History Channel 911 Myths

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

History Channel 911 Myths

Postby carcdr on September 14th, 2010, 2:01 am

Zip forward to about 8:11. They were talking about Lucky Larry.

The associated video shows WTC7 sucking smoke inwards. Clearly a video running in reverse (if any part of the video is actually real).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZRmz ... re=related
carcdr
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 4:11 am

Postby simonshack on September 14th, 2010, 10:32 am

Hehe -yep, that's where I got it from - the Hiss-tory Channel.
Carcdr, thanks for relocating the source of the smoke-sucking WTC7 (see my old animated gif below), I'd forgotten to reference it properly in my research archives.

Image
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby Nosmo King on September 14th, 2010, 1:58 pm

@carcdr:

at 8.05, aren't those figures walking backwards in the clip?
Nosmo King
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: March 7th, 2010, 12:49 pm

Postby Terence.drew on September 14th, 2010, 2:27 pm

Nosmo King @ Sep 14 2010, 01:58 PM wrote: @carcdr:

at 8.05, aren't those figures walking backwards in the clip?


Yes they are. Moonwalking firemen. Schmo.
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Postby nonhocapito on September 14th, 2010, 3:48 pm

So I watched this sad piece of propaganda... what all these 9/11 truthers are doing on the history channel? I guess they are part of History... What a waste of time! It almost felt like watching a 9/11 truth "documentary", where all the voices tend to a single conclusion which nonetheless remains behind the corner of your brain.

It really makes you think, how all the stories seem to be merging into one now, one confused tale that summarizes all the many contradicting lies. The desired effect being bringing anyone to the conclusion that this story isn't worthed our already stretched time (which, in a way, is utterly true).

Oh, this works so well... I think it works because people are always in a hurry to be "convinced" of something, and then their convictions put them in the corner, force them to lie to themselves and then to give up.

Like Nietzsche wrote: "The most common lie is the one to ourselves. To lie to others is, relatively, the exception". And also: "Convictions are prisons. They don't see far enough, they don't see below themselves".

My advice would always be, on this forum too, to never let ourselves be trapped by our convictions, never deny the "weak" parts -- so that we can really see reality in transparency, never to get trapped by what we know "so far" (sorry for the likely useless rant) :)

p.s. I probably am being stupid here but... I get that that piece of sequence at 8-something is reversed, which is lame editing (they wanted to show the building "after" the rubble with firemen, but it was originally the other way around?), but I don't get what it proves...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Postby simonshack on September 14th, 2010, 4:28 pm

nonhocapito 4 Sep 14 2010, 02:48 PM wrote:

p.s. I probably am being stupid here but... I get that that piece of sequence at 8-something is reversed, which is lame editing (they wanted to show the building "after" the rubble with firemen, but it was originally the other way around?), but I don't get what it proves...


You know, to have our defining historical news footage played backwards on the History Channel is something taxpayers should complain about. :P

What does it prove, in itself? Nothing I guess - just 'incompetence by highly paid top professionals'...just another NORAD failure if you will...


However, I welcome anyone to prove that this WTC7 imagery is real:

I think you'll find this "CHIMNEY SHADOW" fascinating :
Image

Hope you'll enjoy my "FEARLESS FIREMAN" too! :
Image

And does this look real at all? And has the coal-black smoke now turned milky-white?
(Oh merciful Lord - please let no one comment that "it is a question of viewing angles" :rolleyes: )
Image


It is time we all start thinking of the entire 9/11 imagery pool as just a big Hollywood movie split into many TV clips - have we not seen scores of such catastrophy movies? Don't we all know perfectly well what they can do with modern cinematic special effects?
ImageImageImageImage
"Independence Day"(1996)
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby nonhocapito on September 14th, 2010, 4:41 pm

simonshack @ Sep 14 2010, 04:28 PM wrote: It is time we all start thinking of the entire 9/11 imagery pool as just a big Hollywood movie split into many TV clips - have we not seen scores of such catastrophy movies? Don't we all know perfectly well what they can do with modern cinematic special effects?


Simon, far from me to doubt the whole fiction of WTC7! I was just asking about this single clip, maybe there was something I was missing... Shameful incompetence is pretty much the explanation I would have given, considering this badly pieced-up story is supposedly going down in History as the truth.

( about this:

"History is disappearing from state schools as growing numbers of head teachers view it as a worthless subject, according to research."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hools.html

...which does not surprises me. Teachers need to keep pupils alert and lies are tiring, whether you give them or you take them...)
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Postby SimonJCP on September 14th, 2010, 7:20 pm

Looks to me like a sloppy attempt to produce, for a "conspiracy debunking" film, images supporting the idea that there was a raging fire inside Building 7.

Equally sloppy attempts to convince us of the fire/damage have been made. I'm sure you've seen this hilariousness:

Image

Because collapsing debris creates clean, perfect, straight-downwards holes in buildings, right? A gash of this type can only be explained through:
a) Fake video footage
b) Advanced weaponry

Based on the glum brown/red "pollution" color of New York on a clear day, I'll go with the first.

Image


It's interesting that both this fake video and the fake UA175 "International Shot" were filmed by ABC, which was also involved in providing fake footage and mock interviews throughout the day.

