New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Originally posted by Skunky
If the 'CGI' nose appeared as a result of the footage shifting to the right, why was this not noticed when the comping was done? And why would the rest of the fuselage not appear 'over' the flames?
[edit on 10-6-2007 by Skunky]

Holy bajezzus have you not been to the theatre in the last, I don't know, decade? As to having a rudimentary understanding of nonlinear or digital editing, I know you have no idea who you're talking to so I forgive your assumption, but just so you know, I've worked on both sides of the camera off and on in both film and video production for going on ten years now. I could do it with Maya and Adobe Premiere/After Effects in just a matter of a few minutes, cue it up in a split second, and call it live feed all day long. It's not impossible, in fact it's easier than you think it is.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
The fact that many are willing to speculate that what was witnessed on September 11, 2001 by millions all over the world, and thousands in person in New York City was any kind of fabricated illusion is utterly absurd, and insults the intelligence of everyone involved, especially those who may be diverted from seeking real truths surrounding the attacks of that day, to waste time debating and discussing such trivial and obviously contrived crap.

However, you all have the right to pursue anything you wish, no matter what others may think, myself included.

But seriously?

[edit on 10-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Absolutely. Let's face it - the circle of complicity in the conspiracy would have to be impossibly wide to accommodate what's being discussed.

I could do it with Maya and Adobe Premiere/After Effects in just a matter of a few minutes

Doesn't the video suggest the time gap was about 17 seconds between the 'live' footage and what was broadcast? The video alleges a mistake in letting the composited plane's nose appear on the other side of the building. So yes, with preparation and the right kit, maybe minutes. I've used Premiere, After Effects, Lightwave 3D, Photoshop - I teach students these skills, and although I don't claim to be an expert or a professional CGI operator, I have a pretty good idea of the processes involved in making this kind of effect look convincing.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Skunky]

Originally posted by Skunky
Absolutely. Let's face it - the circle of complicity in the conspiracy would have to be impossibly wide to accommodate what's being discussed.

No no no... they call it Feed for a reason.

Originally posted by Skunky


..... (in the 17 second live-feed delay allegedly used to complete the comp job) why did they a) not mask the nose as well and more importantly b) not see it and scrub it out in the first place?

Perhaps despite the fact, that they had access to military tech you and I can only speculate about, including also immense computer power unavailable to any but the military, and very likely months to prepare ahead of time, they simply f'ed up or had unforeseen technical and logistical problems.

There is however another possible reason for the seeming errors made.

Maybe they wanted to see who would remain unaffected, by the 911 optical deception involved, along with all the propaganda and brainwashing.

Perhaps they "need to know", just who has remained relatively unaffected, by the mind control and cultural programing they have been employing for the last fifty years or so.

It very well may be, that one of the multistrat operation objectives involves,

There always seems to be a 'fantastic' answer beyond the realms of 'what we know' to perpetuate these theories: missile-destroying laser rays; camouflage techniques; mind control; dummy airliners loaded with jet fuel spray nozzles and missiles; soldiers disguised as firefighters etc. I'm not saying people posting here accept all these ideas without question, but it seems people find it very easy to fill in the blanks to perpetuate some of the more outlandish ideas.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Skunky]

For those who find my previous post too long to bother reading.

Maybe they purposely made it transparent to certain types of people, because all they want left are those people, such garbage is enough to either cower or actually fool.

Could it be that we underestimate them? I think the answer is yes.

Then again Skunky, there is no lack of people who deny such technology exists even though it is operational, and who believe whatever they find of comfort to believe.

For this reason, are we ruled, badly, cruelly and relentlessly.

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." - some Machiavellian asshole somewhere

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Demo experts can do amazing things with explosives.

Yes. Yes they can, but I've yet to see an explosive that forced the material it was meant to destroy in an inward direction.

projectiles whether large internally guided and powered or unguided and merely shot, unknown classified directed energy such as antimissile laser, or possibly any combination of the above.

Better yet, and a much simpler explanation, how about the holes, fireballs and subsequent damage being the result 200,000+ pound commercial aircraft flying at or near top speed? laden with fuel and having more than sufficient kinetic energy and mass to accomplish said task. Now, whether or not those aircraft were hijacked and piloted by those claimed to be at the helm ... well, that's an entirely different question, and one that has several threads devoted to the discussion thereof.

