UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUES

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 5:01 pm

*

Dear Cluesforum members,

In occasion of the10th anniversary of the 9/11 hoax, I am opening this thread called "UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUES".
I will gradually select and post here some of the most solid findings of September Clues and our ever-growing, collective research - and place them in this thread with a view of compiling an easily consultable archive of the most undisputable evidence of TV Fakery. This will take some time (so please be patient) due to the massive amount of evidence now available in support of our fundamental 9/11 case - which can be shortly summed up as follows:

-The mainstream media (foremostly, the major 5 US TV neworks + the British BBC) were the prime abetters and accomplices of this gigantic psyop, allowing the wretched planners of 9/11 to 'hijack' their airwaves to broadcast a completely pre-fabricated 'Hollywood' movie during the crucial 102 minutes necessary to demolish the WTC complex. No airplanes were hijacked on 9/11 - only airwaves were.

- NO existing imagery of 9/11 can be trusted, since none we have analyzed in these 4+ years has stood up to scrutiny, and none has met the standards & criteria expected of authentic video, audio or photography. The fact that no credible imagery is to be found strongly suggests that every possible means available to the 9/11 perps were deployed to keep private imagery from leaking to the public or, more plausibly, to even be captured at all. The latter hypothesis is supported by a long list of electronic disruptions which occured during the crucial 102 minutes of the event, suggesting that EMP/HERF jamming devices (routinely used in modern electromagnetic warfare) were in place during the crucial 102 minutes of that morning. For more info about that, please go to: http://www.septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm"

The many "UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUES" will be added to this forum section which is accessible only to our administrators. This, in order to provide a one-stop overview for all newcomers to this research. If this topic title sounds to you like a 'call to arms', you are perfectly correct. I think we're all here a bit weary of the lame and vapid attacks on our work - and it is now high time to ask the 'debunkers' to fess up or shut up.

IMPORTANT: Any Cluesforum member wishing to add an UNDEBUNKABLE CLUE to this thread may do so in the 'Chatbox': http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=485

I will, of course, duly give credit to anyone's personal findings in the titles of such submissions to this thread - and that's why you will also see me giving credit to myself at the top of every post here. You see, a tactic of our opposition is to say "you have plagiarized other people's research - therefore it is null and void!". Let us not give them this handle - and duly sign our respective contributions. This is a collective research. of course, but we need to acknowledge everyone who helps it along. The more, the better.

Now, to anyone justly wondering about the origins of the imagery analyzed henceforth in this thread, please know that they have ALL been aired on TV and, to be sure, are traceable to officially released video productions purporting to report the real events of 9/11. Anyone questioning the 'authenticity' of the imagery analyzed by the longstanding September Clues research can verify it for him/herself, with the same patience that I have (for over 4 years). All I'm asking here is: don't spend your time questioning my audio and video sources. Spend your time verifying them for yourself! I'm only one man - not an information bureau and much less a full-time archivist. However, rest assured that I have safely archived and kept track of all the gigabytes of source material analyzed in the September Clues research.

Lastly, to those folks suspecting that I might have tampered with any 9/11 imagery MYSELF, I say once again: verify it all for yourself - and gimme a friendly break - thank you very much! To accuse me of 'cheating' is the most dreadfully ironic thing to do - since my very drive and motivation is:

To expose the Biggest Cheaters of this planet.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
NOTICE FOR NEWCOMERS TO THIS RESEARCH FORUM: To those seriously motivated and interested, please know that all the analyses published in this thread have been debated for several years and, to this day, have not been disproved or debunked in any way. Should one particular 'SEPCLUE' arouse your interest - and should you wish to see how it was debated - please submit a request in the 'Chatbox' and I'll do my best to source those debates for you. However, do keep navigating this forum and get familiar with it all - using your own energies!

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 5:42 pm

UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG SHADOWS (1)

Let's start with some of the goofiest / macroscopic cockups on the part of whoever directed & supervised the "9/11 Movie" (and its prefabricated imagery). As we analyze any suspected image forgery featuring daylight / open air / SUNLIT sceneries, there are THREE things that we can be absolutely certain of:

1 - the sun never lies

2 - where sunlight cannot reach - shadowed areas will be observed

3 - if we can find two pictures ( A & B ) of an event that occurred at the same moment in time - and picture A features a sunlit area whereas picture B shows the same area in shadow, at least ONE of the two pictures must be a forgery.

