Killtown on 9/11

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by pshea38
The top right corner facade has repaired itself on the way down

I don't follow what you mean by "repaired itself," could you elaborate?

There are certainly many aspects of the piece that are missing in the lower-shot, than in the upper-shot.


Is this your selection of the single-most representative image/video evidence from the "September Clues" collection?

edit on 29-6-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

C'mon. Compare the yellow circles in both pictures in my above post.
This is the whole point being made.

Originally posted by pshea38
C'mon. Compare the yellow circles in both pictures in my above post.
This is the whole point being made.

Can't you see that the issue pointed out by the yellow circles is negated by my image overlay?

In the upper shot, the top-most member appears to be bent backwards on itself. When you compare the two images, it's clear there is some rotation happening as it falls, the top part rotating slightly toward the camera, the bottom part slightly away. As the entire piece piece rotates, the bend in the top member becomes less apparent as the camera angle is straight-on.

This is fairly simple stuff.


And this is the example you picked as representative as the best of September Clues?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I know I am late to the party here, and I have read the whole thread...
I have a couple questions for the Site Owner:

Are you just disputing "September Clues" only?...

Are you defending the official story?

Just asking...

Originally posted by coastlinekid
and I have read the whole thread..

I don't think you have...

post

never take my comments specific to his issue as being indicative of a lack of acceptance of 9/11 conspiracies

post

And, this is certainly not intended to be taken as an implication there were no conspiracies related to why those planes targeted those buildings.

Rejecting lies presented as 9/11 conspiracy theories (such as "September Clues" and TV Fakery) is not indicative of accepting the "official story."

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Like I said...

I was just asking...

reply to post by pshea38

p.s. i don't bother with bonez anymore. he spews out the same drivel everytime. Why so uptight, we have to ask?

Is this drivel, too?.......

I've challenged and asked them on numerous occasions to debate me on the radio show or debate forum if they had any real evidence of their claims. None of them will do it. Nefomore has also asked them numerous times to come on the radio show for a debate. All we get is silence. It's okay for them to keep claiming "verifiable" this and "scientific" that, but they won't show any of it. Because it doesn't exist.

I don't think it's a matter of being uptight. It's a matter of him wanting you to put your money where your mouth is.....So have you taken him up on these challenges? If not, then why?

Originally posted by twitchy
Look at that mind numbing and repetitive angry sounding drivel you posted.

Look at that cherry-picked, off-topic rant you posted. Yet another post focused on me instead of the topic at hand. Imagine that.

And your post doesn't sound "angry-sounding" at all. This from an "angry hippie".

Originally posted by twitchy
I refuse to debate anybody on that level.

So you are against others calling out disinformation and hoaxes when we see it, is that a correct assumption? Why don't you show me why you think it's not disinformation or a hoax instead of worrying about what I say?

Furthermore, do you have any idea of how many years this "September Clues"/tv fakery hoax has been debunked and to see it still peddled as some sort of "evidence" or fact? Do you have any idea how frustrating it is as a 9/11 researcher to have these ridiculous and outrageous "theories" used against you or associated with you?

So, you're damned right I sound a little perturbed when it comes to the "September Clues"/tv fakery hoax. That's exactly why the whole hoax was created in the first place.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by pshea38
C'mon. Compare the yellow circles in both pictures in my above post.
This is the whole point being made.

Can't you see that the issue pointed out by the yellow circles is negated by my image overlay?

In the upper shot, the top-most member appears to be bent backwards on itself. When you compare the two images, it's clear there is some rotation happening as it falls, the top part rotating slightly toward the camera, the bottom part slightly away. As the entire piece piece rotates, the bend in the top member becomes less apparent as the camera angle is straight-on.

This is fairly simple stuff.


And this is the example you picked as representative as the best of September Clues?

Are you telling me that when (especially) column 2, top right corner (better in colour) appears
to regain a section of its aluminium cladding on the masses plummet downwards, this is simply
an optical illusion and is a result of glare, as the top of the mass rotates slightly toward the camera?

