"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

[Heiwa]

It is very easy to demonstrate and prove that any video allegedly taken by a helicopter or from ground is a fake, as long as said video includes any of the two famous top down, fountain like ‘destructions’ of first WTC2 and second WTC1 on 9-11.
Reason is that no skyscraper of such steel structure or any structure at all can destroy itself by gravity from top down initiated by a local failure (plane crash/fire/bombs) up top. Thus, a video showing such ‘destruction’ is an animation! No doubt about that. I have demonstrated it several times in technical papers/scientific journals/lessons in USA and Europe (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm ) and my Challenge (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm ) - prove me wrong and earn Euro 10 000:- - has so far not been paid out. I always maintain that what was shown ‘live on TV’ on 9-11 was a movie!
My last appearance at UNM/Albuquerque November 2010 resulted in FBI contacting me. FBI has so far not been able to prove me wrong (of course!). I expect the FBI to arrest some 9-11 terrorists very soon. I liaise with FBI Special Agent in Charge, SAC, Ms Debbie Doreen at Paris (legal attaché/US embassy – tel 0033143122222). Contact her for further info. She is very secretive but I expect that FBI rounds up a fair number of US terrorists very soon, e.g. the ‘movie’ makers, the ‘experts’ explaining crush downs, etc.

[simonshack]

"Animation software has amazing 3-D perspective and so does New York. Therefore, September Clues is debunked and Osama bin Laden got airplanes to fly into towers by ordering hijackings of airplanes with no load manifests and no official passenger count with flight numbers that add up to 11, 12, 13 and 14 taking off in that order from his sophisticated cave." - the mantra of the imaginative perp.

Hoi, you know how little I care for those kooky numerologists who see "9 & 11" and sinister numeric sequences everywhere ...
But since it's holiday time and we may be excused for indulging in 'trivial' causerie, I'll rehash this most irksome theme (even if it's most probably been pointed out many times before ) - just for the hell of it. The sad thing is that one cannot look at these figures without suspecting that they may in fact well be, after all, the work of horribly twisted, maniacally obsessed minds. Or else ... perhaps it is just me being kooky and paranoid ? You be the judge:

Here are the official figures as published on Wickedpedia:

Flight 11 > 81 passengers 11 crew (8+1= 9/11) - in the US and UK the event is known as 9/11
Flight 175 > 56 passengers 9 crew (5+6= 11/9) - in Europe the event is known as 11/9

Flight 77 > 58 passengers 6 crew / 125 casualties on ground = total 189 (1+8+9=18 which is 2X nine)
Flight 93 > 37 passengers 7 crew = 44 (which is, if I'm not mistaken... 4X eleven)

We may as well take a look at the alleged airlines involved, American Airlines(AA) and United Airlines(UA).
A > 1st letter of the alphabet > AA = 11
U > 21st letter of the alphabet > UA = 22

Ugh. Enough of this already. Over and out.

[maiklasLTU]

It is very easy to demonstrate and prove that any video allegedly taken by a helicopter or from ground is a fake, as long as said video includes any of the two famous top down, fountain like ‘destructions’ of first WTC2 and second WTC1 on 9-11.
Reason is that no skyscraper of such steel structure or any structure at all can destroy itself by gravity from top down initiated by a local failure (plane crash/fire/bombs) up top. Thus, a video showing such ‘destruction’ is an animation! No doubt about that. I have demonstrated it several times in technical papers/scientific journals/lessons in USA and Europe (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm ) and my Challenge (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm ) - prove me wrong and earn Euro 10 000:- - has so far not been paid out. I always maintain that what was shown ‘live on TV’ on 9-11 was a movie!
My last appearance at UNM/Albuquerque November 2010 resulted in FBI contacting me. FBI has so far not been able to prove me wrong (of course!). I expect the FBI to arrest some 9-11 terrorists very soon. I liaise with FBI Special Agent in Charge, SAC, Ms Debbie Doreen at Paris (legal attaché/US embassy – tel 0033143122222). Contact her for further info. She is very secretive but I expect that FBI rounds up a fair number of US terrorists very soon, e.g. the ‘movie’ makers, the ‘experts’ explaining crush downs, etc.

AMAZING! You really do those tours around USA?? Keep yourself safe, man.

[Heiwa]

AMAZING! You really do those tours around USA?? Keep yourself safe, man.

