Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Septemnber Clues now availble for download in higher quality format.
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    http://www.septclues.com/ 

    There is a variety of downloads available for your viewing.
  • http://www.thesocialservice.it/  comments

    new splash page for downloading, They ran out of bandwidth.

    http://www.thesocialservice.it/spt/download.asp

    Please share this High Def. version with others,

    also, We need someone who knows how to convert this file to BitTorrent and get it out there.
  • So, this is a "no planes at all" theory, with all targets hit by cruise missiles, and faked images of airliners conjured up for mass consumption? I suppose it's possible, but it sure is complicated, and I think significantly increases the number of people who would've had to been "in on it." (unless all the eyewitnesses were seeing holograms) As with other "no plane" scenarios, it leaves one wondering what happened to the passengers on the various flights. Landed somewhere and snuffed? I tend to believe (at the risk of being called a "pod person") that the Pentagon, at least, was hit by either a cruise missile or Global Hawk. I don't believe that "Muslim hijackers" were flying any of the objects - whatever they were - that did the damage seven years ago, today.

    - Set up and finance 9/11 truth groups/forums in order to control the hordes of thinking people and their natural quest for truth. Given the inherent weakness of the official "Arabic-top-gun-hijackers" tale, all alternative theories should be allowed to flourish. The more, the better: this will serve as a 'security-valve' for the boiling pot of unanswered questions.

    There certainly is a boiling pot of unanswered questions, and lots of people arguing and pointing fingers at each other. I think the best approach is to stick to what's provable. I thought Mike Ruppert was being an asshole when he declared that 9-11 was a dead issue a few years back, but as more time passes without anyone being brought to justice, I'm starting to think he might've been right. I hope not. 

    THE 9/11 PLANNERS' MEMO
    MEMO FOR (pre-) 9/11: things to do


    - Plant trail of evidence for Arabic patsies in flight schools, lap-dance bars, bogus money-transfers, hire cars, mislaid copies of the Koran and flight-training manuals.

    - Stage five simultaneous airspace-security drills to keep NORAD, FAA etc. distracted.

    -  Feed decoy planes with flight data of flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 for FAA controllers to track. Transponders to be turned off at certain point in flight. Some decoy planes to perform fly-overs in proximity of targets to gather useful eyewitness testimonies.

    - 4 high-precision JASSM AGM 158 cruise missiles to be targeted on: WTC1, WTC2, The Pentagon and  an empty field in Shanksville (to simulate - for credibility - a 'miss' by the 'hijackers'). The AGM158 has a CEP of +/-8ft. Highly reliable to hit large targets.

    - Rig explosives in WTC buildings to be demolished (ed: secret weapons might have been used - who's to know?). Placed shape-charges are to detonate on time with missile impacts to rip open a gash to simulate a Boeing 767's 160ft wingspan.

    - Timing of the 'attack': early morning hours in order to minimize corporate casualties.

    - Activate electromagnetic jamming devices over Lower Manhattan to impede all private video cameras to film the event. Inevitable blackouts of cell-phones and fire dept. communication equipment to be blamed on various phony factors. Blackout of private TV stations to be ascribed to 1st impact on WTC1 (damage to its roof antenna.)

    - Centralized TV studio will manage controlled footage of the event to be broadcast in place of the 5 main TV networks' signals. Various methods will be used to fabricate the footage, including digital 3D-landscapes, chroma-keying and geo-referenced imagery. This in order to hamper any future scrutiny and comparative analyses of the images.

    - TV commentary to be performed by select group of media pros. No civilians to be allowed on air for LIVE eyewitness reports. Since missiles will most likely be perceived as 'small planes' by real eyewitnesses, this should be part of the initial reports along with a few 'large passenger plane' testimonies and other conflicting statements. Ultimately, of course, TV- broadcasts showing animations of large airliner (" flight175" ) will prevail.

    - At the Pentagon, all CCTV footage in the area should be seized immediately. Unlike the WTC, a computerized simulation of a crashing airplane is deemed too complex there and only a few blurry still frames from a Pentagon parking lot should be released.

    MEMO FOR (post-) 9/11: things to do

    - Produce a number of video-clips to represent material filmed by 'amateur' filmmakers. These should include views of the passenger plane actually impacting the WTC in a more convincing fashion than the live TV shots. These clips should be credited to people connected to the newsmedia/film industry with access to or know-how of video manipulation processes. This in order to protect possible exposure of any given forgery by simply accusing its alleged author of fraud (for profit) - a relatively minor offence.

    - Stage a biochemical attack (to be blamed on "Al-Quaeda") by means of anthrax-tainted letters to reinforce public outrage and intimidate opposition congressmen or anyone likely to have inside-knowledge of the 9/11 plan.