Can you understand why someone might find what they are seeing odd, whatever the explanation?

Again, i am not trying to convince anyone, but encourage anyone to investigate and draw
their own conclusions, and not base their convictions on one single anomaly.
I am also not here to sell september clues, and have not studied the 9/11 part of the forums
in a while. Everyone there long knows the reality of the televisual, made for tv, extravaganza
that was the 9/11 hoax. Opinions are based on the reams of evidence.
Individually you can justify alternative explanations for separate anomalies,
but as the examples mount, co-incidence upon coincidence becomes incredible.

I will post the best example i can find of visual anomalies, that may be explained away,
but, when taken with other evidence, is most easily explained by computer generated,
video fakery imperfections.

Did you have any luck with the debunkaseptemberclue challange?
I really hope you did.
My thoughts are, that even if you can possibly explain away anomalies,
you will not be able to deny the oddity of the occurances.

And I am sure that you will recognise that these investigations do not involve deliberate
lies or hoaxing (accept on behalf of the perpetrators), by any of the researchers of this information,
and instead is a valid line of enquiry, backed by verifiable evidence.

regards.

Originally posted by pshea38
Did you have any luck with the debunkaseptemberclue challange?

Didn't bother as I'd prefer to examine that which you feel is the strongest/best representation of the claims.

And I am sure that you will recognise that these investigations do not involve deliberate
lies or hoaxing

I believe there is deliberate hoaxing and lies, because so many of the claims are the result of such fundamental mistakes in analysis, no one capable of creating a video on a computer would make those mistakes.

reply to post by pshea38


Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. For some reason this site runs away from anything they do not agree with or sponser. I have noticed this on many occasions lately and many others are seeing the same things.

The truth will come out and NO ONE will be able to hide behind the lies of 911. TV fakery was used over and over. Basically it was nothing more than a movie and people are still swallowing the lies. Sure the buildings fell and people died but it was staged. NWO ritual.


Puppets from the middle east were blamed for a reason! What is the real reason we are in Iraq and the Middle East? Does it really have to do with drugs, oil? Is it because the middle east was the beginning or our written history?

The NWO was mentioned Sept 11, 1990 by Papa Bush and brought in exactly 11 years later on Sept 11, 01 by Bushy jr. No such thing as coincidence. Everything happens because of previous actions.

Originally posted by pshea38
Are you telling me that when (especially) column 2, top right corner (better in colour) appears
to regain a section of its aluminium cladding on the masses plummet downwards, this is simply
an optical illusion and is a result of glare, as the top of the mass rotates slightly toward the camera?

No. It's a small rectangular piece of dark debris, falling with the section of facade, that happens to be in front of the facade in the upper image.

Originally posted by Buford2
TV fakery was used over and over.

Would you mind posting, here in this thread, what you think is the best, most-representative example of "TV Fakery?"

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by pshea38

 

[qoute]

p.s. i don't bother with bonez anymore. he spews out the same drivel everytime. Why so uptight, we have to ask?

Is this drivel, too?.......

He sings the same tune everytime. His examples of debunking
have been themselves debunked longsince. It took me weeks before i came to understand
the extents of 9/11 video fakery myself, and everything fits better into place knowing these.
That's just me. You come to your own conclusions in whatever way suits you.
But i don't intend to be drawn into attempting to prove, what many more elsewhere
have already proven. Just go there and say Yae or Nae, and move on i say.

I've challenged and asked them on numerous occasions to debate me on the radio show or debate forum if they had any real evidence of their claims. None of them will do it. Nefomore has also asked them numerous times to come on the radio show for a debate. All we get is silence. It's okay for them to keep claiming "verifiable" this and "scientific" that, but they won't show any of it. Because it doesn't exist.

I don't think it's a matter of being uptight. It's a matter of him wanting you to put your money where your mouth is.....So have you taken him up on these challenges? If not, then why?

