September Clues Analysis, and debunk
Jun 16 2007, 09:03 AM
Member No.: 0
This write-up is based on the 5-part video series "September Clues" here:
At 8:23, the video makes the following claim:
We can observe that: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.
A.) Screen fades to black at precise moment of impact.
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.
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.
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:
Clearly you can see the different shapes and sizes and they are no where near identical:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing of significant value to comment on in this part.
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.
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.
Jul 7 2007, 05:44 AM
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49
zoomish, I don't think that's evidence of that per-se. A plane or drone could be guided in by beacon or remote control.
Please don't take that to imply that I am arguing against the notion that there were no planes.
BoneZ, I don't think the tornado argument will fly here. Imagine 3 scenarios: a Toyota hitting a stationary mack-truck at 100 mph, a mack-truck going 100 mph hitting a parked Toyota, and a Toyota and a mack-truck both going 50 mph hitting head on. All three are synonymous with regard to the physics of the collision - in this case speed is relative, in the same fashion that a plane hitting a building at 500 mph is equivelant to a building hitting a plane at 500 mph. Speed imparts no special quality to one over the other. In the case of straws impaling tree trunks in a hurricane, the straw has longitudinal rigidity that overcomes the structural strength of the tree - a plane is not built like this.
Please don't take that to imply that I am arguing for the notion that there were no planes.
I do find it fishy that a plane would disappear into a building. But I don't know how they did it. I DO know that it was important that plane parts wouldn't rain down on the streets of lower Manhattan - people would pick them up and be able to identify the craft with serial numbers. Maybe they accomplished this feat by doing away with real planes altogether ... or maybe there are other possibilities.
We'll never know unless people address this imperically. Humans, once they are convinced of one reality over another, tend to see evidence that supports their conclusion while disregarding what doesn't. This is why these discussions heat up so fast, and that plays into the hands of the perpetrators. I don't know what the reality is, but I suspect it's not black and white, and I suspect the attacks were engineered that way on purpose. Maybe this debate needs to be framed more on figuring out what is real and what is not, as opposed to just whether there were planes or no-planes. I know everyone thinks they are approaching it this way, but again, foredrawn conclusions tend to filter out alternate possibilities, and understanding what's really going on on a deeper level. Not only that, but approaching it this way would give everyone more room to have opinions. I do know that these kinds of arguments are splitting the movement into factions, and that that is what they, the perpetrators, would want.
Apologies to Slick, CB, zoomish, for some comments I've made ... but I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye...
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 04:25 AM|