    - Set up and finance 9/11truth groups/forums in order to control the hordes of thinking people and their natural quest for truth. Given the inherent weakness of the official "Arabic-top-gun-hijackers" tale, all alternative theories should be allowed to flourish. The more, the better: this will serve as a 'security-valve' for the boiling pot of unanswered questions. Efforts should focus primarily on keeping the 'PLANE' myth alive - and discourage any research into the role of the mainstream media.

    This draft is to be split in separate sub-sections to be circulated among key personnel strictly on a need-to-know basis.

    The official 9/11 planning committee

    http://www.thesocialservice.it/
  • I have questions too.

    My first objection to both Simon and the Critics is they should avoid the verbal shoving and pushing.

    First of all, it really isn't a No planes theory, It might best be described as a manipulated aircraft images game to confuse and create a planes vs. no planes argument, going no where.

    I'd give Rummy and his evil ones credit for cooking up such an angry drunken food fight.

    I was at the Jesse Ventura 9-11 Event in Mesa, Az. Last night. I offered the link to the audience of thousands.

    They racked up about 20,000 MB in downloads last night. I expect to be drained another 20,000 MB tonight.

    Part of Warfare is to confuse. While You are trying to figure out WIHIRGO, they move on to the next objective, leaving You licking your wounds, etc. if You are the public, or Dead if You are the enemy.
    This is Government 101 in the Karl Rove school of slave management. It's what that dead guy Strauss taught at U Chicago to the little up and coming Trotsky gang, now calling themselves NeoCons.

    There was extreme incompetence in the video footage the networks provided, Images of Planes diving from 1000' above the target on one network while on other networks, we have (2) straight and level trajectory(s) in the 5 seconds prior to impact. 

    Then we do have the archived NBC tape with nothing hitting, if You discount the high angle of attack blob which is either a cruise missile or an A-3, or RB-66 variant at the very largest. Width and length precludes it being a 737 or larger aircraft.

    My favorite F'up is the Verrazanno Bridge with the land mass under it moving from left to right at about 70 mph while it looks to be about 400% larger than it should be, since it is supposed to be just over 7 miles away in the background. Caught from the Fox 5 chopper, iirc.

    Fox's Nose out image which the vermin later deleted, is another whopper.

    In any event, this tampering proves prior planning equaling a Criminal Conspiracy.

    Who? That is for a Grand Jury to figure out.

    There must be tens of thousands of copies on VCR's across the country to validate what is on the Network video archives and the digital mirror on the internet.
  • Doctorno wrote:

    I was at the Jesse Ventura 9-11 Event in Mesa, Az. Last night.

    I'm jealous! I watched this video earlier tonight of Jesse giving some MSM "reporters" a good, well deserved thrashing. That wasn't you popping off down in the comments section, was it?

    SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
    Jesse Ventura BODY SLAMS “911 Conspiracy Debunkers”, for 30 Minutes!

    (Fast forward about 2 minutes to get to the interview.)

    http://thestateoftruth.com/2008/09/jesse-ventura-body-slams-911-conspiracy-debunkers-for-30-minutes/

    Conservative-Liberal Says:
    Man, I actually don’t agree with Ventura on a lot of his votes as governor but let me tell ya
    He makes so much sense here it isnt funny. Im not ready to believe the cd stuff yet but jesse confirms my notion that the government was at least complicit in the attacks.
    sigh…………..

    Dr. No Says:
    Conservative-Liberal,
    and why exactly are you “not ready” to believe the “cd stuff”? Is there a time in the future when you will be ready? And have you marked your calendar? Are you studying, or at least educating yourself down that path? I’m being critical of you because theres too many American people who feel like you, but they’re just “not ready”. I’m a firm believer in “if you don’t stand for something, then you’ll fall for anything”. Its time to stand for the truth, and its time to stop making excuses and allowing the government to direct us otherwise.
  • http://www.torrentportal.com/torrents-details.php?id=3501256

    The above page points to a link one can join to add themselves to sharing the load so more can see this file.

    BitTorrent is a P2P program the PTB HATE. I understand some ISPs are blocking P2P sharing because they suspect there is copyrighted stuff being shared. The other side of that coin is material like "September Clues" which is released by the producer for sharing is risking being blocked.

    Please consider sharing some of Your bandwidth by hosting a BitTorrent program on Your computer and a slice of the pie will be stored on Your hard drive and shared with hundreds of others who will hopefully do same.

    This is a form of activism that costs nothing, but a bit of bandwidth You are not using most of the time in any event.
  • author said:


    I have questions too.

    First of all, it really isn't a No planes theory, It might best be described as a manipulated aircraft images game to confuse and create a planes vs. no planes argument, going no where.

    There must be tens of thousands of copies on VCR's across the country to validate what is on the Network video archives and the digital mirror on the internet.



    Sorry for abbreviating your post so much. This is obviously a "no planes" theory, however. I wasn't familiar with this particular debate, but your post led me to finally watch September Clues, and then I followed that up by reading "the other side of the story," which I know you're already well aware of.

    In my experience, it's difficult to even broach the subject of 9-11 as an inside job with most people, and you're lucky if you can get them to stop looking at you like you belong in a nut house long enough to discuss it. I'd definitely expect them to walk away laughing if I started talking about directed energy weapons or holograms or "no planes at all, just phony images." I don't usually even get into my own beliefs about remote control, but try to stick to the provable things, such as the failure to scramble interceptors, the fact that the war games (normally held in October) were moved up a month and that bin Laden couldn't have arranged that, no skyscraper ever falling due to fire but three doing it on that day, with one of those not even being hit by a plane, the free fall speeds, nowhere near enough heat to weaken steel, the impossibility of the cellphone calls, PNAC and 9-11 as the excuse to launch Bush's wars, etc, etc, etc. You can go on damn near forever with solid facts and questions, and get people thinking, but if you started telling them that "well, actually, there were no planes involved - it was all just faked on TV," you'd probably just convince them that all 9-11 truthers really are nuts. Wouldn't you?

    I really don't want to get into an argument, but here are some of the counterpoints that I came across after watching September Clues, which I'm sure you're already familiar with. Like I said, I wasn't aware of this "great debate," so thanks for inspiring me to research it. (I have to get off this posting binge... I'm using toothpicks to hold my eyelids up, lately.)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "...I don't take the no-plane theories seriously enough to spend a lot of time on them. I don't understand why such an ultimately unimportant issue has become so divisive, unless maybe the psy-oppers are stoking the conflict. If they are, they are probably doing it from both sides, not just one."         - Dr. Kevin Barrett

    DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” - A  POINT-BY-POINT  ANALYSIS
    Nick Irving, Scholars for 9/11 Truth 

    “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’.  http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

    September Clues - Busted!
    http://uticansfor911truth.blogspot.com/2008/02/hegelian-hoedown-dept-september-clues.html

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

    A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
    There have been two no-plane hypotheses put forward: The first, that small planes or missiles hit the towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by synthetic 3D graphic images of 767s (including real-time superimposition of these images on all live TV footage as it was broadcast). The no-planers have labeled this scenario "TV Fakery." The second argument holds that the planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. This hypothesis has since been abandoned.

    The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation.

    Perhaps, like the movie Minority Report, they had pre-cogs who intuited exactly where each and every person videotaping the plane would be standing. 

    In reality, the perpetrators would have found out about each image that they didn't control only after the image appeared on the web or in the media. And then it would have been too late to alter the image. The TV fakery hypothesis, therefore, is utterly absurd.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

    Anthony Lawson, Jim Fetzer discuss No Plane Theory: 11-27-07 Dynamic Duo
    http://www.911conspiracy.tv/mp3/Anthony Lawson - Sept Clues - Dynamic Duo - 27 Nov 2007.mp3

    911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth
    While the real investigators take the evidence and link them to men in the Defense Department and in Israel --  the no-planers remain stuck on the assertion that all the 45 video recordings were faked and that all the witnesses who saw the planes are liars and just make the vaguest totally detached references to "the perps" or just "perps."

    No planers are propaganda agents out to discredit and sabotage those who want the truth out.

    ...they always heap their contempt on anyone whose findings point to Zionists or Israel being involved in 9-11 -- forget the laughing Israelis, Silverstien, the 87 Israelis who were in the country illegally and who had top security clearance badges at Dulles and Reagan National airports on 9-11 and the months leading up to 9-11  (Ashcroft deported them back to Israel a few months after 9-11  - one said on Israeli radio  "we went to photograph the event"  -- plus the Israeli (Mossad) movers -- etc. etc.  the links are endless   -- and yet we must argue "no-planes" -- that all the videos and witnesses are liars...  http://www.rense.com/general74/911s.htm

    No Planer Nightmare
    http://www.911conspiracy.tv/fringe/No_planer_Nightmare_jazuno3k.mp4


  • I have plowed through most of what You linked above.

    I stick by my original comment: "First of all, it really isn't a No planes theory, It might best be described as a manipulated aircraft images game to confuse and create a planes vs. no planes argument, going no where. "

    Digging deeper, S-C shows us at least half the images we saw were errors outside of the aircraft: "Whiteouts"
    to hide explosions in the towers, moving land masses with bridges sitting atop those land masses, Time trigger events to synch the explosion across all networks. "Borrowed" audio and visual footage criss crossing from network to home video and back. MAJOR SNAFUS.

    As Simon said: "He had never heard of the Perfect Crime"

    Much critical comment is now eclipsed by the latest version by Socialservice aka Simon Shack. Simon labored on this over a number of years and finally had the time and limited budget to finally get this out in one final cut, and in higher definition than You Tube provides. I and others are providing bandwidth for people who want to see it with their own eyes.

    For example, Lawson provides a critique of a video feed that fades to black that isn't even the video feed that Simon showed from Fox (now deleted from official tv 9-11 video archive and a menage of other network feed put in its place. Felony Fraud?) and CNN with a banner covering impact 6 minutes after the Botched Fox "nose out" feed.

    The numerous errors that day revealing the "controlled environment" is proof of a big budget, major production, plain and simple. There is only one likely organization capable of intercepting feeds from camera crews and reinserting them in near real time for networks to run. 5 points surround their Corporate HQ.
    Either an inside production or shopped out with a very fat checkbook.

    Proof of prior planning involving Conspiracy and Treason against the American People.

    Rove is correct: "We create our Own Reality"

    Such Arrogance.

    I'm done now. I hope. In the end, it doesn't matter if the planes as advertised hit or didn't hit.

    What I see that matters is if there is proof of prior planning involving a Crime against the American people and the rest of the World that day.

    I think September Clues provides that proof, in spades.
  • author said:


    I have plowed through most of what You linked above.

    I stick by my original comment: "First of all, it really isn't a No planes theory, It might best be described as a manipulated aircraft images game to confuse and create a planes vs. no planes argument, going nowhere. "

    I'm done now. I hope. In the end, it doesn't matter if the planes as advertised hit or didn't hit.

    What I see that matters is if there is proof of prior planning involving a Crime against the American people and the rest of the World that day.



    Probably done, I think. ;) I still don't understand how you can say this isn't a "no planes" theory. The whole argument is that no planes hit anything on 9-11, and that we were tricked by visual (and sound?) fakery. In a sense, I agree with your statement that "In the end, it doesn't matter if the planes as advertised hit or didn't hit." There are plenty of other, very solid points that we can make to the uninformed or skeptical, without coming off like we're talking about something straight out of the Twilight Zone or the X-Files. I don't even get into the "no plane at the Pentagon" argument with most people. If you throw this stuff into John Q. Public's face, he'll probably conclude that you're nuts and dismiss 9-11 truth altogether, which is what some people think is the real intention here. This theory also hugely increases the number of people who would've had to have foreknowledge and been part of the plan, which also stretches credibility. I've just seen some posts where "no planers" claimed that all the eyewitnesses in the street were agents of the Masons.

    Alright, Doc, I think I'm done. I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, for some reason, so don't take it personally.  8)

    No Planes Theory: R.I.P.

    Those who argue that there were no planes which crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 say that "computer generated imagery" (CGI) was used to insert fake video images of planes. However, these folks are forgetting something: there are numerous eyewitness reports of people who heard the planes.

    In other words, for the no planes theory to be true, not only would CGI have had to be inserted in live videocamera feeds, and all of the witnesses who saw the planes be disinfo agents, but some sort of high-tech flying sound generator would have had to be used to fake the moving sounds of planes flying into the buildings.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NO-Plane theory is a CIA disinfo campaign. It is utterly fantastic and relies on people being stupid about basic science just the way the official story does. In fact I notice a very similar means of dealing with things among the No-Plane crowd as among the idiots who believe the official theory. This farcical theory relies upon some utterly false science for a start... They claim that an Aluminum plane could not have penetrated the steel and concrete structure. Rubbish is all I can say. LEAD bullets can penetrate steel and concrete and so can water, as any submariner could tell you. This has nothing to do with the relative hardnesses of the materials and everything to do with velocity and mass. Quite simply the planes involved had enough velocity to go with their mass that breaking through the towers was no problem, although of course the planes were destroyed in the process. This has been established by the Purdue University simulations which don't allow the amount of damage the official story claims but they sure don't get hung up on junk science claims that planes can't break through steel and concrete buildings. Another little trick of this funny junk science is the attempt to present the buildings as solid steel and concrete. They were a lattice of steel and concrete and on the scale of the forces of the crashing planes, a lattice which would of course give at select points.



    Then there is the farcical implication that hundreds of witnesses and more than forty videos, and many more photos have also been faked. Of course the number of conspirators required for the TV fakery/No-PLane theories (theory is really giving them more credit than they are due) is in the order of tens of thousands also and this frankly is as easily debunked as the Faith Brigade falsely try to debunk mainstream 9/11 truth. By wondering how after this long we have no whistle blowers?



    The sensible and factually backed beliefs about 9/11, don't need more than a few dozen people in the know, as most could be used in situ and a good number of these people have come forward to tell of anomalies they saw or experienced.



    The no-plane theory is the only thing which the debunkers usually want to talk about, yet it is very noticeable within 9/11 Truth that no-Planers are only ever interested in arguing with 9/11 truthers. 



    We are not denying the technology exists. In fact a good disinfo campaign would rely on some little known "conspiracy theory" like this as some fact improves the credibility. However there is NO evidence that this was used on the day and an overwhelming amount of evidence that at least the two WTCs were struck with aircraft.



    For the record there is also a very substantial body of photos of retrieved aircraft parts and some very solid reports that the black boxes were found. This amounts to real whistle blowing, the sort which always follows when deceit is in the offing. So where is even ONE person to testify to this amazing great fakery exactly? After all there must be thousands to choose from.

    One more little matter which should help clinch it for any who are genuinely just confused and not actual disinfo agents.



    The fireballs of those crashes were very classic fuel explosions. The amount of fuel necessary would have been several thousand gallons at least and there are reports from firemen who smelled kerosene (Jet fuel) in the buildings also. The no-plane fiasco, which requires more and more incredible assumptions to stay afloat, would have needed all this fuel somehow stored in the WTCs with bombs attached. Thousands of gallons of fuel in drums, placed at just those levels, now who thinks that would have been ignored by those in the building?



    Of course we are also left with an exact outline of the plane after the crash, just like we would expect if we are familiar with other plane crashes, yes folks, it isn't as if this was the first plane to strike a skyscraper, something the no-planers conveniently forget. Now I am a retired Pyrotechnician and when I was in the game, I was recognised as a natural born bang bunny. I can practically shave with explosives and I can do it from instinct even better than calculations by others as a rule. I know with a sure heart that NO pyro or demo expert in the world could have guaranteed such a perfect plane outline and yet the plan, if indeed it was all a fake, would have required exactly that. So whilst someone might have been good enough, and lucky also to have achieved the perfect carving of a plane profile, (don't forget these charges had to be concealed also, so choosing the exact locations needed would have been virtually impossible from a professional viewpoint); they could never have been confident enough that a serious plan of such magnitude could have been considered if it included such a virtually impossible task.

    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html
     
  • All right, You sucked me into this again!  :)

    I take a middle view, I avoid Socialservice's hard position that there were no planes on that day, which some of his critics seem to think means there were no aircraft at all.  He is European, His English is far from perfect. He might actually mean there were no 767 shown us in the videos that day, other than digital images.
    Dracula planes if You get my drift. Something of a shadow, that doesn't reflect sunlight was shown us on tv.

    Taken that way, It doesn't mean there were no airframes in the sky that hit the towers what ever they were.
    I am suggesting that there might be some mis communication going on on both sides, as is usually the case.


    I realize I am using my full noggin and not just my brain stem as most Americans usually do, and this can get one into trouble :)



    one likely possibility:

    I did see an aircraft image just before impact that resembles an A-3 Skywarrior. A couple of frames just before impact show something that got very slim, perhaps the CGI "locked" for a second and no output was "pasted" or overlayed, if You will.

    The A-3 is about half the size of a 767, much thinner and much lighter, yet its shape is very similar to a 737 or 767, in that it is a high wing aircraft with 2 engines slung under the wings. Conventional tail, etc. The A-3 has a bit of a bubble canopy look up front, which the denuded frame shows. There are also little round-oval windows above the main wind screen that allows a pilot to better see a tanker for air fueling. One of those multi ply windows was found on the ground at the Pentagon, I might add. A thick, laminated window that isn't part of a 757 or 767.

    The A-3 can fly at 550 mph at sea level, a 767 can't do over half that.

    At high speed, and with the right paint job, an A-3 would look like the right stuff to a glimpsing public.

    If You dig around at Rense.com/ there was an article by Karl Schwarz who was contacted by a person or persons who says outfitted some A-3s a month or so before 9-11 at Colorado's Loveland airport near Boulder.
    The perfect location to put mods on an A-3 since Raytheon uses that airport to load A-3s with test missiles on a regular basis. No One would think anything of a few extra A-3s coming and going. I am not indicting Raytheon, btw. Probably would be others involved.
    The aircraft were converted to fly by remote control, and wing pods loaded with missiles, iirc.

    I think the "blob" seen at high trajectory diving on the north tower on the NBC archive feed could be an A-3 but not a 767. 767 simply couldn't be that small, as socialservice notes and our eyes can see.

    The Aircraft hitting the South Tower in the Naudet footage is simply too small imo, to be a 767 as well.

    The RB-66 and A-3 were aircraft that could fly at 550 close to the nap of the earth, no 767 can approach that speed near sea level. 

    We also have an engine on the ground at the WTC site that doesn't fit a 767, in fact, the engine at full thrust, 2 of them couldn't lift a 767 off the ground. that engine could fit a A-3 or RB-66 variant, or a early 737.  the engine was ID'd  as a Snecma CF-56 family of engines by A&E folk.

    Aircraft aside, how do You explain the Verrazano Bridge and land mass under it moving across the landscape at high enough speed to get a speeding ticket in NYC?

    How Do You explain the layering pointed out by Socialservice, background, middle, and foreground?

    How does one explain the missing background on many subsequent showings of a 767 image hitting the tower?  The curious fact that the trajectory of the NBC blob would be hidden by washing out true Background and therefore hiding it.

    How about addressing the Channel 9 divebomber 767 loosing about 1000' in the last 5 seconds and reconciling the other network and home video images showing a near straight and level approach on other networks in the same last 5 seconds prior to impact-explosion?

    As far as kerosene being smelled by people, that could be stored on empty floors as we know there were many empty floors for lease.

    A more likely probability is that something like an A-3 hit. Otherwise why feed us the bullshit shadow images?

    It would be far easier to use jumbo jets except that the hijackers would have to succeed. Since they were intel agents, our agents, I don't think they did it.

    I also don't think for a second that if I was aboard a hijacked airliner and faced nutcases with box cutters that i would allow them to proceed. They would have never made it to NYC. I travel with a heavy belt around my waste with a 4 ounce silver buckle that would have plucked out their eyes if they had tried such a stunt on my watch.

    I can't imagine an airliner half full of people, even this generation of Americans,,,,, allowing people with one inch box cutters to kill them all without a fight.

    The pilots of those jets were not angels either. At least one of them said if ever He was hijacked, He would invert the aircraft and break some necks.

    There is the possibility that the feeds were manipulated to start a food fight/riot. That has it's possibilities too.

    Except that, if images were manipulated, and if the 767s were fed knockout gas and on remote control then we have two instances of an inside job. Making prosecution all that easier, in my book.

    I don't buy that saying images were manipulated is counter to the search for truth.
  • Doctorno wrote:

    All right, You sucked me into this again!  :)

    Ha! 


    Aircraft aside, how do You explain the Verrazano Bridge and land mass under it moving across the landscape at high enough speed to get a speeding ticket in NYC?

    How Do You explain the layering pointed out by Socialservice, background, middle, and foreground?

    How does one explain the missing background on many subsequent showings of a 767 image hitting the tower?  The curious fact that the trajectory of the NBC blob would be hidden by washing out true Background and therefore hiding it.


    I myself can't explain any of the above, but that doesn't mean that there aren't alternate explanations. I've posted some here. Have you personally compared raw footage from the networks with what's presented on September Clues? I did a lot of taping that day. I suppose I could get the SC DVD and dig out my recordings and see if I see what you're seeing.

    How about addressing the Channel 9 divebomber 767 losing about 1000' in the last 5 seconds and reconciling the other network and home video images showing a near straight and level approach on other networks in the same last 5 seconds prior to impact-explosion?

    I've read accounts of two aircraft at the Pentagon, but I think one was typically identified as a C-130. I know about the dive, which was supposedly pulled off by a guy who couldn't pilot a Cessna, and that other accounts have the "plane" coming in flat and low, snapping off lamp posts and crashing into the Pentagon at ground level without ever touching the ground... one, neat round hole blasted through several concrete walls, virtually no evidence of plane wreckage, engine parts too small for a Boeing... When you mention both the Channel 9 divebomber and the straight and level hit, you're talking about verbal reports, right?

    I haven't watched the entire September Clues video. (Ah ha!) I couldn't get what you posted to play, so I watched part of the film on YouTube, or somewhere, and I didn't get a "Oh wow! Look at that!" reaction to it. It was more like "hmm, well, maybe..." I may only be using half of my shriveled brain stem, but I have a very hard time believing that every camera shot and every eye and ear witness were part of such an elaborate scheme, that it could all be that controlled...

    As far as kerosene being smelled by people, that could be stored on empty floors as we know there were many empty floors for lease.

    Those were whopping big explosions, flying way out in the opposite directions of the purported plane hits. Are you saying the fireballs didn't happen, either?

    I'm going to have to sit down and watch the whole thing, ain't I?  :P

    Debates within debates within debates - is why 9-11 truth is probably doomed. Personally, I found all the arguments, counter arguments, and finger pointing to be pretty tedious after a while. I'll watch the rest of September Clues and get back with you, but my common sense, such as it may be, is telling me... to go to bed.  ;)

    Afterthought - If they faked all of this imagery, why didn't they provide fake Pentagon images, as well?
  • Damn you, sir, for making me waste hours and hours that I could've wasted on something else. ;) I'm going to have to look around more for an explanation as to the "moving bridge" and buildings. I'm wondering if they weren't moved around by Simon Shack himself. In Sept Clues Busted it's shown that Shack edited out words of eyewitnesses, cut at least one film clip short so that no plane would appear, etc. Most of the images we're asked to look at are grainy, out of focus, and blurry. I don't think they prove anything. There are points raised in Sept Clues that make you think, and wonder, but overall... I don't buy it. Maybe I'm only thinking with a tiny, ittybitty brain stem, (I wouldn't deny that) but I see this as being exactly the kind of "looney tunes" stuff the mainstream media loves to use to ridicule the entire 9-11 truth movement.

    I wish somebody else besides Doctorno and me would jump in here and put in their two cents... this could get pretty interesting.

    Truth Revolution Radio January 5 2008

    Deconstructing the No Planes TV Fakery disinformation campaign with guests Anthony Lawson and Jim Hoffman.
    http://ia360639.us.archive.org/2/items/TruthRevolutionRadioJanuary52008/20080105TRR.mp3

    September Clues Busted   
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&hl=en-CA

    September Clues Part 9 


    Grand TV Illusion 


    2nd World Trade Center Attack of 9/11 - 42 angles   


    2nd hit, filmed from Brooklyn Bridge   


    WTC Security Cam   


    Unseen Footage   


    Sue Says:
    August 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
    The media lies of 911 are becoming more apparent every day. The media lied to our faces and said there were planes on 911. They have covered for this regime for 8 years now and are as complicit and criminal as any terrorist or Bush regime member. The media itself will receive immunity just like the telecoms got before Bush leaves office. Watch “September Clues’ for an introduction into the lies.

    Bofors Says:
    August 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
    “Sue”, get hell out of here with your “no planes”, “September Clues” disinformation crap.
    Mossad is that way: ===>
    Go stick a bagel in your mouth.

    Gabriel Alan King Says: 

    August 30th, 2008 at 2:21 am 

    Fuck.

    HillbillyJihad&TheBubbaLiberationFront Says:
    August 30th, 2008 at 2:22 am 

    Word!!!

    http://www.infowars.com/?p=4217&cp=all
  • on the 42 angles flic at You Tube there are repeat photos here and there, but #4 is so wonderful since it contradicts most of the others.

    I contend one cannot have flt 175 dive bombing from above the antenna in the last 5 seconds prior to impact, almost a 1000' dive,  and the other shots are more or less level the last 5 seconds prior to impact. These I refer to are all Network Feeds.

    There are actually 4 paths to the South Tower meaning someone got their wires crossed. Really bad, or there was an insider or two who wanted people to discover the fraud at some point.

    Please take time to see the Higher definition September Clues and You will see that the whole show that day was manipulated, in many ways, more than just aircraft.

    See it for Yourself.

    http://network76.com/september-clues.avi

    I appreciate the feedback.  I've said enough.  The End
  • Doctorno wrote:

    on the 42 angles flic at You Tube there are repeat photos here and there, but #4 is so wonderful since it contradicts most of the others.

    I contend one cannot have flt 175 dive bombing from above the antenna in the last 5 seconds prior to impact, almost a 1000' dive,  and the other shots are more or less level the last 5 seconds prior to impact. These I refer to are all Network Feeds.


    I thought you were referring to flight 77 (Pentagon) as the "dive bomber" when I responded before. 175 is obscured frequently by buildings in many of the videos. Couldn't distance and camera angle account for the dive not being seen, or being seen differently? That's a lot easier to accept than the idea that ALL of the footage, from all sources, was completely faked and that everybody in New York who saw and heard a plane hit the south tower was either hallucinating or lying. Do you believe, like many "no planers" do, that the 9-11 perps created the sound of an approaching jet with massive, hidden speakers?

    There are actually 4 paths to the South Tower meaning someone got their wires crossed. Really bad, or there was an insider or two who wanted people to discover the fraud at some point.

    Please take time to see the Higher definition September Clues and You will see that the whole show that day was manipulated, in many ways, more than just aircraft.


    See it for Yourself.

    http://network76.com/september-clues.avi

    I can't get it to play on our Mac.

    I appreciate the feedback.

    I wish there was more, from others besides myself. As I said, I hadn't really looked into "no plane" theories at the WTC before I read your post. I learned a lot by researching the pros and cons of September Clues. I'm still skeptical, but better informed. I kind of put it in the category of the "pod or no pod" debate, but taken to the next level, I guess. "Pod? Hell, there wasn't even a plane!" One thing I'm sure of is that the "farther out" these theories get, that more ammo gets handed to the defenders of the official government story, and that more division will be created within the 9-11 truth movement. 

    I've said enough. The End

    One thing you never commented on or replied to is why Mr. Shack would edit out words of eyewitnesses, and cut at least one film clip short so that no plane would appear, as SC Busted points out? If he'll do that, what else might he do?

    September Clues Busted 
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&hl=en-CA

    I think it makes a lot more sense to focus on solid questions that won't get us laughed off the stage.

    "On September 11th, there were fighters in the air less than five minutes away from the Twin Towers when the first was hit, 25 minutes after Flight 11 was believed to be hijacked. There were a number of air stations with combat-ready fighters within ten minutes' flying time from the New York City and Washington targets. There were well-established automatic procedures for intercepting aircraft that were either off course or had lost communication. Yet there were no interceptions of any of the four hijacked aircraft, with the possible exception of Flight 93, whose interception and shoot-down is officially denied. What conclusions can be drawn from this failure, given the awesome capabilities of the air defense network?"  http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/index.html

    Oh, of course... there were no planes, so there was nothing for the fighters to intercept. Round and round we go.
  • Good thread. Glad I could contribute, before I even visited the forum! (Above, see links to http://www.911conspiracy.tv slash et. al.) September Clues is available for d/l at my site, too. I'm not sure about supporting it wholeheartedly, however, due to the over-zealous accusations of fakery, when all that was really needed were composite images of planes.... see http://acebaker.blogspot.com ...not all the confusing desktop view/digital city/georeferenced FCS yadda yadda that Nico and gang ramble on about.

    I am more excited about Ace Baker's new treatise/paper detailing the composite plane hypothesis:

    http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-9.pdf

    Thanks,
    -Matt
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    Thanks for the Ace Baker link!

    I find it interesting!
  • Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008
    The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.

    The newly released videos show footage of the attack on the twin towers in New York on September 11th 2001.

    Some of the videos were originally seized by the FBI in the hours after the attacks had taken place, others were handed to 9/11 investigators or discovered throughout the course of the investigation.

    The videos were secured by FOIA attorney Scott Hodes, under instruction from his client Mr Scott Bingham.

    Bingham has uploaded some of the footage to youtube and has set about writing blogs on the videos at http://www.penttbom.com.

    It appears that the FBI still maintains that they have no more footage of the Pentagon attack, despite the fact that the area is littered with buildings and roads that have their own surveillance systems, in addition to that of the pentagon itself. 
    http://www.infowars.com/?p=5914

    Cunsirnd Says:
    November 13th, 2008

    Ok first of all, it was not holograms. It was really jets that hit the towers. There were pieces of the plane on the street. Secondly, the black smoke doesn’t mean that it was oxygen starved. Have you seen footage of other jets that hit the ground? The smoke looks black in an open air environment just like it looked on 9/11/2001. Black smoke proves nothing. That being said, I do believe that there is a coverup of 9/11. I don’t know if the buildings were really controlled demolition or not, but I do know that the hijackers trained at U.S. military bases. I do know that there were drills going on that same day that put fake blips on the radar screen and that confused everyone. I do know that there was a drill on the morning of 9/11 of hijacked planes hitting a CIA building. I do know that there were drills in the past of the pentagon and world trade center being hit by planes. I do know that we had hijacked jet airliners roaming U.S. skies for over an hour with no U.S. fighter jets interfearing with their plans. I do know that Bush sat and read a book about a goat to elementary school kids after knowing the first plane hit, then the second plane hit… still reading about those goats? I know that Cheney knew of the plane heading in the vicinity of the Pentagon and ordered a standown. The reason I know this is because I know that Bush didn’t authorize a shootdown order for any hijacked planes until after flight 93 “crashed”. Hmm.. now that’s pretty convienient don’t you think?

    Look I know that the government has all kinds of crazy tricks up their sleaves. I’m not saying that we won’t ever see holograms and ufos taking part in a false flag type of event, but I am saying that we need to wake people up with hard indisputed facts about 9/11. I do believe that the towers were planted with explosives, but I can’t prove it. I’m not an engineer… I’m not a demolition expert… I’m not a physisist… All I’m saying is that there is alot more proof of government involvement than space beams, holograms, ufos, etc… This is too important to argue over these kinds of things. Stick to the proveable facts and we will wake people up to what’s really going on.
    http://www.infowars.com/?p=5914&cp=all#comments
  • Ace Baker's FAKE on-air suicide on Jim Fetzer show (Jan 6, 2009)