New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

How do you account for the fact that the exiting "debris" is the same size and shape as the nose of the airplane? How do you account for the video that shows the exiting debris to look like smoke, when another looks like a silver nose-cone, and the Chopper 5 looks like the nose cone of the airplane? How do you account for the fact that in Chopper 5, the nose cone appears to come from behind the building, not out of the north face? How do you account for the fact that CNN replayed the shot 6 minutes later, with a logo banner that ran 1/3 of the way up the screen, so that it covered up the plane completely?

I think you are ignoring the timeline. If you wish to gain understanding you must be aware of the order in which these videos emerged.

The live shot, Chopper 5, screwed up and had the video overlay airplane pop out the back side. Trust me, the perps knew right away, and they assumed people had recorded it. They had no choice but to produce corroborating videos. Allow Chopper 5 to be the last word? Never!

myowncrusade

Do you honestly want to know who might have started this? Some grandmother out of Chicago who is totally INTERNET SAVY and seems to have a knack for finding video clips we all never seen before! She used to work in textiles and the WebFairy's name is Rosalee Grable, and has appeared on the RADIO show with Jim Fetzer

WEBFAIRY


No joke! I think there were some others but she had put a lot of stuff like this years ago.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Ace Baker

And how do you account for Vesna Vulović surviving a 33,000 feet drop after the passenger plane she was travelling in blew up in the middle of the sky?

She not only survived the explosion, but she also survived the fall, the greatest fall on record ever recorded.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I am not going to sit here and then conclude, it didn't happen. Because obviously it did. I can't account for it in terms of physics and or any other way, but it happened.

With that thought in mind let us look at this again.

So far what I have seen are compressed images and or video on the internet, and in most cases without any sourced information, no appendix of sources. As you will know compressed images can leave artifacts.

I already put out a challenge a while ago to anyone who posts this stuff to put up GOOD QUALITY WITH a source from which I can go and get it from.
To date I haven't seen this.

Now, I think it is a fair request.

Also having said this remember this because it is very important.

Even *IF* there was camera hocus pocus on some of the news. (I don't believe this to be true) but *IF* for the sake of argument.

It doesn't follow that there were no planes.

That is the key in all of this. Remember, if we don't accept the majority of witnesses, and we don't accept anything else on 9/11, then we enter into dangerous grounds, one that could lead to a complete denial of the said event.



[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Ace Baker
How do you account for the fact that the exiting "debris" is the same size and shape as the nose of the airplane? How do you account for the video that shows the exiting debris to look like smoke, when another looks like a silver nose-cone, and the Chopper 5 looks like the nose cone of the airplane?

It looked like it was that shape, but it does not prove it was a CGI nosecone. The fact is that as the debris came out, it formed that particular shape. If we consider that the cross section of the plane would be such that it matches it in size to either side of this chopper 5 tape, it could also be that the pressure front of the explosion was also of that profile early on, and that the windows/ structure blown out was in the area directly ahead of where the plane went.

How do you account for the fact that in Chopper 5, the nose cone appears to come from behind the building, not out of the north face?

How can we get the correct depth perception from such pixelated footage? And didn't the explosion come out the east face, as the north face is the one seen from the chopper?

How do you account for the fact that CNN replayed the shot 6 minutes later, with a logo banner that ran 1/3 of the way up the screen, so that it covered up the plane completely?

Is it not possible for it to be coincidence? And the footage had the plane going in fairly low in the frame of it anyway, so with their news banner it is possible that it could be in such a position as to cover the plane.

The live shot, Chopper 5, screwed up and had the video overlay airplane pop out the back side. Trust me, the perps knew right away, and they assumed people had recorded it. They had no choice but to produce corroborating videos. Allow Chopper 5 to be the last word? Never!

Or, it could be that it wasn't an error, and that it was debris. Why could this not be the case? And with an explosive device there planted instead of a plane, could that not do what is observed in these images, without the CGI?

I can put an open mind to a bit of the no plane theory, but it has a large amount of explaining to do, and this is only the surface of it.

How do you account for the fact that the exiting "debris" is the same size and shape as the nose of the airplane?

Have you ever owned one of those pin desk toys where you push your hand into it and a 'pin hand' comes out the other side?
Much the same concept I imagine.

Anyway the point I'm trying to make is the CGI trickery idea trickery as presented in the OP's first film makes no sense.

I just finished viewing all four videos in the 'September Clues' series, and I am very impressed. They really are THE talk of the net right now, and for good reason.

How anyone, with even half a wit, could just dismiss this evidence is beyond me.

Thanks to all of you boys for your excellent work. The people deserve the truth, and they need to know it right now.



To the admin here.

You seem to be ignoring the 'anti no plane theory' trolls here. They are making childish personal attacks, and the best of them merely set up very transparent straw man arguments.

Their brand of "911 truth" boils down to, "it is OK to perpetuate lies in order to gain more converts", and they have openly admitted this all over the net.

Please allow the media fraud investigators to have a fair say.

Originally posted by Ace Baker
How do you account for the fact that the exiting "debris" is the same size and shape as the nose of the airplane?

Answer: I don't, because it is NOT the shape of any Boeing nose. It looks more like a Tomahawk cruise missile.

How do you account for the video that shows the exiting debris to look like smoke, when another looks like a silver nose-cone, and the Chopper 5 looks like the nose cone of the airplane?

Answer: a column of gas will look different in shape depending on the amount and spectral nature of the light it reflects. Seen from an angle towards which it scatters little light, its outline will appear different.

How do you account for the fact that in Chopper 5, the nose cone appears to come from behind the building, not out of the north face?

Answer: it's an optical illusion.

How do you account for the fact that CNN replayed the shot 6 minutes later, with a logo banner that ran 1/3 of the way up the screen, so that it covered up the plane completely?

Answer: that's only significant to the paranoid, distrusting mind of a no planer

I think you are ignoring the timeline. If you wish to gain understanding you must be aware of the order in which these videos emerged.

The live shot, Chopper 5, screwed up and had the video overlay airplane pop out the back side. Trust me, the perps knew right away, and they assumed people had recorded it. They had no choice but to produce corroborating videos. Allow Chopper 5 to be the last word? Never!

Pure speculation based upon a misinterpretation of the 'nose out' as cgi. Apart, of course, from not making sense and being inconsistent with the testimony of many witnesses.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
....

.pieces of the plane broke off on impact and exited the opposite side of the building.

Nothing "exited the other side of the building", and to prove it there is no exit hole there.

44 clips of the two planes hitting the towers
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
How anyone, with even half a wit, could just dismiss this evidence is beyond me.

How anyone, with even half a wit, could dismiss the thousands of eyewitnesses, who watched the events unfold from their apartments, offices and from the street is beyond this eye witness.

I saw it my dear. All the altered and edited and time lapsed tinkering in the world won't erase the images that are in my mind because they were seen without the scrawl, without the clock, without the banner alerting me to the channel. They were seen thru the crystal clear skies of that warm sunny morning.

I don't see any action from the Mods on some of the posts in this thread I hope they will take care of it ASAP.

Originally posted by Ace Baker
The live shot, Chopper 5, screwed up and had the video overlay airplane pop out the back side. Trust me, the perps knew right away, and they assumed people had recorded it. They had no choice but to produce corroborating videos. Allow Chopper 5 to be the last word? Never!

This is just circular logic. If it was in any way plausible for some sort of black-ops agency to release a (live, no doubt) computer generated mistake at the hands of a "computer graphics operator", and then almost immediately release other faked footage corroborating the anomaly, wouldn't you say it would be more probable that this evil cgi corporation would have got it right the first time?? I mean, in order to orchestrate a live event, wouldn't you have endless fail-safes in place?

Sorry for the run on sentence, but people who are following this theory are going on not only simple speculation of others, but evidence-free research. What proof do you have that these "perps" even committed this atrocity? The fact that one camera-angle of one of the jets makes it look dark because of shadow, and one camera angle shows it "white and shiny" because it's in the sun-light?!

I am not attacking anyone, i just do not understand how someone can come to such damning conclusions with no (extra emphasis on the no) evidence.

Originally posted by piacenza
I don't see any action from the Mods on some of the posts in this thread I hope they will take care of it ASAP.

We've got your complaint and are reviewing it. Please don't go off topic and complain in the threads as well.

Now I cannot post a new thread about this one and that is sad...Anyway can someone with so much knowledge of video compression bad pixelation or illusion explain me how this bridge on BBC start walking from right to left (7 seconds into the video) and I mean this bridge is walking.
This is not the old bridge moving this is a new bridge moving.

Photos taken by private citizens of the planes hitting the towers:
www.911digitalarchive.org...
hereisnewyork.org...
hereisnewyork.org...
hereisnewyork.org...
hereisnewyork.org...
hereisnewyork.org...
www.lubbockonline.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
img151.imageshack.us...
www.911digitalarchive.org...
realitydown.com...
Plane parts:
www.911blogger.com...
www.911blogger.com...
www.911digitalarchive.org...
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
killtown.911review.org...
www.flickr.com...
killtown.911review.org...
911review.org...
www.suzialtman.com...
killtown.911review.org...
Eyewitnesses to planes at WTC:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
video.google.com...
www.911blogger.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
video.google.com...
youtube.com...
youtube.com...
video.google.com...
www.911blogger.com...
Earwitnesses:
youtube.com...

Originally posted by piacenza
Now I cannot post a new thread about this one and that is sad...Anyway can someone with so much knowledge of video compression bad pixelation or illusion explain me how this bridge on BBC start walking from right to left (7 seconds into the video) and I mean this bridge is walking.
This is not the old bridge moving this is a new bridge moving.

How do you know this is original footage? The video could have been manipulated by disinfo agents or by hoaxers so as to contain obvious anomalies. This is the trouble with fake video theorists. They always (naively) assume their clips are original footage, when in reality they may have been duped by the hoaxed videos they find and think are genuine. As they cannot establish the provenance of their clips, all their claims amount to is discovery of edited videos - as if no one but the 9/11 perps would ever fake videos for the internet!

Originally posted by mister.old.school

These deceptive videographers try to convince you these two shots are the exact same angle, but they are clearly not.

Your unscientific bias is very apparent, because by referring to them as, "these deceptive videographers", it is clear that you presume them to be intentionally deceptive.

That is both wholly unfair, and it is also but a thinly veiled personal attack. If their video evidence, is as bad as you claim it to be, then you would not need to stoop to such tactics.


It is extreme, emotion driven, bias, which makes people ignore facts such as the following.

All of the early "eyewitnesses", except one, are media employees.

Those blinded by their own bias, ignore all of the good evidence presented here, choosing rather to focus on anything they can possibly misrepresent to support their denial.

How do you know this is original footage? The video could have been manipulated by disinfo agents or by hoaxers so as to contain obvious anomalies. This is the trouble with fake video theorists. They always (naively) assume their clips are original footage, when in reality they may have been duped by the hoaxed videos they find and think are genuine. As they cannot establish the provenance of their clips, all their claims amount to is discovery of edited videos - as if no one but the 9/11 perps would ever fake videos for the internet!

This is exaclty where I would like to go. I would like for more people opinion on this footage. So are you saying that when I show you the original will you believe CGI was used? YES OR NO?

[edit on 8-6-2007 by piacenza]

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonThat is both wholly unfair, and it is also but a thinly veiled personal attack.

And think about the not so 'thinly veiled personal' attacks those presenting no-plane theories are making against reporters and media commentators, professional and amateur photographers, firefighters and EMTs, as well as the ordinary men and women of New York. Many people from each of these groups claim to have catured images of the planes or else claim to have witnessed them impact the buildings first hand. The no-plane theory assumes they are either all lying or else that multiply-corroborated wtinesses are somehow just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Originally posted by crowpruitt
....

.pieces of the plane broke off on impact and exited the opposite side of the building.

Nothing "exited the other side of the building", and to prove it there is no exit hole there.

Oh yes there is an exit hole! See www.rense.com...
The hole in the NE side of the South Tower where the 'nose' exited can be seen at
www.serendipity.li...
(scroll 3/4 down)