Put your Eyes where your eyes Eyes should be and kick your
brain into gear. Coincidence upon coincidence upon coincidence etc. may be
acceptable to some, who knows?
The opening half of the septemberclues website presentation,
is a multi-part video with visual images, english subtitles, background music and NO
VoiceOver. Not very condusive to radio. But there have been several shows where media
fakery is discussed.Clare Keuhn with Jim Fetzer on 9/11 Media Fakery
I wish someone would invent a radio, only one where you can see moving picture aswell.

Otherwise, who cares? Everyone has to wise up for themselves.
It wasn't as if the technology wasn't available. They had the means, motive and
opportunity to pull it off, and you can get more people on board if you have to kill
fewer, if any people and Fake the s**t out of it.
Look at the amount of 9/11 eye witness accounts that came in from people directly connected
with the media. Uncanny, under normal catostrophic circumstances.

I know an old lady who swallowed a fly. Perhaps she'll die.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I am sure you have seen this before but this is one example.

reply to post by Buford2


What "TV Fakery" point are you addressing with that video?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by pshea38
Are you telling me that when (especially) column 2, top right corner (better in colour) appears
to regain a section of its aluminium cladding on the masses plummet downwards, this is simply
an optical illusion and is a result of glare, as the top of the mass rotates slightly toward the camera?

No. It's a small rectangular piece of dark debris, falling with the section of facade, that happens to be in front of the facade in the upper image.

This is clearly not a valid explanation for the anomalies we are seeing here.
Is it implied that the cladding on column 2 somehow straightened itself and was severed
at right angles to the 2nd column, further beyond the bend point as seen in the earlier photo,
on the masses way down?
Your speculation that it was an exact geometrical obstruction disguising an otherwise
intact aluminium facade section, is Very stretched.
I cannot buy this, based on what I am seeing .
The falsity of the illusion of a perceived shorter, snapped-off, initial section, is revealed
only when said exact detritus later clears away?
This doesn't gel with both earlier, and later photographs.
This is a failed attempt to describe the visual transition we are seeing. IMO.

I hope others can comment, if only to assure me that i am not going cuc-koo.

I have a fine entry in mind, to post for your continuing challange.
I just need to make the time to refresh and find it.
I will post it soon anyways.
Its o.k. if you are sick of it and don't respond.

regards.

Originally posted by pshea38
Is it implied that the cladding on column 2 somehow straightened itself and was severed
at right angles to the 2nd column, further beyond the bend point as seen in the earlier photo,
on the masses way down?

I'm really not able to grasp what you mean here, can you explain better/

Your speculation that it was an exact geometrical obstruction disguising an otherwise
intact aluminium facade section, is Very stretched.

It's the same piece of debris in both frames. At the lower frame-2, it's farther down in position because it's falling slightly faster.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Is it implied that the cladding on column 2 somehow straightened itself and was severed
at right angles to the 2nd column, further beyond the bend point as seen in the earlier photo,
on the masses way down?

I'm really not able to grasp what you mean here, can you explain better/

In the first picture i posted, you can clearly see re-inforcing bars, elsewhere seen to be
situated between the columns and the cladding, This indicates a missing section of
cladding in the disputed area (2nd column, upper right upper section) in question. Clearly.
This is not an illusion, whereby a piece of debris is hiding this supposedly intact section
of cladding, only making it appear severed.
I don't know how to better explain myself.

Your speculation that it was an exact geometrical obstruction disguising an otherwise
intact aluminium facade section, is Very stretched.

It's the same piece of debris in both frames. At the lower frame-2, it's farther down in position because it's falling slightly faster.

See above answer.

Photo of an explosion of the U.S. Customs House Building WTC 6 before the towers fell. This specific building got little attention from the media and was overlooked. The towers were still standing when this exploded. ... No explosives were used eh? And guess what, all videos were taken down. Surprise, surprise, no more podcasts.






Explosions:
www.indymedia.org...

I know what a controlled demolition looks like and I know what an explosion looks like. Won't tell me any different. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.

That's the fireball from the second plane impact. It has nothing to do with WTC 6.
www.youtube.com...