this i wonder why they forgot to mention it.

Point taken about the new thread. I my mind its not worth it though people see pilots and what they want to hear and clap along even though Pilots for 9/11 Truth contains only a few pilots and most other pilots disagree with them. I find it strange that people disregard information because its from experts unless the experts agree with them.

[john white]

Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim the data shows the plane was to high to have hit the pentagon

I thought thats what you meant. I understood the claim was that the plane was too high to hit the lamp-posts, not the bulding? To the best of my knowledge, Pilots have not made any definative claims that what hit the pentagon was NOT a Boeing. But 9/11 research is a big place, and I can't keep up with everything, so it may be that I'm out of date

Thanks for the reply, a new thread would be welcome if you wanted to

I find it strange that people disregard information because its from experts unless the experts agree with them

Humanity, tell me about it! One has to Love 'em (yes that means you Prole: and you as well sid)

[castle]

I'm with you on that fact they have never claimed what hit the building.

Your right they claim too high to hit the lampposts. I could have bloody sworn they also said the plane flew over the building although i could be wrong I'll have another look. Either way using data supplied by the altimeter in that situation makes me wonder where their heads are at.

[dave52]

The engine in the street... And trust me, I don't actually know the answer to this, but was it, or was it not the correct engine for the alleged plane.
Important question, with a yes / no answer.

[john white]

The engine in the street... And trust me, I don't actually know the answer to this, but was it, or was it not the correct engine for the alleged plane.
Important question, with a yes / no answer.

It appears so, but we still don't know for sure: no crash investigation, remember? Pilots for 9/11 Truth was trying to get parts numbers for all recoevered parts in the last report I heard, and I assume they still are, but so far its a forlorn hope. It hasn't been proved to be the wrong engine anyway, which obviously would be something the NPT'ers would do if they could

I'm going to assume your going to say it wasnt Dave, so I hope for your sake your not about to drag up something off Killtowns site.... becuase trust me, its not what it appears to be

[dave52]

I'm going to assume your going to say it wasnt Dave, so I hope for your sake your not about to drag up something off Killtowns site....

No, no, no. Just a question is all.

[john white]

No, no, no. Just a question is all.

Well, I apologise for assuming! :)

[sidlittle]

Originally Posted by dave52
The engine in the street... And trust me, I don't actually know the answer to this, but was it, or was it not the correct engine for the alleged plane.
Important question, with a yes / no answer.

Originally Posted by john white
It appears so, but we still don't know for sure..
I'm going to assume your going to say it wasnt Dave, so I hope for your sake your not about to drag up something off Killtowns site....

No, no, no. Just a question is all.

THIS PORTION OF THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED DUE TO UNNECESSARY INSUTLS DIRECTED AT ANOTHER POSTER. _ Limelady

This is an example of killtowns work regardless of one's opinions on how the actualities of the event panned out;

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

Now what the fck has white ever brought to the party?

Actually, I tell you what,I have never seen him work so hard over the last few months telling you what didn't happen.

Noticed his posts recently ? The constant 'LOL's' and 'ROFL's ' , the perpetual attempts at ridicule. Oh yes, good old 'infinite love is the only truth' John White the 'philosopher'.

EDITED OUT INSULTS


-Back to the engine..

Dave, what do you reckon my friend ? Check out the engine found at Church and Murray Street in the first pic. See a problem here?!
Sorry that second pic is a bit small but I'm sure you can see that chap under the engine..




http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/engine.jpg


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:syesHNSmx7kPJM:http://www.utc.com/images/pressroom/2002-04-15_f117.jpg


http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aerospace/images/photos/rb211535e4_02.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/s911surprise3b/american_airlines_flight_77/boeing-com-757-767-engine-v-human.jpg



BREAKING NEWS: Marwan Al-Shehhi captured on CCTV before boarding cartoon flight 175 that was remotely flown into the south tower

http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/Action_Man_Eagle_Eye_toy_soldier_1976.jpg

[john white]

Well Sid, there you go, falling right into the trap, becuase whats on the deck in murray street is not the outer engine but the inner turbine...

Thats right, it no look same size as tha outside before being fucked up crashing through skyscrapper, getting mangled, set on fire, and then exploding half way down into fragments, as shown in the video evidence when NOT BEING FAKED AND MESSED WITH BY NO PLANE FRAUDSTERS!

See, you really don't have a clue mate becuase what your looking for is to believe in sci-fi!

But no, believe sid, yeah, becuase it no looks to sid so it no can be trooo....

You DESERVE ROFL!

COMMENT DELETED - Limelady

[john white]

And becuase I know you need reminding...

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.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-01.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-02.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-03.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-06-07.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-04.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-05.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-08.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-09.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-10.jpg

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.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/SC-11.jpg

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.

(I missed the eleventh pic out this time)

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’.

[john white]

The really sad thing is Sid is that you really beleive I'm so kind of disruption agent working for "them" rather than the proletariet scum living on a estate that I am. Thats what FEAR does for you just becuase I have standards and insist on THINKING

[dave52]

Don't let this fool intimidate you.

Oh, don't worry, I'm not intimidated. Just trying to avoid an argument (no matter how much people in this thread want one). I'm still firmly in the Missile/TV Fakery camp. I've been into this a long, long time. I realise that 9/11 is just a small part of a much bigger picture and looking at that picture I believe Nico Haupt is making quite a lot of sense, even if his delivery isn't always brilliant.

I'm old enough to make my own decisions based on the information available...
:D

[veritas2007]

Thinking they would go to all of the trouble of planting a huge part of an engine in the street smashing the floor up to make it look like it landed there and by mistake use the wrong engine part is laughable.....

I posted this a few pages back:

....Would you agree that when you consider the hypothesis of a government plan to carry out the attacks on the day, the placement of aircraft wreckage at the scene by surreptitious methods is possible?

The fact that no aircrash investigation took place is also laughable but easily prevents anyone from proving otherwise with regards to authenticity of the parts found.

[john white]

The fact that no aircrash investigation took place is also laughable but easily prevents anyone from proving otherwise with regards to authenticity of the parts found.

Aklternatively, it allows the slim chance that aircraft wreckage was spread across the rooftops of New York and large chunks explosively fired out of pre-placed postions onto the streets below to remain alive in the minds of No Planes Theorists in defiance of any sniff of evidence to back up the claim...

But being as the entire "TV FAkery" case has been shown to be a fraud perpetrated by "No Planers", that slim chance has reduced itself to the thickness of a frayed cotton thread

[veritas2007]

Like I've said previously; the Theresa Renaud edited sound bite mystifies me. Why would SS change that to substantiate his claim - I'd like to know his motivation (I'm asuming its a 'he').

One of the things that struck me about SC was the shot from the Fox chopper and the fact that it didn't capture the incoming plane.

From debunkingseptemberclues.pdf:

• When the plane is not visible in the wider-shot, this could be due to it being obscured by clouds and/or smog, or simply because the plane is not in-frame yet.

That old 'could' word has popped up again. It 'could' have easily been swamp gas reflecting the light from Venus that obscured the plane. The debunkers offer no alternate theory or evidence here.

• Safeguards – to ponder whether they had safeguards is begging the question, as it assumes as a premise that some act of fakery was taking place. This has not been proven.

That is correct then again, many things from the fateful day have not been proven. Isn't that the point of the 9/11 truth movement?

• To declare that the “Safeguard was 17 seconds” is again begging the question. It has not been established that there were computer operators, a safeguard, or that it is the reason for the 17 second gap between the seismic records and the official version events. This point, as presented by “September Clues”, is all speculation and does not constitute evidence of any act of “‘TV Fakery’”.

To be fair, there is also some speculation from the Debunkers.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything here however, the above illustrates that two wrongs don't make a right. The Debunkers are guilty of using similar/same arguments as SS.

I'm still researching 9/11 and at this stage, I'm not ruling anything out. What I find somewhat distasteful though is the inference of having to subscribe to a particular school of thought and the subsequent flag waving. Why do you guys feel the need to label each other in such a manner and the necessity to fight your corner?

[john white]

Why do you guys feel the need to label each other in such a manner and the necessity to fight your corner?


It's all a big self-fulfilling prophecy

[john white]

Tested that out with a poll on the uk 9/11 site yet Prole?

[castle]

The fact that no aircrash investigation took place is also laughable but easily prevents anyone from proving otherwise with regards to authenticity of the parts found.

You have an air crash investigation to determine what happened. Explain why you would have one when you know what happened.

Plane was crashed into building intentionally.
Plane was crashed into building intentionally.
Plane was crashed into building intentionally.
plane crashed into ground while passengers tried to regain control from hijackers.

Whats to investigate? Nothing failed on the plane it wasnt pilot error whats left to know from an investigation?

[teslafire]

INSULTING COMMENT REMOVED - Limelady

If this above comment is moderated then I will have to ask, again, that the same level of scrutiny is shown in all of Mr. White's postings.

And just to let those concerned know, this isn't about anyone's feelings getting hurt, its about disruption and standing up to attempted intellectual intimidation.

We can play this game two ways:

1) Free for all where Mr. White is allowed to filibuster like a EDITED OUT and thus provoke a mediocre atmosphere of thought and debate

2) We can follow the given forum guidelines

I remind moderators and those concerned that in all interactions you will consistently find Mr. White as the provacateur.

Many people are very curious as to what exactly proving the NPT means in the grand scope of things.

'9/11 is still an inside job'

Yes, this is true. Who would you like to see brought to justice for this crime?

Bush, Cheney and PNAC?

No, they are only bit players...scapegoats...the scope may be bigger

Some would argue that the 9/11 conspiracy is so obvious that it was meant to be exposed:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10562

I believe 9/11 is a PRS with the solution being an overthrow of the American sovereignty...I'm no american sentimentalist: all I wish to expose is the dialectic at play.

[john white]

I tell you what Tesla, why don't you address the evidence of massive fraud constituting "September Clues"?

Personal comments removed

There's a lot lot more expose of Simon Shack that could be done btw, knowing people caught up in the No-Planes dis-information campaign so well having had the misfortune to moderate them and their behaviors for over a year on a volunteer basis, I know that there is a tendency to do anything BUT look what is presented in the face

Personal comments removed

Its the old "fool me once" (official story): shame on you "Fool me twice" (NPT CULT): shame on ME story

Personal comments removed

[teslafire]

White -

We've done this merry go round on two threads that are now on page 2.

Removed

Its pointless to debate with you because the best counter-evidence you have are official photos of an oddly placed aircraft engine and the backing of "eyewitnesses" paraded out by the controlled media.

Removed

[john white]

Hardly Tesla, theres hard evidence on this thread, its not my responsibility if people don't want to address it

Personal comments removed

[teslafire]

Are you trying to be a completely disingenous, EDITED INSULT or does it come natural?

If I had suffered through a crisis (and no...I haven't), I somehow think that your concern about it may not be in the most positive light?

But thanks anyways

:)

[limelady]

Well you've all proven you cannot act in an adult and responsible manner when talking about such a serious topic.

Lack of moderation you say?

Well try this for size!

Thread closed!

[limelady]

Since two of you have asked that this thread be reopened, I've reviewed the entire thread and have decided to re-open it. But you will find there have been some comments and insulting posts removed or edited out.

I was going to give you all the drill on forum etiquette and how unnecessary it is to insult others if your arguments are sound etc, etc, but you're all grown people here so I am going to trust you will try and keep this thread on track, without hijacking or insults from here on.

Lets see how it goes. ;)

[veritas2007]

You have an air crash investigation to determine what happened. Explain why you would have one when you know what happened.

Plane was crashed into building intentionally.
Plane was crashed into building intentionally.
Plane was crashed into building intentionally.
plane crashed into ground while passengers tried to regain control from hijackers.

Whats to investigate? Nothing failed on the plane it wasnt pilot error whats left to know from an investigation?

Castle

I don't know whether you are playing Devil's Advocate or whether you believe the 9/11 Commission's Official Report but either way, according to Order 8020.11B - AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT NOTIFICATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REPORTING issued by the FAA 16th August 2000 (as shown on http://www.faa.gov/); Chapter 2 - FAA ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN NOTIFICATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REPORTING, Section 30 - OFFICE OF ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION. , Section B, paragraph 2:

(2) Conducts independent FAA investigations, as required, in major air carrier accidents or incidents; accidents associated with FAA licensed commercial space activities; significant commuter, air taxi, or general aviation accidents or incidents which reflect a lack of safety consciousness; and accidents and incidents that are catastrophic or involve recurring safety problems.

Source: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aai/orders_forms/media/8020_11b.pdf

Text in Underlined Boldface by Veritas2007

I don't buy into the official story and I don't buy into your over simplified view of 9/11 - NPT or not.

[i_am]

Ok everyone. We reopened this thread trusting everyone to act like responsible adults.

I have just been through and removed yet more personal stuff. Any more of that stuff and this thread WILL be closed again and sent to the rant room. That would be a shame because it COULD be a good debate.

So...The only criteria for avoiding that result is to stay on topic and debate for or against, without the need to make personal observations and or attacks/exposés of the poster.

[john white]

Time for a bump