Of course, as the 9/11 story went, "Flight 175" impacted the southern face of the WTC at 9:03 am. At that time, the sun would have been south-east of the WTC - thus casting a shadow on the north face of the Twin Towers.

With the above-described circumstances in mind, I don't think that the two pictures compared below need any further commentary. Judge for yourselves:

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:31 pm

*
Here are some more pictures compared - ALL evidently meant to depict the very same event in time ("impact of Flight 175") :

WRONG SHADOWS (2)

These three pictures are simply irreconcilable: the North face of the WTC was either sunlit or in shade - you cannot have it both ways. Thus, both of them cannot be real. It is up to you to believe that ONE of them is real - but the other cannot be. Would you now possibly consider that BOTH are fake?

Undebunkable? No: You are free to believe that ONE of them is real. However, that belief is up to you to cajole and defend.

THE SUN NEVER LIES.

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:32 pm

*
UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG SHADOWS (3)

These shadows (those on the red building at left - versus those seen in the Manhattan backdrop) are simply irreconcilable. THE SUN DOES NOT LIE.

Undebunkable? Yes. But you are free to believe that this picture is real. However, that belief is up to you to cajole and defend.

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:32 pm

*
UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

TWO OF A KIND (1)

photos credited to William Nunez (director/writer/producer) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0638035/
source of image: http://rvision.daydreamlabs.com/user/50 ... 6778578227

This "William Nunez" claims he snapped these pictures with a $14.99 disposable Kodak camera...

This extraordinary claim is completely unbelievable - and is offensive to any photographer's intelligence.

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:32 pm

UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

TWO OF A KIND (2)

Believe it or not - but the two below shots are credited ... to two different authors (the Russian "Dimitri Khalezov" and the Frenchman "Etienne Sauret")!
This fact would suffice - all of itself - to 'call bullshit'. However, there are even more problems with these images...

These two pictures are simply irreconcilable. They are dramatically conflicting. They utterly do not make sense. Thus, both cannot be real.

Undebunkable? Yes. But you are free to believe that ONE of them is real. However, that belief is up to you to cajole and defend.

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:32 pm

*
UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

TWO OF A KIND (3)

These two plane trajectories are simply irreconcilable. They are dramatically conflicting. They do not make any sense at all. Thus, both cannot be real. Now, this is only ONE back-to-back trajectory comparison. For a more comprehensive study of the other available TV-footage depicting the final path of "FLIGHT175 crashing into WTC2", please go to this other forum thread:

THE PLAIN PHONY PLANE PATHS: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2372768

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:33 pm

UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

THE 'VANISHING' HELICOPTERS

Various helicopters are seen (and NOT seen) flying by the WTC towers just as they collapse.
Judge for yourself if this 'disappearing act' of three different helicopters makes any sense:

VANISHING CHOPPER 1 (wtc2 collapse)

As WTC2 collapses, we have a helicopter fly-by... well, ONLY on the History Channel, that is. The slightly different 'camera' angles cannot go to explain why the chopper is entirely missing on German TV:

German TV source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gct_ELCgcys

***************************************************************************************************************

VANISHING CHOPPER 2 (wtc1 collapse)

As WTC1 collapses - on this shot credited to "Devin Clark", a helicopter flies by above and south of the tower (note: it appears to accelerate and suddenly descend) :

In this WTC1 collapse shot (credited to ABC TV) from the more recently released NIST "Cumulus" archives, "Devin's" helicopter is nowhere to be seen - although it certainly SHOULD be, as 'camera' zooms in :

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_UeYZD2nQ#t=533
As aired on ABC on 9/11 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtroUJbDfTs#t=54

In this WTC1 collapse shot (credited to one "Peter Damas"), "Devin's" helicopter is, likewise, nowhere to be seen - although it certainly SHOULD be visible in this 'camera view' (which is tilted upwards and southwards):

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITa3SzTOY3k

*********************************************************************************************************************************

VANISHING CHOPPER 3 (wtc1 collapse)

Here is the WTC1 collapse credited to Rick Siegel - featuring another fly-by helicopter:

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4#t=17

Here is the WTC collapse from the more recently released (2010) NIST "Cumulus" video archives. "Siegel's" helicopter is nowhere to be seen - even though it SHOULD be visible in this shot :

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjtLTkIZT#t=5044

Here is another WTC1 collapse view from North-East (aired on CBS) which MOST DEFINITELY should show "Siegel's" helicopter flying by (from left to right of the screen) - yet it is nowhere to be seen:

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6hHKg19Hac#t=402

*********
The issue of the "VANISHING CHOPPERS" is thoroughly expounded (in more detail and better resolution than the above gif loops) in my "SEPTEMBER CLUES ADDENDUM".

Unread post by **simonshack** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:33 pm

UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

SIX OF A KIND !

The 9/11 imagery was clearly made in an 'assembly-chain' mode: the lazy bastards (pardon me the expression - but if you have any better way of describing the planners of this pathetic hoax, let me know!) simply made some master templates of any given angle of the Manhattan skyline - and constructed the visual tale they wished to convey to the public. Here are six (yes, SIX!) identical views/vantage points which were credited to six different "amateur videographers"/or TV networks. Please take note of this extremely important point: the imagery shown by the TV networks and the imagery later released as "amateur images" - were all obviously composited by one and the same source (the 9/11 planners - backed by the US government and whatnot):

FIRST PAIR COMPARED (1 AND 2)--------SECOND PAIR COMPARED (3 AND 4)

--------

THIRD PAIR COMPARED (5 AND 6)

Now, if you are inclined to argue that these 6 shots are the result of some extraordinary coincidence (6 cameramen standing within feet of each other), I will respond with a snotty sentence that has been thrown at me for years by the silly little army of aspiring debunkers of September Clues out there: "You have mental issues. Please take your medication." Sorry folks, but I can't be more sincere than that - and to hell with nice manners. I have observed them for way too long - let me now call a spade a spade.

Unread post by **simonshack** » Mon May 30, 2011 12:40 am

UNDEBUNKABLE SEPCLUE submitted by: Simon Shack
--------------------------------------------------------------

SCI-FI CRASH PHYSICS

Hereby, I challenge any engineer specialized in crash physics to explain what we see in the 4 below videos.
How does this aluminum airliner penetrate the steel structure of the WTC without a single part shearing off?

SHOT 1: Credited to "Michael Hezarkhani"-------------SHOT 2: Credited to "Luc Courchesne"

SHOT 3: Credited to "Evan Fairbanks"--------------------SHOT 4: Credited to "Jennifer Spell"

To be sure, this is a still completely unresolved issue to this day. NOT ONE individual contending that these are REAL videos has ever tackled this basic issue in any sort of scientific, peer-reviewed manner. Peer-reviewed? Yes well, that is a common requirement for any thesis/analysis to be deemed valid by our planet's scientific community.

The below animated gif (to the left) is my own creation - and it took me only a few hours to compose it on my consumer video editor.
Yes, it looks damn silly - but SO DOES the other clip (to the right) credited to one "Evan Fairbanks":

Here is a 2-min video featuring the Evan Fairbanks dude - and his harrowing tale of the day... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JwTXEJSr4A

Unread post by **simonshack** » Tue May 31, 2011 10:05 pm

+

THE 16-SECOND MAGIC SEQUENCE
The 4 seamless shots of 'the airplane approach' shown on LIVE TV

And here is the full "airplane approach" film sequence - a grand total of 16 seconds of footage - that was aired LIVE on the major TV networks on (split between 4 different networks!) :

I know (from experience) that some people will immediately counter-argue : "SO WHAT? THIS IS WHAT THE TV CAMERAS CAPTURED ON 9/11!"

