September Clues Analysis, and debunk Options

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

The film (PP2) indicates no such thing. The film does NOT say that.

(In fact I think there were probably around three aircraft involved in the Pentagon attack)

Furthermore, just because they did something one way in Washington or Pennsylvania doesn't mean they should do the same in New York, honestly, that's just ridiculous.

1. I ment, that PBB2 Shows, that, by the FDR Output, the Plane would be to high ore to low to hit the building. And so PBB2 Indicates clearly that NO Boeing could hit the Pentagon, if the altimeter was set corect ore incorrect!

2. Mr. you talk about redicules, so why then dont be so smart to present a logical reason, why would they do so?
Why not hijack 4 Planes when you allready hijack 2 Planes?
Why take even more risk?

[Sanders]

Please answer my question:

Where is the Logic to use Planes at the WTC and use none in Shanks/Pentagon!
What is the Logic behind this.

Why use Planes, on WTC when they dident used them for Shanks/Penta?

Why dident use 4 real Planes if they allready would use 2?

Give me a clue what you think!

Well, by what logic should we expect that each aspect of the attack was engineered the same? The Pentagon was a much more controlled environment, and there weren't any news cameras trained on it as was the case with the 2nd tower hit. I'm not saying there were or weren't planes in NY, I'm just addressing this supposed "logic" that you speak of. I don't see any reason why the different events wouldn't be engineered differently to accomodate different circumstances. You said, "they didn't used them for Shanks/Penta?" - but clearly they did use planes at the Pentagon, in fact one or two too many. It's just that none of them crashed into the building apparently. See my point?

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Well, by what logic should we expect that each aspect of the attack was engineered the same?

That is my point. The only reason planes become support on the WTC Scene is because of the Footage. And the Footage cant be verified by any instance. Has any investigation ever checked the realy original footage, on the original Tape?
Without the unverified footage there is the same lack of evidence like in shanksville and the pentagon scene.
The footage never mad its way, for a good reason, into any investigation!
Eyewitnesses and footage never even got mention in the Report ore to a
cross examination.
And this is what ppl have realy to realize, that the only proof for planes on 911 is the fishy NTSB Radarstudy, while on 911 there was a wargame called "Northern Vigilance"
which was about to implant dots on radar screens to simulate air-attacks!
The credebility of this only and last evidence is -100

but clearly they did use planes at the Pentagon, in fact one or two too many. It's just that none of them crashed into the building apparently. See my point?

Yes i fully agree! But you have to see my point and this is:
There was a reason to Crash NO Planes in Shanks/Pens, so the perps went for a very high risk to get uncoverd, but they did it that way, so there was a realy good reason to do so.

So i mean its not enough reason to say and agree there where no planes on shanks/Pens while you admit there where some on WTC because u saw them on TV, ore there where "maybe" (cant be verified too) Newschannels arround.

greetz mvb

[Sanders]

Well, by what logic should we expect that each aspect of the attack was engineered the same?

That is my point. The only reason planes become support on the WTC Scene is because of the Footage. And the Footage cant be verified by any instance. Has any investigation ever checked the realy original footage, on the original Tape?
Without the unverified footage there is the same lack of evidence like in shanksville and the pentagon scene.

Thank you.

I would love to see some conclusive evidence one way or the other - the presence of conflicting or unverifiable evidence leaves much room for disagreement and you wind up with everyone bickering and chasing their tail endlessly... (This is of course by design I believe.)

[Sue]

(Sanders)

unverifiable evidence leaves much room for disagreement and you wind up with everyone bickering and chasing their tail endlessly... (This is of course by design I believe.)

I think if we keep it here in Alternative Theories we're not doing any harm.

Quote from BoneZ:
(Little smilie shaking it's head)

BoneZ, I'm open to the idea of 9/11 Octopus being disinfo, but a shaking head tells me nothing, and makes me wonder what exactly is your criticism?

This film is loaded with powerful information against the perps of 9/11, more than just the NPT. It really makes them look evil. And the film gives links to many websites, encouraging the viewer to do more research. Why would a perp release such a film?

This post has been edited by Sue: Jul 23 2007, 04:57 PM

[Beached]

More lies from the Pentacon Hoax artists.

Bonez, I watched the two documentaries you linked to, and it's clear to me that you're just trying to promote some ridiculous theory of yours and didn't do any work.  There is clearly something wrong with the videos on 9/11, but it may have been necessary for the government to take over the airwaves in order to help fight the war on terror.

You should be very ashamed of your lies and misrepresentation.  You're helping the terrorists.

Are these govt loyalists really as stupid as they seem, or is this a carefully designed ploy to distract us from our work?

Sarah, just for my own amusement, I want you to clarify the following for me:

You're helping the terrorists.

1) Who do you believe the terrorists to be?

2) By debunking disinformation, i.e. NPT, exactly how are we helping said terrorists?

There is clearly something wrong with the videos on 9/11, but it may have been necessary for the government to take over the airwaves in order to help fight the war on terror.

So, you're implying that our "knights in shining armour" were already fighting the bogus "war on terror" by taking over the airwaves before the second plane struck?? ROFL!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I suggest that next time you carefully re-think your comments before spewing such nonesence!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by Beached: Aug 24 2007, 01:26 PM

[simonshack]

So, you're implying that our "knights in shining armour" were already fighting the bogus "war on terror" by taking over the airwaves before the second plane struck?? ROFL!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I suggest that next time you carefully re-think your comments before spewing such nonesence!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

I have watched and compared (on split-screen) synchronized pairs of broadcasts. What gives away the fact that they're NOT live is simply those helicopters that are speeding back and forth on the screen : on many occasions you'll have a chopper passing over the towers on one channel and not on the other. Case closed . All broadcasts were faked, full stop.

In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). As one overlays these apparently different shots (Empire State is either on left or right of the twin towers, suggesting vastly different camera angles) we may see that the entire background matches up perfectly (buildings' relative spacing/angles/size) and in spite of the totally different vantage point. Again, case closed : not real images. Period.

Everyone really needs to set aside old assumptions now, because the proof of faked broadcasts is incontrovertible.

Keep up the good work, everyone.

www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Everyone really needs to set aside old assumptions now, because the proof of faked broadcasts is incontrovertible.

Only in your and a small few others eyes. Most everybody else can see through the bs that is no-planes/tv fakery. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[simonshack]

............................................................

I have watched and compared (on split-screen) various synchronized pairs of high resolution broadcasts (between 8:50 - 10:00). What gives away the fact that they cannot be live as is simply those helicopters that are speeding back and forth on the screen : on several occasions you'll have a chopper passing over the towers on one network and not on the other. It is simply not there. Case closed. All broadcasts were faked, full stop.

In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). As one overlays these apparently different shots (Empire State is either on left or right of the twin towers, suggesting widely different camera angles) we may see that the entire background matches up perfectly (buildings' relative spacing/angles/size) and in spite of the totally different vantage point. This, of course, is just impossible.

It's about time many 911 researchers revised old assumptions now - the proof of faked broadcasts is incontrovertible. Thanks for your kind attention.

socialservice

[p.w.rapp]

@simonshack

I am just watching this
http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice


Seems as if this is a piece of evidence like Sanders said earlier in this thread:

I would love to see some conclusive evidence one way or the other - the presence of conflicting or unverifiable evidence leaves much room for disagreement and you wind up with everyone bickering and chasing their tail endlessly... (This is of course by design I believe.)

I'm becoming more and more interested.

[Sanders]

...Case closed. All broadcasts were faked, full stop.

Adhering to this attitude is your perogative of course, but I don't think it will help you win over the minds very many people, and more unfortunately, possibly hinder your own potential to learn things you don't already know.

...................

"In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). As one overlays these apparently different shots (Empire State is either on left or right of the twin towers, suggesting widely different camera angles) we may see that the entire background matches up perfectly (buildings' relative spacing/angles/size) and in spite of the totally different vantage point. This, of course, is just impossible."

This statement is inaccurate. The "background" is very far from the Empire State Building, moving the camera position to where the Empire State Building, which is much closer to the camera, appears to the left or right of the Trade Towers will not appreciably change the positioning of buildings that far away. This is kid stuff, perspective 101.

Should I take this statement, "In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). " - to mean that you are in fact the maker of September Clues?

Should I take this statement, "In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). " - to mean that you are in fact the maker of September Clues?

Yes, Sanders. This is "socialservice", the maker of "September Clues".

[p.w.rapp]

Seems as if this is a piece of evidence like Sanders said earlier in this thread:

I would love to see some conclusive evidence one way or the other - the presence of conflicting or unverifiable evidence leaves much room for disagreement and you wind up with everyone bickering and chasing their tail endlessly... (This is of course by design I believe.)

I'm getting more and more interested.

Precisely, Sanders.

I mentioned earlier, that I know the author of a 9/11 book (NPT), who is doing a tremendous job calculating camera angles and positions of the life feeds.

I'll go back and reread this book now and keep my nose out of this discussion until I'm finished.

CU
Zap

[simonshack]

"Sanders", I understand, is the author of these 2 paragraphs :

I would love to see some conclusive evidence one way or the other - the presence of conflicting or unverifiable evidence leaves much room for disagreement and you wind up with everyone bickering and chasing their tail endlessly... (This is of course by design I believe.)

Then, responding to me (socialservice/simonshack) he deplores that I sound too sure of my own claims :

Adhering to this attitude is your perogative of course, but I don't think it will help you win over the minds very many people, and more unfortunately, possibly hinder your own potential to learn things you don't already know.

So, I will kindly ask Sanders : what exactly is a man supposed to do when reaching to a conclusion and verifiable evidence ? Just pretend to be doubting about one's owns findings in order not to ruffle other people's opinions?

I am providing that 'conclusive evidence' you were wishing for. If you are able to counterargue convincingly the strongest claims (there are of course weaker claims - no one's perfect) presented in September Clues 7, you are by all means free to do so.

Yet, your attempt to disprove the 2 Empire State shots is not a good start. The two shots (CBS vs NBC) are impossible. It should be clear to anyone with the most elementary notions of perspective.

I hardly ever write on forums because I've always believed my time was better spent on research. I'm not going to start now joining the endless bickering and tail-chasing but I will, perhaps, intervene if I read less than serious "debunking" attempts.

Thanks to all for your interest in the subject - and for not joining the recent, widespread censorship antics related to it.


socialservice



edited above quote - remarks by socialservice
Zap

[painter]

<s>
Yet, your attempt to disprove the 2 Empire State shots is not a good start.  The two shots (CBS vs NBC) are impossible. It should be clear to anyone with the most elementary notions of perspective.

I'll point everyone to this thread: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...wtopic=8601&hl= where, about half-way down, Waterdancer begins to explore this question. I have no opinion about it yet.

I hardly ever write on forums because I've always believed my time was better spent on research. I'm not going to start now joining the endless bickering and tail-chasing but I will, perhaps, intervene if I read less than serious "debunking"  attempts.

Your participation is welcome so long as it remains civil (on everyone's part) and focused on the evidence and not the personalities involved.

Thanks to all for your interest in the subject - and for not joining the recent, widespread censorship antics related to it.

Many are not interested in this subject but some of us are. Personally, I'm hoping that something definitive will come of the discussion one way or the other. The trick is to keep the conversation on topic and civil. None of us here get paid to do this -- it is a labor of necessity. And none of us are 'trained' -- we're just folk trying to do the best we can. By all means, focus on your research -- and if you find something of special interest, don't hesitate to bring it to our attention. Members of this forum have largely (but not exclusively) been focused on the Pentagon anomalies and have paid less attention to WTC, news video of Manhattan, etc. So, think of this as a kind of cross-pollination, perhaps. Hopefully you will review some of our research re the alleged Flight 77 FDR.

[Sanders]

...So, I will kindly ask Sanders : what exactly is a man supposed to do when reaching to a conclusion and verifiable evidence ? Just pretend to be doubting about one's owns findings in order not to ruffle other people's opinions?

I am providing that 'conclusive evidence' you were wishing for. If you are able to counterargue convincingly the strongest claims (there are of course weaker claims -  no one's perfect) presented in September Clues 7, you are by all means free to do so.

Yet, your attempt to disprove the 2 Empire State shots is not a good start.  The two shots (CBS vs NBC) are impossible. It should be clear to anyone with the most elementary notions of perspective....

Thank you, simonshack, for your politeness. I will try to treat you with the same respect and at at the same time heed painter's request, but I have some serious issues with your claim about background buildings.

Here is what is presented in Sept. Clues #7:

(IMG:http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6269/banknylu6.jpg)

You say, "Remember that over at CBS, they had the Empire State to the right of the towers" - then, in the next shot, "With a surprisingly similar background...", then, "In fact 100% similar" ... meanwhile you superimpose the two shots to show than the buildings downtown you have selected are in the same places.

Well, they are not "100%" in the same places, they are nearly in the same places, as they should be.

This is the Bank of New York @ 101 Barklay Street
(IMG:http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3879/bankny2gx9.jpg)
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101bar...yorkcity-ny-usa

Here I have matched the size of the two images you compare and lined the towers up perfectly, watch what happens to the position of the Bank of New York:

(IMG:http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5912/desktop2dx1.gif)

It moves (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Why does it move? Because the camera angles are slightly different. Why doesn't it move more? Because the Bank of New York is only two blocks away from the WTC. The Empire State Building is nearly FIFTY blocks away.

Here is a map of Manhattan, with the sight-lines of the two shots approximated

(IMG:http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8822/manhattangj5.jpg)

Make sense? The Trade Towers and the background buildings you indicate are very far from the Empire State Building. I am certain that if you truly lined up the towers and compared the other two buildings to the left that you indicated as well you would find a slight shift - just the kind of movement one would expect from buildings so far away. The slight shift in these background buildings is exactly consistent with changing the camera position such that the Empire State Building appears on either side of the towers. Or, as I said in my earlier post,

The "background" is very far from the Empire State Building, moving the camera position to where the Empire State Building, which is much closer to the camera, appears to the left or right of the Trade Towers will not appreciably change the positioning of buildings that far away.

I must ask the film-maker, why do you make this false and misleading implication in your video? Is it laziness, that you don't bother to find out where those buildings actually are? I whipped out this little bit of research just to make a post on a forum. Would that have been too much work to do before you make a claim in a video that lots and lots of people will watch? Have you simply allowed yourself to be fooled by these basic tenets of perspective and camera distance? Or, is this willfull misrepresentation? With all due respect, there are no other ways to interpret it, and what you are doing is both destructive to the movement and hinders people from getting to the truth in my opinion.

(@ Painter, feel free to delete my last paragraph if you feel it is inappropriate. I don't think it is, I feel it is a fair and direct question posed to the film-maker about his work.)

[painter]

<s>
(@ Painter, feel free to delete my last paragraph if you feel it is inappropriate.  I don't think it is, I feel it is a fair and direct question posed to the film-maker about his work.)

I'll let it stand for the time being. I think it is a reasonable question to which I'd also like an answer. I can't really say what other people's motives are with any certainty unless they tell me and even then only if I can reasonably deduce they are being accurate and truthful.

Anyone who doesn't understand perspective and spatial relationship distortions caused by telephoto zoom lenses regarding foreground and background objects needs to bone up on it if they're going to employ videos using these lenses as evidence for anything. See this post, for example:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9766125

This is the only thing i'm going to comment on here at present:

I am providing that 'conclusive evidence'

Here's some of that "conclusive evidence" of yours:

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit1.jpg)

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit2.jpg)


Yep, that's conclusive. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)


'Nuff said. ..

[simonshack]

I must ask the film-maker, why do you make this false and misleading implication in your video? Is it laziness, that you don't bother to find out where those buildings actually are?

Sanders,

I'm impressed and honored by the time you've taken to analyze the Empire State building shots. I do respect your viewpoint because I see that you really are, in all honesty, following your beliefs. I must say I was quite prepared to take some criticism due to the quick and superficial way I presented it in September Clues part 7. It has been a bit frustrating to compress all my observations into a short 1-hour or so video, a proper exposé would need at least 5 hours - but who would watch it ?

You have some good points, but you're overlooking many others. For starters, what do you make of the building standing in front of the Empire on CBS? Why is it absent on the NBC shot? Do you suppose that's the building where the NBC crew was filming from? I hope you don't want to support that.

So, if you ask me to find out where the buildings are, can you tell me where these 2 networks were filming from? That's the first question you should ask yourself. Do you live in New York? If you do, please go and find out. How did they scramble live camera units there after only 6 minutes (NBC at least) of the first strike?

I don't know if you've ever held a professional camera in your hand - but I can assure you I have - and it is quite impossible to get such similar backgrounds (if anything, the angle of the NY bank turns wider when it should be tighter ) with such different vantage points. Look at the Empire State : its angle doesn't change by a whisker in spite of the vastly differing vantage points. Also, you must look at the shadows on the ES : see, Sanders (you couldn't know this, of course) the 2 shots I've chosen are separated by 20 minutes, yet the ES shadows are identical. I have done time-lapse videos and I can assure you that 20 minutes in early morning does huge differences in shadow angles.

Please let's look at this together - I do not base all my research on this ES shots. I hope you have doubts on the veracity of the tv broadcasts because they really have hundreds of questions - they simply do not look real. I hope you will look a little more deeply into my September Clues research to see the whole 'picture', let's not get stuck on one of them. Time is running out. My only goal is to show people how fake the broadcasts were.

I have been following the excellent Pilots for Truth research which basically follows the same drift : no plane struck the Pentagon -it was a fly-over... all I'm adding is : no plane struck the towers - it was a fly-over (by two planes which you can see within the first minute of September Clues part6). So let's join our forces together and stop this useless and destructive bickering within the 911 truth movement.

all I'm adding is : no plane struck the towers - it was a fly-over

CNN video - jet is heard, a few people scream as the jet flies over their heads, then everybody screams as the jet slams into the tower. Read that again, people react to the jet before it hits the tower, acknowledging that there was a jet.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwX40zKds4c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


Home video - jet is heard, people talk about the plane and acknowledge it was a plane.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xB0msfbPecE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


Here you have 2 videos. In both videos you have the sound of the jet, people reacting to that jet and then the jet impacts the building. Because you can hear the jet and people reacting to the jet, that means there was a jet. The only way to say there wasn't a jet is if you say everything was fake including the witnesses and videos. You can believe that fairy tale, but i never will.