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.

I think you missed an important point. Regardless of a point I believe you are correct on (the "nose" is NOT an exact pixel match) it doesn't change the fact that it is easily provable that many of the videos are fake and contradictory.

Easily provable? I've not seen one shred of evidence that makes me think for a millisecond that there could possibly be a chance that the videos were faked. If you think it's so easy to prove, then start an analysis thread and show us all the proof you think you have. I'll even sticky it so everyone can see it and reply to it more easily.

No one individual has hung their TV fakery opinion on the September Clues video and in fact have drawn their conclusion LONG before then.

But i see so many of the tv fakery supporters rallying around September Clues. Since i've shown unequivocally that September Clues puts out blatantly misleading and purposeful deception, logic would dictate that all those that support September Clues supports deliberate deception to get their point across that the 9/11 media footage was faked.

what is YOUR opinion on what happened at the 2nd tower? Plane? Plane with POD? POD/Missile? What exactly do you believe and why?

I believe most definitely that jetliners struck both buildings. Whether those jetliners were remote controlled or unfortunately flown by humans, planes hit the towers. The pod has been thoroughly debunked here. Why do i believe this? Because all available evidence supports this conclusion and i've not seen anything to the contrary that would suggest otherwise.

DO you believe because you've "debunked" September Clues that you have disproved TV fakery?

Yes, because if all the tv fakery supporters rally around and praise this video, then that means that either tv fakery supporters support the deliberate deception put forth in these videos, or they believe anything that someone puts out that has to do with tv fakery without looking into it further.

Is it OK for me to discuss my theories BoneZ or am I "dividing the movement"?

It's absolutely ok for you to discuss whatever you like, so long as it's honest and truthful, unlike September Clues that is dishonest and deceptive.

The attitude, not the topic, is what hurts the movement.

I'm going to have to beg to differ here. Why is this topic in the Alt forum at every major website? LC, Pilots, Architects & Engineers. It is my understanding that Scholars split in part because of this topic. Everywhere this topic is, no matter if it's on youtube, google, LC, Pilots, or anywhere else, it causes alot of frustration to both sides of the arguement. It, therefore, is the topic and nothing else. This topic causes the very "attitudes" you speak of.

In closing, i would like to say that i'm glad to see people finally admitting that it's not the nose of the plane exitting the building. That would, therefore, mean that September Clues purposefully lied about the nose to make it's point. It's been said of the Bush administration that a single lie would make one wonder about all the other "truths" put forth by the administration regarding 9/11 or Iraq, etc. Same would go for the tv fakery "theories". One lie that cannot be dismissed is that nose exitting the building. Since that is a deliberate lie/deception, it makes you wonder what else are lies or deception and in the case of September Clues, it's many. If tv fakery supporters are honestly doing research and don't want to be associated with lies and deception, they need to distance themselves from September Clues.

As i stated above, you should start your own thread or even a website and show some evidence that supports your theories. If there is real evidence that is "easily provable" as you say, i'd like to see it and examine it. But as long as i see deliberate lies and deception being used and someone trying to call it 9/11 Truth as in the September Clues videos, i will debunk it and won't have the slightest care who like's my debunk or not. Beings that this is the 9/11 Truth movement and September Clues is not truthful, then truthers should stray far away from that video.