Don' worry! OT! Local police at Albuquerque had only been involved in 14 shooting incidents and killed 9 persons 2010 and maintains order. You are not even allowed to smoke in the open downtown ! Actually you are not allowed to do anything it seems! So it should be safe? I mostly saw poor, sick and unemployed people staggering around and I doubt anybody wants to hurt them further? Sad place, actually. The rich and healthy flocks in Santa Fe one hour north.

[simonshack]

If you think every bit of simon's research is 100 % right, you need to think again. The innacuracies have been pointed out from time to time, and it's time to accept these mistakes, even if they don't do a big damage to the research overall.

Maiklas,

With the added two years of experience since I published SC in 2008, there are two particular mistakes I wish to correct in September Clues. As you rightly say, I don't think they do a big damage overall but yes - I should try to find the time to correct them (which means re-mastering the whole docu and re-publish it on the web...ugh! ) :

1: At 4:52 (onwards) of September Clues F http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_iKnwZ2Fq4 , I point some arrows to "secondary explosions". I should have ignored those altogether since the entire scene is fake and there is no point in making anything of those animated flames: they are nothing but red herrings (much as the 'squibs' seen in the collapse videos) designed to generate useless and endless conjectures among researchers.

2: At 4:36 of September Clues H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bYXoTY7uQo , I show a replay of the nose-out sequence with a caption which goes "While these may be the only images from a real chopper..." Today, I do not quite believe that anymore: more likely, the nose-out shot was a fully composited animation like all the other 45-or-so 'planecrash' clips. However, the compositing process may still, of course, have included pre-recorded stock footage material as a basic platform for the animation.

As it is, I'm now more inclined to believe that the nose-out was purposely ordered by some idiotic producer for shock-and-awe effect. This is not as crazy as it may sound : if you have ever been in TV and/or B-movie studios and met the sort of rogue, pea-brained, arsehole B-movie producers running & ruling those chaotic and surreal workplaces, you'll know what I'm talking about. Once you can picture that, you may also picture the sort of inane, hot-headed decisions which may be taken in such madhouses (To be sure, the 9/11 imagery does not appear to have been managed/supervised by overly competent filmmakers). We may also imagine that someone finally noticed the utter idiocy of that production choice - after or even during the LIVE transmissions (possible reason for the FADE TO BLACK which only just fails to obscure the nose out frames) . Too little too late - the damage was done and they had to switch to cover-up mode (see "FOXED OUT" pts1 & 2).

In any case, we can neither pretend nor do we need to know precisely how it all unfolded. The bottom line is : the nose-out shot cannot represent a physical event occuring in the real world.

There are obviously quite a few other things in need of updating/revision too, mostly related to the new discoveries we have made on this forum - and I warmly thank all the best members here for their precious and patient input - you know who you are! So Maiklas, you are welcome to point out other parts that you wish to see corrected - and we'll assess them one by one, ok?

[brainsandgravy]

I will also have to ask you again what makes you think and state that "the TV choppers were kept 5-miles away from the WTC". If we are to believe the 9/11 imagery, it certainly doesn't look that way. To keep pushing that fancy 5-mile figure is just a stubbornly fallacious argumentation

Just to tie up this loose end. I tried to answer this but your administrator hoi polly kept deleting my links to the the source for the five mile distance of the choppers. I found at least two sources from the NIST Cumulus archive. They've been posted on youtube. Search them if you like :

NIST FOIA: ABC Dub1 Clips 11-19 (chopper 7) and WNBC Dub6 03 (chopper 4)

If your administrator will allow it, here is a link to a small clip from both sources. The edit cuts were done by me to condense the information:

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/f ... emiles.mp4

[SmokingGunII]

With due respect B&G, we tend to take anything claimed by NIST with a truck full of salt on here.

[simonshack]

[img]
If your administrator will allow it, here is a link to a small clip from both sources. The edit cuts were done by me to condense the information:

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/f ... emiles.mp4

"Brains"andgravy,

You are not seriously using these absurd, unidentified clips and audiotracks supposedly released by NIST to prove anything, are you? They have no TV network logos and are nowhere to be found in the TV archives. This is getting silly. Adios.

ps: But thanks for the laugh: "We are over North Bergen, we do not have TV up here" - says the chopper lady !

[brainsandeggs]

[img]
If your administrator will allow it, here is a link to a small clip from both sources. The edit cuts were done by me to condense the information:

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/f ... emiles.mp4

"Brains"andgravy,

You are not seriously using these absurd, unidentified clips and audiotracks supposedly released by NIST to prove anything, are you? They have no TV network logos and are nowhere to be found in the TV archives. This is getting silly - and I won't take this silliness anymore. We are not about to play along with this shite - and much less swimming in this gravy. Adios.

ps: But thanks for the laugh: "We are over North Bergen, we do not have TV up here" - says the chopper lady !

Dear Simon,

Thanks for banning me (brainsandgravy) from your forum following my last post--not allowing me a chance to reply to your last comment (I wonder why?) I realize I am most likely wasting my time with this LAST response since you will probably delete it--but I believe people following this thread should at least be informed of some truth which you seem to choose to sensor. The clips you referred to as "absurd" and "unidentified", I had cited. They were taken from the NIST Cumulus Video Database, released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law suit filed by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. I assumed you were familiar with this database which contained hundreds of hours of unreleased RAW video footage from both media and amateur sources.

(Readers can go here for more on this: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/i ... e-released )

The ABC chopper 7 clip I posted was from RAW unedited footage which is why there is no network logos etc. It's not in the "September 11 Television Archive" because it's not from ABC's national broadcast (with Peter Jennings), but from local New York affiliate station WABC --just as footage from local NBC affiliate WNBC is also missing from the archive. If you or your administrator will not sensor this post I can direct you to a youtube link of the original WABC live broadcast from 9/11 containing the clip I sent you--found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3FcNFSDsXU

The segment I used begins at about 8:22.

So to answer your question--yes--I am "seriously using these absurd, unidentified clips and audiotracks" to attempt to prove something. Your response, though, was as I had predicted in an earlier post: "Indeed the beauty of the TV fakery "theory" is that it cannot be refuted, because any counter evidence presented as refutation can (and will) simply be dismissed as "fake".

Thanks for being so open and willing to discuss such issues in your forum. No need to block me again. This will be my last post on this truth-seeking website.

[simonshack]

So to answer your question--yes--I am "seriously using these absurd, unidentified clips and audiotracks" to attempt to prove something. Your response, though, was as I had predicted in an earlier post: "Indeed the beauty of the TV fakery "theory" is that it cannot be refuted, because any counter evidence presented as refutation can (and will) simply be dismissed as "fake".

Thanks for being so open and willing to discuss such issues in your forum. No need to block me again. This will be my last post on this truth-seeking website.

Ever a gentleman, I salute you and wish you a good journey towards your truth, Mr Eggbrains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8D9dNCCLlo (watch at 2:35)

The beauty of the TV fakery, in my honest opinion, is that there's nothing the perps can do about it - other than release tons of material - old and new - to try and muddy the waters. Too bad for them that their only option was, in fact, to make NIST release it - their most utterly discredited, complicit 'scientific institution'.

[hoi.polloi]

Just for everyone's information - here is the society our defender of fake video cites:

http://www.ic911studies.org/Papers.html

In it, they link to papers like this: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/arti ... TOCIEJ.pdf - which state that the WTC was

"hit by airplanes"

and then collapsed at

"freefall speed"

without providing evidence for either.

So who exactly is being 'scientific' here? This guy who eats "brains and gravy" hasn't gotten any smarter from doing so.

[simonshack]

*
**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********


"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"


I warmly thank our lost friend "brainsandgravy" aka "brainsandeggs" for inspiring me to take another look at the laughable 9/11 ABC7 broadcasts.
Anyone who can debunk this will immediately be awarded with the fabulous prize of a free ride to planet Mars !




So today's challenge (N°31) is: Try reproducing this shot - or a similar one with the same characteristics

All you need is a camera and a zoom lens.
Good luck, folks !

[Dcopymope]

In relation to the 9/11 event I like to learn from it and think ahead. Come the next false flag attack we won't be able to use this as our evidence of video fakery, because now they are coming out with cameras that can (supposedly) focus both near & far simultaneously.

Omni-Focus Video Camera Can Focus Near and Far at the Same Time

[simonshack]

Dcopymope,

The focusing aspect here is only a marginal aspect of the issue:
The main point here has to do with the foreground not changing size by a whisker - while the backdrop is zoomed out from 100% to 50% of its size!

Is this too difficult to understand? TRY REPRODUCING SUCH A SHOT- with any existing lens. I wish you luck!

[warriorhun]

Dear Simon Shack,

Believe it or not, there are people actually debunking conspiracy theories, like the one of those stupid "no planers"(wink):
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ths-planes
They even attached a photo, titled: "Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage."
The photograph was taken by no-one else but the great Mr. William F. Baker (whoever the hell he is), of the very trustworthy FEMA!!!
Here it is:

What convinced me without doubt, is the top of the buildings in the background, so in the foreground these MUST be flight 175's parts (wink).