Honestly, I've watched all 4 parts of what is being presented as supportive evidence for the claims made. Upon doing so, I find myself coming to the conclusion that an increasing number of inhabited areas are realizing a singular decrease in their populace.





 

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." - some Machiavellian asshole somewhere

I don't have a problem with thinking, as long as it's clear and based on as much solid evidence as possible.


Such as this:

"Better yet, and a much simpler explanation, how about the holes, fireballs and subsequent damage being the result 200,000+ pound commercial aircraft flying at or near top speed? laden with fuel and having more than sufficient kinetic energy and mass to accomplish said task."

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Skunky]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Better yet, and a much simpler explanation, how about the holes, fireballs and subsequent damage being the result 200,000+ pound commercial aircraft flying at or near top speed? laden with fuel and having more than sufficient kinetic energy and mass to accomplish said task.

The planes are large collections, of low mass density [lightweight] materials, which altogether are heavy in weight.

Those same materials are nearly all very low density [low mass weight], high tensile strength plastic composites with low compression strength, being brittle and poorly impact resistant.

The aluminum allow sheeting in question, is also less malleable than common aluminum sheeting, having both greater rigidity and less flexibility, and it too is poor as far as impact resistance goes.


The above materials, are no match for the building materials in question, despite the velocity involved, because projectile impact energy is based upon velocity ... weight ... 'and' ... density taken together.

That is why kinetic energy projectile weapons, are made out of lead or even denser materials like depleted uranium [DU], instead of low density [lightweight] materials like plastic or hard brittle aluminum or aluminum alloys.



This really needs to be mentioned again.

The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!", .... CNN then immediately covered up that mistake with their banner.

In addition all that footage of the supposed "fly through", was dropped from further video coverage, and the supposed fly through was never again spoken of.



It was the MEDIA who edited their footage later on, leaving out the "fly through", and not the guys who brought this to your attention. The media did so because they knew that was impossible and too many people would notice.


If you really want to know, the truth about this, then watch the video again.

[September Clues]

-

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

Aircraft aluminum (2024 T3) has a tensile strength that is similar, or greater to sheet steel, and not much lower than annealed bars of steel. Even so, there is NO steel made that could POSSIBLY resist the impact of a 200,000lb object, moving at 500+mph. The idea that it would just bounce off, or somehow not go through it is ludicrous. You're doing exactly what other people that make this claim do, and you're talking about the skin, and completely ignoring the structure that's inside. Main spars, and ribs are extremely strong very dense beams that run through the structure of the wings, tail, and fuselage.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson


The above materials, are no match for the building materials in question, despite the velocity involved, because projectile impact energy is based upon velocity ... weight ... 'and' ... density taken together.

Velocity, weight and density. Yes, but I feel you are being far too dismissive of the cumulative potential or destructive effect held by the sum total. Straw is a lightweight [low mass density] material, yet when propelled by the winds of a tornado it has often demonstrated the ability to penetrate telephone poles ... amongst other more hardened materials. STRAW. You know that stuff you can literally turn to dust by simply rubbing it between your hands

The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!",

I've yet to see Any evidence that what is shown exiting the opposing side is in Fact the Actual nose of said aircraft. While it May appear as such, I've yet to see that it is in Fact that, the nose cone.

As for "it flew right through the building", there were Many individual comments made by various newscasters that day which were later recanted or retracted altogether. It was a a series of events, that left Many grasping for Appropriate descriptive terms and or means to convey what they were seeing unfold before their very eyes.

If you really want to know, the truth about this, then watch the video again.

I'm sorry, but it was effort enough to endure the first pass. I'm open to most Any potential theory or evidence thereof, for what Actually took place that fateful day. But, in my opinion, the claims put forth in September Clues is about as far removed from the realm of possible as could be fathomed. Not that the ability to "edit" live video feeds is out of the question, it's been clearly demonstrated and documented as quite the reality. What I have a problem with is the claims regarding ALL videos having been either edited, forged, or inserted Real Time. Utterly Impossible, especially when you take into consideration the myriad of potential sources that in some form or fashion tasked themselves with documenting what took place Right Before Their Eyes. Live broadcasts are one thing, but the claims put forth by the "No Planes - Sept. Clues" researchers are far too "All Encompassing" and fallible to warrant further interest . 'least for me.

Originally posted by Skunky

I don't have a problem with thinking, as long as it's clear and based on as much solid evidence as possible.

Yes, I agree wholeheartly. The problem stems from if it is too clear and solid evidence or thinking contrary to preconcieved thoughts...it gets ignored.

I could cite many posts in this thread or other threads that get ignored completely to back that up, but feel that if people researched that themselves they may find it educational.

The topic of this thread deals with what looks like the nose of the plane coming through the building and being vaporized in the fireball. We can all agree that is improbable. For it to remain solid through the building, and not fall to the ground. The theory is that it had to be faked footage to explain why the nose is not on the ground. With that idea in mind then all footage must be faked. Since it faked then it agrees with gov't cover up. That makes it a valid CT because it debunks the official story. (no matter how inane it sounds to other people)

But imagine for a moment that what we see is fuel and small debris bursting through windows in the short time before a spark ignites the whole thing. Why the shape you ask? Imagine a lump of Playdough as this pre-ignited mass. Put it in a Playdough Fun Factory and push the lever. Does it come out like the lump or whatever form guide you had at the extrusion hole?

Sound silly? I have reviewed many different videos that show that angle...it is not just the two videos that show that mass. Those are just the two clearest views. I have seen this so called nosecone on at least 5 other videos that show the southside. Since not all shots have the perfect profile shot, it does not look like a nosecone, just a dark mass that very rapidly becomes flame when viewed at full speed.

TV Fakery or video speed manipulation with deliberate suggustion as to what you are being shown? Or in otherwords the old "I think that cloud looks like a bunny rabbit" when cloud watching when we were children.

Comments welcomed, if this doesn't make too much sense and gets ignored.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


OK, once again, What made the holes??????

Planted explosives, projectiles whether large internally guided and powered or unguided and merely shot, unknown classified directed energy such as antimissile laser, or possibly any combination of the above.

At last my question that I've bene asking you people since the beginning hasn't been dodged.

"Planted explosives"

Ok, so it's already pushing the odds of conspiracy possibility to assume that the buildings could have been wired in order to detonate key structural memebrs in order to level the buildings when it was time... where the explosives would have been placed using maintainance access thru elavator shafts and so on.
But now we're to assume that thousands of pounds of additional explosives were strategically placed along multiple walls and on multiple floors in both buildings? DO you have any idea what kind of odds you're suggesting? It's already a challenge to assume key strategic shaped charges were placed in concealed regions of the buildings, but here you're suggesting massive blocks and barrels of explosives and related incendiary materials to produce the 'Hollywood' effects.

Ok, assuming they could have possibly done this, then why are the exterior columns pushed inwards instead of outwards?








projectiles whether large internally guided and powered or unguided and merely shot

The way that's worded doesn't make much sense, but I'll assume you're talking about some type of missile.

1) Fired from what? Now we're assuming that U.S. ships / submarines / jets we're in on this plot? How vast is the conspiracy?

2) There is immediate massive damage at the initial impact zone, granted. So then why did the high explosives missile explode upon impact, but then continued to push thru literally cutting the south wall all the way to the SW corner? Allegidly thsi missle exploded on impact to create the cartoon cutter holes, yet most of the 'high explosive caused' fireball is seen ejecting out of the other sides of the structure. If we were dealing with high explosives there would have been roughly the same type of fireball, however, the primary structural damage wouldn't have been restricted to where the missile went in.





unknown classified directed energy such as antimissile laser

Are you familiar with the nature of laser beams? Are you suggesting that something that can destroy a missile laden with hig explosives can explode a building and get the results that happened on 9/11? I'm not at all saying that the technology doens't exist, however lasers are absolutely nonconsistent with anything involved with 911.
www.st.northropgrumman.com...#

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Aircraft aluminum (2024 T3) has a tensile strength that is similar, or greater to sheet steel, and not much lower than annealed bars of steel.

It is however far less impact resistant than steel, and it is in fact brittle compared to steel.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Even so, there is NO steel made that could POSSIBLY resist the impact of a 200,000lb object, moving at 500+mph.

You forget that impact energy is about velocity ... mass weight .... and .... density.

Guess why they make kinetic energy projectiles out of lead or depleted uranium instead of aluminum?