Fine. So I'll now ask everyone to consider the odds of these 4 cameras capturing a sequential series of shots showing 'FLIGHT 175' entering and exiting their given lens views in seamless fashion. Does this seem likely - or can you say "fabricated animation sequence"? I call this the "16-second magic sequence". You will have to be very convincing if you are to tell people that this was all a matter of pure happenstance. Please know that these mere 16 seconds of 'plane footage' make up THE GRAND TOTAL OF AIRPLANE IMAGERY THAT THE TV NETWORKS SHOWED LIVE ON 9/11.

In all likelihood, this was just a prefabricated 16-second video sequence designed to be launched by the "central 9/11 TV studio" - once they got the 'ok cue' from the ground-crew managing the WTC explosives charges. For more insights into this particular subject, please watch SEPTEMBER CLUES E : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7VHf4TVIY

September Clues part E demonstrates that an audio signal (a double-beep) is to be heard - simultaneously - on each and all of the USA TV networks, exactly 17 seconds before the "FLIGHT175 impact". That audio signal was most likely a classic synch-lock beep - as commonly used in film studios to align/synchronize any given set of film segments. This would, of course, have been necessary to synch the various 'plane-approach' segments to be aired live on the 5 different TV networks (CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, ABC).

Unread post by **simonshack** » Tue May 31, 2011 10:05 pm

*

THE NOSE-OUT ISSUE

Cropped animated gif of the NOSE OUT shot (as aired by WNYWFOX5 on Live 9/11 TV):

Most importantly, the frame below is to be found on the current 9/11 FOX ARCHIVES - proving beyond doubt that the nose-out was actually aired on 9/11 - and subsequently covered up (with a different, blue-scale animation of the "crashing 2nd plane"):

OBLIGATORY VIEWING IF YOU WISH TO TACKLE THIS ISSUE: FOXED OUT part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LURV-joLI

Of course, you will have to be familiar with the NOSE-OUT issue - in order to tackle this issue. Anyway, here are 2 twin comparisons between the cockpit section of "FLIGHT 175" before and after striking World Trade Center 2:

COMPARISON 1:

COMPARISON 2:

Unread post by **simonshack** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:23 pm

*

THE "CARTOON" TOWERS

Why do the towers have a thick, black outline - and why is this outline skewed/misaligned at the top of WTC1?

Note: The original file used for the above gifs was a high-res MPEG2 downloaded from the official TV archives.
Any claim of what we see being ascribable to "standard video compression artifacts" should be backed up/ demonstrated with any given, similarly converted (broadcast quality compressed to MPEG2 ) pre-9/11 video featuring the WTC towers.

(This shot was featured in the LIVE 9/11 CBS broadcasts. I downloaded all the US TV networks' morning 9/11 TV broadcasts - used in September Clues - from the official archives in 2006; at the time, high-resolution MPEG2 files were available for public download. This option has since been disallowed - but all the TV broadcasts can be viewed in streaming format at http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive )

The above shot is to be found in this CBS archive clip at 34:40 :
http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912
(At 36:30 into the above archive clip, there is a version of the same shot - zoomed-in/cropped by CBS itself).

Unread post by **simonshack** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:45 am

*

THE "CHOPPER IMAGERY"

And now, let's have a look at the purported "aerial chopper imagery" as featured in the LIVE 9/11 broadcasts:

Firstly, please get familiar with the various shots as aired by ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN:
http://septemberclues.info/tv_chopper.htm

Then, try reproducing the below shot - and win a ride on NASA's next manned mission to Mars!

Two different shots by the supposed ABC 7 chopper:

This is hoping you are all enjoying your (animated) flight !

Unread post by **pov603** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:11 am

There is a film I watched recently [for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it, it was that memorable, but I will come back with it when it finally 'pops' into my head] and as the credits rolled there was a scene exactly with a view from a 'news' chopper with the thing 'jigging' around but the back-drop remaining static.
My first thought was SepClues/9-11.
Whether this was put in to appeal to the 'sensibilities' of viewers [I'm sure TPTB want to brainwash the younger generations with action scenes that pass for reality] and prime them to accept that this is how the world looks even when the news shows it, I don't know but it seemed fairly obvious in a backhanded way, if that makes sense.
Can anyone else remember seeing a movie with this 'shot' right near the end/credits?

Edit: the film was nothing to do with 9-11 which is why it struck a chord with me at the time.

Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception