September Clues Analysis, and debunk Options

This write-up is based on the 5-part video series "September Clues" here:

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice


Video Pt.1
At 8:23, the video makes the following claim:

We can observe that:
A.) Screen fades to black at precise moment of impact.

So? This video is being shot from a helicopter. Videos from heli's are always choppy and break up quite frequently. This is absolutely no evidence of anything other than standard video problems from a heli.

B.) CNN anchor fails to notice the plane.

I'm sure the anchor was doing other things in the studio like reading the latest news or getting info from his producer. It's not required to keep your eyes glued to the live shot at all times.

C.) On-site reporter's mic picks up no impact sound.

It wasn't a mic it was a phone and there is no indication of how far away the reporter was from the WTC to even register the impact sound.

8:04 Theresa Renaud's account from Chelsea.
This video claims that Theresa said she saw "another plane hit" even though no planes were mentioned in the interview and that she didn't know what hit the building. Of course she didn't see or didn't know what hit, but she's talking to CBS news which is scrolling on the bottom of the screen that a plane hit and she knows a plane hit that's why she said there's another one. This video claims that Theresa has superhuman vision to see a plane hit the towers from Chelsea. Many people have some sort of binoculars when working in tall office buildings so that they can see the sights. It's possible she had her own or she borrowed someone elses. When you look up and see a jet high up in the sky, it can be 4-6 miles up. It shouldn't be too hard to see a jet from two miles away.

6:07
News anchor says a "terrorist act of proportions we cannot imagine" after second plane hits the WTC and this video calls the anchor's words prophetic? What else is the anchor or anyone else supposed to think? Two planes deliberately hit two different buildings on purpose and we're not supposed to think terrorist act? Calling the anchors words "prophetic" is deliberately misleading.

4:50
This video attempts to say that the nose of the plane is exiting out of the building. In the pics below, i will show that it is not the nose of the plane exiting the building.

This first pic is a screen capture from the video showing both noses side-by-side:
(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit1.jpg)

Clearly you can see the different shapes and sizes and they are no where near identical:
(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit2.jpg)

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit3.jpg)

0:23
This video claims that both "fade-to-black" incidents happen at the precise moment the plane hits the second tower. The FOX fade-to-black happens after the plane has already hit and fake "nose" has come out of the building. The CNN fade-to-black happens just before the plane touches the tower. Therefore these fade-to-blacks are not at the same exact time as the video claims. Also both shots were from heli's and as said earlier, video from heli's is very choppy at times. To say that the fade-to-blacks both happen at the same exact time is deliberate deception because they don't happen at the same exact time.




Video Pt.2
9:29
This video claims that the plane trajectory is almost perfectly horizontal. Look at the distance away and the shot is at ground level. The second shot is higher up and almost straight on to the plane so the plane's final maneuver can be seen more clearly before impact.

8:53
This video claims that a Boeng 767 should look like a bright silver red white and blue American Airlines jet and then asks what is this black object flying in full sunlight? That object isn't black, it's the dark blue paint scheme of United Airlines. More deliberate deception.

8:20
This video shows different angle of impact and claims the jet had white wings? How about wings are being accented by sunlight? More deliberate deception to say the wings change color when they are only being accented by sunlight.

8:00
This video shows more "conflicting clips" like the wings of the jet getting brighter due to sunlight. How's that "conflicting"? Seems like deliberate deception to me.

7:03
This video claims that the two different shots of the planes are not the same plane. Also says one plane is black and one is white. I've showed earlier that one is dark blue and that sunlight is making the wings brighter. Also this is two different shots by two different cameras and the color of two different cameras will not be identical. Yet more deliberate deception.

4:02
This video claims amateur video has second impact cut out yet if you listen to the person recording, she says "oh my god, what's happening". It's possible the camera was on stand-by and they didn't see the second plane actually hit. More deliberate deception to claim the scenes were cut out of an amateur video with no proof.

2:37
This video claims plane had no wings, obvious compression problem. Also very deceptive to make this claim when using compressed and poor quality internet videos.



Video Pt.3
9:38
This video claims heli video is planeless but then says that "it's there" at 8:38. How can you call this a planeless video and then say the plane is there one minute later? Deliberate deception.

8:30
This video shows 2 clips side-by-side of the second impact and then claims that the backdrop in the video on the right was gone. More blatant deception here. This one tops the cake of the deliberate deceptive tactics of the video author. The video on the left is from a heli up high and the video on the right is from a building or ground-level and mostly stationary. How can you assert that the backdrop of a video is gone when these are shot from two different locations and heights? Purposeful blatant deception.



Video Pt.4
Nothing of significant value to comment on in this part.



Video Pt.5
The first part of this video picks out tiny little sounds in phone calls to the networks and then claims that it's a cue to activate the fake plane image. Anybody can take multiple phone calls and find a sound at a certain time and then try to say that all these different sounds on all these different phone calls near the same time has to mean something. It's deceptive to make this claim with no proof.

4:25
This video claims that background of current picture is grey-white and the foreground is color. Maybe that has something to do with all the grey-white smoke and dust in the air in the background and not in the foreground? It's deceptive to point this out to make it seem like video fakery.


As i've shown, this series of videos uses deliberate deception, disinformation and purposeful misleading and twisting of the facts to make you see what they want you to believe.

The following video was posted in another thread as "more evidence". Let's check it out:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s_ySSJ_L6Zs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


0:59
This video says that the clip being played has no plane, yet the plane is clearly visible.

1:49
This video has two videos side-by-side and then claims one must be fake. Why? Both videos show the plane hitting the building. Nothing fake here to see.

2:47
This video asserts that the "evil perps at WB-11 are reading from the terrorist script". And then it says "Proof Positive!". Yes, it's proof positive, like i mentioned in my above write-up, that two planes hit two different buildings, so what are the news anchors supposed to think? What would you think? Terrorist attack is the only thought at the time and these poor videos don't tell us what somebody is supposed to think if not a terrorist attack. Deliberate deception.

4:49
This video asserts that the plane can only be seen on live tv and that the reporter didn't see a plane. If you listen to the reporter, he says it must be out of his view. If the reporter is at ground level on the north side of the towers, the towers would be obstructing his view and he would only see an explosion and not the plane. Deliberate deception.

The name of this video is 911 Octopus 8: Media Perps unmasked. Seems like the only perps unmasked are the disinfo perps putting out these rediculous, deliberately deceptive and misleading videos.

[Sarah Cohen]

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.

It seems you may have come to our forums just to spam. Care to tell me what theories i'm trying to promote? Anybody? I surely don't know. Of course i didn't do any work, the two posts above yours are invisible. :ph43r:

[painter]

Keep it civil, people. It isn't necessary to attack anyone -- simply provide your evidence and let it speak for itself.

@ Sarah Cohen: First, it is customary for a new member to post an introduction in the Welcome forum. Second, BoneZ is a respected member of this community and a broad-brush attack lacking details/evidence to counter BoneZ's well thought out and obviously time consuming presentation is not appreciated.

[rishta]

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

YOU should be ashamed of not being able to understand written text, which clearly states the video in question is a misinformation.(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

[Carl Bank]

More lies from the Pentacon Hoax artists.

Who do you mean with "Pentacon Hoax artists"?
The govt. or Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

Sarah, I can smell a shill about 250 ft. against the wind,
but I am always glad if someone prooves me wrong.

In case you are a shill, I feel the need to tell you that
we all are aware of the different tactics these people applying
here. You used at least 2 of the basic ones, plus one very subtile
one: Picking a jewish Nickname. So, I want to make sure, once and for all:

Shills are treated as shills on PF911T. Nothing more, nothing less.
Any attempt to make anyone of us falling into anti-semitism is useless.
It will not happen. Period.

Please read this thread in the debate forum

And: Welcome to the forum, Sarah.

it may have been necessary for the government to take over the airwaves in order to help fight the war on terror.

There is so much truth in this sentence, I am about to forgive you your attac. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

Carl

[Sarah Cohen]

What has my husband's ethnicity got to do with anything?

[Carl Bank]

What has my husband's ethnicity got to do with anything?

Nothing.

But shills ond govt. loyalists love to play the "anti-semitism-card'
on the movement's arguments. Not because it is true in one or the other way,
but because it is easier than to argue on facts that contradict the official conspiracy theory.

Sarah, do us and yourselve the favour and introduce yourselve in the welcome forum,
make your position clear and read the thread, I pointed you to in the above post.

Thank you in advance.

Carl

[Guinan]

What has my husband's ethnicity got to do with anything?

This question - and what it implies - is precisely what we're talking about... it in itself implies anti-semitism, where none is intended.

I smell a rat and couldn't care less whether it is the Jewish denomination or otherwise, a rat is a rat is a rat.

Furthermore, 'ethnicity'?? As far as I know 'Jewish' is a faith, not a race.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Guinan

We're starting to get way off topic. Let's try to limit the comments to the work that i've done above as i would love to hear everyone's comments. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Check the new Groundbraking anlysis:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/...ity2.html#Graph

Check the new Groundbraking anlysis:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/...ity2.html#Graph

I've already debunked most of that stuff. I see they're still trying to say that it's the nose exiting the building when i've shown clearly that it's not the nose.

[Slick]

The problem is, you are doing exactly what many NPTERS are doing. You are telling us to look at videos while you somehow tell us exactly what happened and expect us to just take your word for it. except with you, if I happen to not agree with your visual analysis, I am a government agent and partially responsible for the death of thousands of people.


Right now all we have is people's opinions, absolutely nothing is conclusive at this point, yet we have people on both sides who believe so much that they know exactly what happened that they will get entire communities to rally against those who have different opinions, yet are on the same team..... Kinda reminds me of organized religion.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by Slick: Jun 25 2007, 09:42 PM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Bonez, that is not debunking.
A Plane in an stabalized footage,still speeding up, and down at a difference about
190 mp/h is physicly imposible to explain.

Leave the Videos for a sec. away? What evidenz is left to PROOF those planes hit the tower?
The Plane story is a Psychological Myth.

[Quest]

BoneZ,

What do you say is the object leaving the shadow on the exit-side of the building?

Photos
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/St...WasNotThere.jpg

Video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpw4FZcfiqM

Is the above clip a fake BoneZ? I believe it is, just like the CNN and FOX "live" feeds - yet the clip nicely coroborates the aformentioned CNN/FOX video feeds which are in the September Clues video you claim to have "debunked".

If it's not the nose of a plane, what is it leaving the defined shadow on the back of the building? Also, what do you make of the non-hole photo (Reuters) where the whole SHOULD be? No matter how you cut it, we have some video/photo fakery in the above photo collage. The above pics can't all be real because they are mutually exclusive.

The part I'm trying bast to understand is that it looks like we have a nose of a plane coming out the backside of the building. This "nose" casts a definite solid shadow and in all respects looks like a solid object. In fact, there are some that say it IS the nose of the plane and that it may be that of a plane whose nose was made of "special alloys"; check with some members at LETSROLL. I mention this not to deride anyone's opnions but rather to illustarte the diversity of opnions on the 2nd tower event. Let's also not forget the POD and missile theorists.

Now YOU claim the 2nd tower photo evidence proves a plane hit the building with no indepentdent, scientific analysis to back it up. Your "proof" is the photos and the same evidence that was probably planted at the Pentagon and Shanksville; an engine part, wheel and/or wheel strut, a piece of apparent fuselaghe on top of an adjacent building and a briefcase. Yet the video above 'proves' as some say that the planes nose exited the building yet you say it's NOT the nose. Is this correct? Is there ANYTHING coming out the back of the building leaving a shadow or is the photo a fake? Which is it? If there is something coming out the back of the building, then why no exit hole in the REUTER's photo? Or is the REUTERS photo fake?

On top of all this, we have exposed a "plane" witness (Gary Welz) as being a fraud. All this and and you still wonder why we persist in our theories and claims?

This post has been edited by Quest: Jun 26 2007, 06:39 AM

There is no hole in this picture because there was no nose exiting the building. You can't sit there and tell me that the two things in the following photo are the same thing:

(IMG:http://1bonez.net/img/plane_exit2.jpg)

Those two things are not the same size, shape or what ever. It's possible that it's in the shape of a nose because as the plane instantly decelerated, all the fuel was pushed through the fuselage to the front of the plane and you see that fuel in the shape of the fuselage catching on fire and burning. Since there was no nose, there is no hole and those are all obvious, factual points. Do you think there was someone standing up in the tower with a bazooka shooting a landing gear half way across Manhattan? No, the landing gear shot half way across Manhattan because a high-speed jet hit the building. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see simple things like this.

You can't say "because the nose was coming out of the building, the plane had to be fake" because that's not the nose nor even closely shaped to the nose, therefore the nose theory should be scrapped immediately.

You may think you have evidence to support your theories, but the videos i analyzed above show blatant and purposeful misleading and deception. There's no two ways around it.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

A Plane in an stabalized footage,still speeding up, and down at a difference about 190 mp/h is physicly imposible to explain.

It's very easily explained. Poor video quality on top of poor video software to slow down the videos will do that. See, easy!

What evidenz is left to PROOF those planes hit the tower?

Remember the landing gear shooting out of the tower upon the jet's impact? Do you think someone was standing in the tower shooting that landing gear out of a bazooka? That landing gear shooting across Manhattan was consistent with a high-speed object hitting the building. Easy stuff! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

You are telling us to look at videos while you somehow tell us exactly what happened and expect us to just take your word for it. except with you, if I happen to not agree with your visual analysis, I am a government agent

What i am saying is the makers of the videos posted above, use deliberate deceptive and misleading means to make their theory true. To push such blatant disinformation, the people pushing then become disinfo agents. You can't sit there and say that that is the nose of the aircraft exiting the building when i clearly showed that it's not even the same size, shape, etc. The videos above try to show the "fade to blacks" happen at the same time, which in fact they do not happen at the same time. You can't sit there and say that the reporters are reading from a terrorist script when you should know damn well that two planes hitting two different buildings can't be anything other than a terrorist attack. If one believes the things in the videos i analyzed are truthful and factual, then that person must be a disinfo agent because these videos push purpose disinfo.

Hope that's clear enough for ya! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Remember the landing gear shooting out of the tower upon the jet's impact? Do you think someone was standing in the tower shooting that landing gear out of a bazooka? That landing gear shooting across Manhattan was consistent with a high-speed object hitting the building. Easy stuff! cheers.gif

Oh wow where you there, Live, to see the Landing gear shooting out the towers?
Ore do u have any Footage to proofe?