Guess why the make airplanes out of aluminum and plastic instead of lead or depleted uranium?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The idea that it would just bounce off, or somehow not go through it is ludicrous.

I never said it would "just bounce off", far from it, and I do believe that an engine or two could enter the interior.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're doing exactly what other people that make this claim do, and you're talking about the skin, and completely ignoring the structure that's inside.

Hogwash. I did not neglect the interior materials at all. Reread my post.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Main spars, and ribs are extremely strong very dense beams that run through the structure of the wings, tail, and fuselage.

They are NOT dense at all! They would not be suitable for aircraft if they were, because density means WEIGHT man.

Aircraft spars braces and spanner beams, are made of materials chosen for their tensile strength and their flexibility rigidity index.

Various LOW DENSITY materials each having varying FR indexes are also layered into composite forms, to maintain suitable t-strength, rigidity and flexibility characteristics, to keep each section of low mass density.

None of those materials are known for great compression strength and impact resistance. Except for certain engine and load bearing landing stress parts, c-pins, section joiners, pnueminails and a very limited number of braces etc, .... aircraft are for the most part constructed of lightweight, .... low density .... semi-rigid .... flexible .... materials.

Aircraft crumple tear rip and even shatter upon hard impact at velocity. If you think, "the faster they are moving the more they will penetrate STEEL", you are completely mistaken. Shoot an aluminum bullet at construction grade steel and see what happens.


You don't know what you are talking about!


You are just trying to change the subject, away from the following, yet once again.



The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!", .... CNN then immediately covered up that mistake with their banner.

In addition all that footage of the supposed "fly through", was dropped from further video coverage, and the supposed fly through was never again spoken of.


It was the MEDIA who edited their footage later on, leaving out the "fly through", ....... and not the guys who brought this to your attention. ....... The military controlled media did so, because they knew that was impossible, and too many people would notice.


Watch the video again.

[September Clues]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
But, in my opinion, the claims put forth in September Clues is about as far removed from the realm of possible as could be fathomed.

I don't know, I could think up some truely bizarre stuff that might be accepted as plausible to someone. Of course the upper limit of "possible" would be how grounded in reality the "someone" was.

Fluorinated water comes from adding the salt compound of Sodium Fluoride which is the chemical compound of Fluorine and Sodium. Elements 9 and 11 on the periodic table of elements. So viral marking campaign for Dr. Strangelove II gone horribly wrong? Yeah, might be hard to find someone that far gone that can still use a computer to read that.

Then please, tell us exactly what SHOULD have happened? Let me guess, they should have hit the building and crumpled against them? If they're not going to bounce off, as you say they shouldn't have, then where are they going to go? Please tell us. Because if they shouldn't have penetrated the building why aren't MORE people shouting about it? And for that matter, how did a plane maybe 1/2 their size, 1/4 their weight, moving at 200mph go completely through a CONCRETE building? How is it that a B-25 at 200mph can go all the way through the Empire State Building, but a 767 can't penetrate the WTC? Enlighten us please.


ETA:

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a civil engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has constructed a realistic computer simulation of the World Trade Center North Tower being hit by a jet airplane. Astaneh's model has simulated the first few seconds of the plane's impact and entry into the building, and he is refining the model to include damage to the plane, the building floors and the internal core columns. The next step will be to include the effect of fire heating the damaged structure and initiating its final collapse.

www.nsf.gov...


This guy:
Daigoro ISOBE, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Eng.
Department of Engineering Mechanics and Energy, University of Tsukuba
1-1-1 Tennodai Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8573, Japan
was involved in writing another analysis of the WTC, here and he didn't have any issues with the plane penetrating. I can find a good dozen more. You're telling me that not ONE of these highly trained individuals raised a flag about the "thin cheap aluminum" planes penetrating steel, but you guys figured out that they can't?


[edit on 6/10/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson


The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!", .... CNN then immediately covered up that mistake with their banner.

A couple of GRAINY shots happened to catch an anomlie that appeared to be a nosecone. That doesn't mean it actually was one. Provide us with the full quality unaltered clips from whereever those shots came from, and I'll persoanly blow them up using the same photo enlargement software that U.S. law enforcement agencies use. Then perhaps we can begin to talk about what those "nosecones" actually were. As it stands you're entire belief is based on analysis of obscured youtube quality video.

Why am I not surprised that September Clues isn't avaible in high quality over the bittorrent networks?
conspiracycentral.net:6969...

Provide us with sound clear clean quality materials to examine or else you'll only make yourself look even more irrational and borderline insane as you push on these staunch beliefs that originate from youtube quality videos.

BTW, that "banner" is called the "lower third" and there's nothing conspiratorial about it happening to 'hide' something that may be important to some fringe conspiracy theorists 5 years later.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
BTW, that "banner" is called the "lower third" and there's nothing conspiratorial about it happening to 'hide' something that may be important to some fringe conspiracy theorists 5 years later.

Exactly, and thank you addressing that aspect of these most Fallible claims and or assertions.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I don't know, I could think up some truely bizarre stuff that might be accepted as plausible to someone. Of course the upper limit of "possible" would be how grounded in reality the "someone" was.

To some One, being the key here. no? If that be the case, then I wholeheartedly agree. There's "one" born Everyday ... 'least that's what I've always been told.

In respone to Zaphod's post:

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
You don't know what you are talking about!

No matter How boldly you make such claims, they are still just that. Your claims and Your opinions, but please Do carry on ... as I'm sure you will.

As much as Some may feel confident that they have found, discovered, or "rooted out" the end all be all proof regarding the pecularities surrounding 9-11, September Clues will ultimately fall far short of demonstrating such. Of course, that's My opinion and mine alone.

Your mileage may vary ...

 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson


The above materials, are no match for the building materials in question, despite the velocity involved, because projectile impact energy is based upon velocity ... weight ... 'and' ... density taken together.

Velocity, weight and density. Yes, but I feel you are being far too dismissive of the cumulative potential or destructive effect held by the sum total.

I am "far too dismissive of the cumulative potential or destructive effect held by the sum total" am I?

I will have to take your word for that.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Straw is a lightweight [low mass density] material, yet when propelled by the winds of a tornado it has often demonstrated the ability to penetrate telephone poles ... amongst other more hardened materials. STRAW. You know that stuff you can literally turn to dust by simply rubbing it between your hands

Sorry, but that is an urban legend, which has been disproved by everyone from TV's the Mythbusters to scientists at NOAA. It only looks like straw was rammed through telephone poles and trees.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!",

I've yet to see Any evidence that what is shown exiting the opposing side is in Fact the Actual nose of said aircraft. While it May appear as such, I've yet to see that it is in Fact that, the nose cone.

You are absolutely 100% CORRECT! There is absolutely no evidence anything did, other than some fake photos and video, ...... and yet you are missing the point of the [September
Clues] video.

The point is, that the MEDIA showed FAKED video footage of just that very thing, and even some newscasters said, .... "the plane flew right through the building!" only to later cover that up.

Sadly to this very moment, many 911 truthers still believe, that the plastic nosecone magically shot right through steel.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
As for "it flew right through the building", there were Many individual comments made by various newscasters that day which were later recanted or retracted altogether. It was a a series of events, that left Many grasping for Appropriate descriptive terms and or means to convey what they were seeing unfold before their very eyes.

Heeeeeeey. Are you Peter Jennings? HOOT HOOT

Yes true. I'll give you that. They also showed clearly faked videos, to go along with their comments though, which depicted absolutely impossible events.

I imagine they got a loud and angry phone call, from some higher-up, who said something like this. "WHAT THE HELL!" "PJ Drop coverage of that 'fly through nonsense' right NOW, and do NOT EVER mention it again!" "Stick to the approved narrative, and FOR GODS SAKE stay within the realm of possibility!"

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
If you really want to know, the truth about this, then watch the video again.

I'm sorry, but it was effort enough to endure the first pass. I'm open to most Any potential theory or evidence thereof, for what Actually took place that fateful day. But, in my opinion, the claims put forth in September Clues is about as far removed from the realm of possible as could be fathomed.

I accept that. You aren't ready, and possibly you never will be. I don't despise you for it, and in fact far from it.

You are in my prayers.

Natasha



Note quote haters,

I do try to keep quoting down to a minimum, but sometimes you just have to quote people.

Please be patient.

PS

I don't understand how you can say it's a "bandwidth issue" and too hard to download. I mean look at the ridiculous size of some these silly personal icons.

Thank you