Why is this interesting? Because ABC is owned by Disney, which owns nearly half of A&E, which owns the History Channel -- the provider of this amazing footage of building-attracted smoke and purveyor of "conspiracy-debunking" nonsense pieces.

The other "half" of A&E is owned by Hearst, which owns Popular Mechanics magazine -- the creators of that awful "Debunking 9/11 Myths" piece and stars of the History Channel "debunking" film.

The minority of A&E is owned by NBC Universal, which also provided us with fake "LIVE" footage and crash videos on 9/11.

So this History Channel "debunk-u-mentary" came from the same companies that faked the footage and provided us with the "Debunking 9/11" piece.

Expose on ABC/Hearst/Disney connections to the CIA:
http://www.smokershistory.com/abc.htm

Named in that article is Nicholas Brady, connected to the Fiduciary-Trust/Franklin-Templeton group that evacuated the Towers prior to their demolition.

The ties that bind.
SimonJCP
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 12:23 pm

Postby carcdr on September 15th, 2010, 4:33 am

Nosmo King 4 Sep 14 2010, 01:58 PM wrote:@carcdr:

at 8.05, aren't those figures walking backwards in the clip?


Yes, that is what I see. The whole clip is running in reverse.
carcdr
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 4:11 am

Postby carcdr on September 15th, 2010, 4:36 am

Back in the days of film, it would have been possible to imagine that someone mounted the reels in reverse and ran a clip backwards.

These (digital) days, it takes conscious effort to run a clip in reverse.

I conclude that this clip was reversed on purpose.

What was that purpose?
carcdr
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 4:11 am

Postby Brutal Metal on September 15th, 2010, 6:46 am

It still makes me laugh how Moronic those Popular Mechanics Experts are!
Really guys?? The wings break off in the Pentagon but not in the Towers?
Come on!! And their take on Building 7 is funny..
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Postby hoi.polloi on September 15th, 2010, 4:59 pm

I feel we should publish a zine called Unpopular Mechanics.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby TruthNow on September 15th, 2010, 5:59 pm

carcdr @ Sep 15 2010, 04:36 AM wrote: Back in the days of film, it would have been possible to imagine that someone mounted the reels in reverse and ran a clip backwards.

These (digital) days, it takes conscious effort to run a clip in reverse.

I conclude that this clip was reversed on purpose.

What was that purpose?


I had the same thoughts/question...
TruthNow
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: September 14th, 2010, 11:26 am

Postby nonhocapito on September 16th, 2010, 8:03 am

TruthNow @ Sep 15 2010, 05:59 PM wrote:
carcdr 4 Sep 15 2010, 04:36 AM wrote: Back in the days of film, it would have been possible to imagine that someone mounted the reels in reverse and ran a clip backwards.

These (digital) days, it takes conscious effort to run a clip in reverse.

I conclude that this clip was reversed on purpose.

What was that purpose?


I had the same thoughts/question...


In that part of their bullshit documentary, they needed to show the smoking building "after" the rubble+firemen, for dramatic effect. The purpose is continuity of the story within the context of what they are saying.

This has another implication, which is, in a way, the usual one: the footage of 9/11 is too limited. Ridiculously so. They have to make use of the little they have, and end up reversing a clip just to create an effect they need.

This is an indisputable fact that raises many questions. In the age of multimedia, and in presence of the most disturbing event of our times, the quantity of imagery cannot be so little, unless intentionally controlled and prevented.

Assuming the imagery is FAKE, rendered or composed, is so far the easiest explanation to this lack of imagery: rendering is a slow, tedious process, while filming reality is disgustingly easy, and a child could do it with profit.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Postby SimonJCP on September 18th, 2010, 6:37 pm

Brutal Metal 4 Sep 15 2010, 06:46 AM wrote:It still makes me laugh how Moronic those Popular Mechanics Experts are!
Really guys?? The wings break off in the Pentagon but not in the Towers?
Come on!! And their take on Building 7 is funny..



Popular Mechanics produced an "expert" to explain this nonsense to us:



Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... n#bigplane



Problems:

A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building
a) Really? It doesn't? But it's okay if that exact same thing happens in NYC, right?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/s ... c1hole.jpg

In this case, one wing hit the ground
b) The "wing" that supposedly hit the ground would have left a mark -- the lawn in front of the Pentagon was completely undamaged:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/lawn.html

the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns
c) Sheared off? Then where, pray tell, is it? And why couldn't US-Military/CNN's Jamie McIntyre find it after conducting a "close-up inspection"?
http://pentagon911.0catch.com/_webimage ... 347626.JPG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck

What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.
d) Really? According to the defense department, the nosecone (Which the county fire chief described as a "puddle") penetrated three concrete, hardened "rings". According to ASCE, the landing gear did. Not bad for near-liquid wreckage.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 5evey.html
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/ ... traj_a.jpg

But it gets better.

A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University.

Who is Professor Mete Sozen of the defense establishment's Purdue University?

He is the "principal investigator" on the university's "9-11 simulation" project, which re-enacts the North Tower attack like this:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLin ... ng-wi.aspx

Apparently Sozen believes that it is alright for airplanes to fly through reinforced buildings and create cartoon holes when it is in New York!

Sozen was also involved in their simulation of the Pentagon event, which asserts to us that a 757 without engines crashed into the Pentagon:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simu ... 0sep02.gif

It never ends.
SimonJCP
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 12:23 pm

Next

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest