A Favorable Article on September Clues

[MrSinclair]

I am happy to say that my emails with Henry Makow regarding September Clues seems to have spurred him to come to the same conclusions.

http://www.henrymakow.com/

(you may have to scroll down or visit his archives to find the article entitled "9-11 Truth is Limited Hangout --"September Clues"

[nonhocapito]

Not bad!

Here's a direct link to the article: http://www.henrymakow.com/september_clues.html

[SmokingGunII]

He believes in Angells, Nonho.

[brianv]

I wont speak for Simon on the "missile theory", but I personally find that particlular hangout less credible than airplanes.

Missiles Miss! And what? Land in a kid's school in Manhattan? Hundreds of really dead and wounded children? Where were the missiles fired from? Nimitz or some shit? "Made in the USA" stamped all over the remains. Nah. Can't blame AQ on that one!

I got a slight "Limited Hangout" vibe off the article itself, But on the whole, not bad... but he needs straightening out about those non-dead non-victims whom he believes were real!

In jump the shills with links to to Fuddy Duddy and this...

im Fetzer said (April 17, 2012):

You might find four recent articles of mine of interest about this:

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”

**some links to veterinarians today**

My take is that, while no plane crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon, what happened in New York was two different forms of plane simulations.

[reel.deal]

Art said (April 16, 2012):

About Enrico's video .... whatever. I saw that video and immediately knew what was up .... for the first month it was broadcast ... there was NOTHING there. Certainly not a plane that the wingspan alone is 75% of the width of the WTC north tower. That horribly rendered "whatzit" looks to be drawn in with a child's crayon.

I recommend anyone interested in this topic to search for the video of the hijacked Ethiopian Airlines 767 that was ditched off the Comoros Islands when it ran out of fuel. That is the exact same plane model reported to have flown into the WTC buildings. Watch closely as it contacts the water, left wingtip first. What that particular video (pre-altering) showed was the entire left wing, sans engine, being ripped cleanly from the fuselage. The whole wing flew 150 feet into the air, straight up ... and was the most incredible thing I had ever seen.

I said "pre-altering" because the footage was obviously altered (IMO) to wipe the flying wing out of the video altogether. I mean, what sense would it make for a wing to rip free on contact with water, while on the same aircraft model it stays connected whilst cutting through 12+ steel girders? It doesn't take a video analyst to see the horribly rendered artifacts of the wiping.

Maybe someone out there has seen the original video and can confirm this observation.

http://www.henrymakow.com/

ages ago, reel wrote...
...or how about the '96 Indian ocean Ethiopian Airlines 'non-miracle' crash where nearly everyone died...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ5HnyEQ ... re=related @ 7:14...

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=764&p=2351171&hilit=Indian+Ocean#p2351171


perhaps the next 'kamikaze' 9/11 style plane-jacking will have a happy ending.
A 'Miracle on The Hudson' ending where a 767 glides through steel & concrete
skyscraper walls to land gently inside floor 87, and everyone survives.

[SmokingGunII]

I wont speak for Simon on the "missile theory", but I personally find that particlular hangout less credible than airplanes.

Missiles Miss! And what? Land in a kid's school in Manhattan? Hundreds of really dead and wounded children? Where were the missiles fired from? Nimitz or some shit? "Made in the USA" stamped all over the remains. Nah. Can't blame AQ on that one!

I got a slight "Limited Hangout" vibe off the article itself, But on the whole, not bad... but he needs straightening out about those non-dead non-victims whom he believes were real!

In jump the shills with links to to Fuddy Duddy and this...

im Fetzer said (April 17, 2012):

You might find four recent articles of mine of interest about this:

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”

**some links to veterinarians today**

My take is that, while no plane crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon, what happened in New York was two different forms of plane simulations.

I'm of the same opinion, Brian and have posted to this affect on other threads. Smoke and mirrors to me. I believe everything that was seen that day from the ground emanated from inside the buildings.

[nonhocapito]

Thanks for pointing out the flaws. I am totally unfamiliar with the website and had read the article a little quickly. I was merely content for the resonance.

[Alfie]

I was wondering if the forum had come across this article on Veteranstoday regarding Simons and your work, source http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13 ... or-in-usa/

Friday, April 13th, 2012 | Posted by Stewart Ogilby

Media Insiders Created 911 Terror In USA

25

Fake 911 Victim
By Stewart Ogilby



For several years I have, among others, been doing my best to figure out what did and didn’t happen on 911. I found myself fooled in fundamental areas over years of puzzlement.

Only recently have I been able to discard the lies and visual deceit presented on television of that day’s events. Deliberate deceptions, along with well-meaning analyses of televised fakery, can be found in books, magazines, and on thousands of internet web sites.

If there is anything that the 911 hoax tells us, it is to be cautious when viewing dramas and illusions on television that pass for “news” in America, including those created by computer software, including datafakes, computer-simulated individuals complete with backgrounds created by personna software programs. The art of digital animation to present a faked reality becomes more sophisticated year by year. By 2001 it, along with facial morphing software, had progressed far enough to fool us all, for a time at least.

The official 911 narrative and its perpetrators’ control of dissent, the “truth movements”, is a paradigm for the extent to which modern media is able to control public perception and mold public opinion. So-called “911 truth” sites and organizations are now overwhelmingly controlled and provide platforms for disinformation. Their discussions are framed around diversions to continue confusing well-meaning persons who seem unable to handle massive deceit, including manufactured data from “official” sources upon which they have been conditioned to rely.

Given the huge sums of money and corporate support behind the 911 hoax, it may be understandable that the exposures of Mr. Shack and his helpers appear, at first glance, to be preposterous. To begin grasping the simple but terrifying methods whereby top moguls in Hollywood, banking, US media, and huge corporations were able to fool the world and promote war, as they have done repeatedly in the past, it is mandatory for one to spend enough time at septemberclues.info and at cluesforum.info to overcome initial emotional reaction.

“News” is scripted as to events, characters, and conflicts, for purposes of public manipulation and social engineering. It is important to understand that the motive of those who control international banking, Hollywood movies, newspapers, and television networks is to keep the masses of humanity confused and fearful in order to wage war, promoting their own financial and geo-political agenda. Another motive for breaking news is to divert attention from important real events, particulary those involving political dissent.

Whenever there is an absence of credible independent journalists and data is limited to “official” sources let us be particularly skeptical and not rush to conclusions or to judgment when presented with dramatic “events” by corporate media. This does not imply America’s news from its six huge corporate sources to be consistently untrue. Where is it written that liars must be consistent?

Millions of persons will persist in believing the bazarre TV stories of Arab hijackers, commercial airliners crashing, buildings blowing up from the top down, and a multitude of “truther” explanations surrounding unproved mystifying illusions created by Hollywood-style special effects fakery and well-paid actors, an illusory mask for the demolition of a group of antiquated buildings in downtown New York City. Tying the media hoax in with an international political agenda of warfare, combined with the domestic enactment of abuses, starting with the Patriot Act, was ingenious.

I do not expect a great awakening of the masses. Even those led grudgingly to suspect that a mass murder of 3000 souls never occurred on 911 are likely to simply shrug their shoulders and move on to something less upsetting and less confusing for them. When the reality of the source of the immense 911 hoax that continues to be perpetrated becomes more widely understood by those who make an unprejudiced effort and eventually grasp it, the real truth found will be far more terrifying than they ever imagined.

[simonshack]

I wont speak for Simon on the "missile theory", but I personally find that particlular hangout less credible than airplanes.

Missiles Miss! And what? Land in a kid's school in Manhattan? Hundreds of really dead and wounded children? Where were the missiles fired from? Nimitz or some shit? "Made in the USA" stamped all over the remains. Nah. Can't blame AQ on that one!

RE-THINKING THE MISSILE THEORY


Dear Brianv,

I think I've made it clear time and again that I've now distanced myself from my old JASSM / AGM 158 missile speculation (as presented in September Clues - 2008). Btw, "JASSM" stands for "Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile" - it can be launched from various military aircrafts. I'll now expound what made me speculate about this possibility - but don't get me wrong, I now strongly lean towards the notion that NO airborne object ever (was needed to) hit either tower. However, I'd like to illustrate what sort of logic made me nurture the thought that a precision missile - such as the Lockheed Martin JASSM/ AGM 158 - could have been employed (for the WTC2 event only):

- The AGM 158 silhouette closely resembles that of a Boeing 767 (even though much smaller - so, ok... that would have been a problem: people would have witnessed a "small plane"). Its stated cruise speed - 550mph - was pretty much the same as the official speeds reported for "FLIGHT 175"(and at the time, I was still playing with the idea that "FLIGHT 175" had been overlaid onto REAL images of the NY skyline - just like Ace Baker still keeps peddling... )

- The thing is, I found many witnesses reporting a 'small plane' (or even 'a missile') striking WTC2. Therefore, if an AGM 158 had been used, I thought this would have helped explain those contradictory witness reports. Today though, I'm quite happy to throw these witness reports into the same dustbin as the media people's "eyewitness reports of a large passenger airliner". The "small plane" meme was probably just meant to muddy the waters - and provide fodder for conspiracy theorists...

- I still believe though (well, probably only to 'justify' my old, 2008 thought processes) that the chances of such a precision missile MISSING the WTC2 is close to NIL - considering the large, static target (on a clear and almost windless morning - on 'friendly' home turf) and not even having to rely on (fallible) GPS guidance - but simply on a foolproof, homing device pre-placed in WTC2. If the US military apparatus couldn't guarantee a 100% success-rate for such a billion dollar toy - I'd really feel sorry for the Pentagon!...

This said, I now believe that NO AIRBORNE OBJECT striking either WTC 1 or 2 was necessary to pull off the 9/11 hoax. The perps were smart enough to plan it this way:

- "FLIGHT 11" strikes WTC1 - at 8:46AM : no one was expecting it - so New Yorkers who wonder why they never heard/or saw it would just assume that they missed it altogether.

- "FLIGHT 175" strikes WTC2 - at 9:02AM . The area south of WTC2 (Battery Park etc...) was by then completely evacuated. Access to the public into that southernmost piece of Manhattan was strictly denied that morning. Anyone standing north of the WTC (wondering why they never saw "FLIGHT 175") would just assume that they missed it altogether - "since it came in from South"...

Hope this clarifies my stand on my old 'AGM missile on WTC2' theory - a honest error of judgment of my early days of 9/11 research which, unfortunately, keeps haunting me. Hopefully, I will find the time and patience to produce a new, updated version of September Clues - minus my ill-considered missile thesis.

[nonhocapito]

Hope this clarifies my stand on my old 'AGM missile on WTC2' theory - which keeps haunting me... Does it still hold any merit? Can it be 100% dismissed? It's up for anyone to judge. Personally, I do not wish to uphold it anymore.

I don't remember in which thread I just recently discussed having taken this possibility into consideration, Simon.
Like you say, it all derives from the eyewitness problem.
Since, especially when first facing the possibility of fakery, people often refuse to give up on the idea that it was impossible to control or censor eyewitnesses in a crowded Manhattan, I think it was important to demonstrate to everyone how it could have been possible to fool people anyway, using such a plane-shaped missile.

Once one realizes that eyewitnesses could be controlled/directed/ignored/prevented just like anything else, then the missile possibility can be gently put aside.

[MsQ]

Hope this clarifies my stand on my old 'AGM missile on WTC2' theory - which keeps haunting me... Does it still hold any merit? Can it be 100% dismissed? It's up for anyone to judge. Personally, I do not wish to uphold it anymore.

I don't remember in which thread I just recently discussed having taken this possibility into consideration, Simon.
Like you say, it all derives from the eyewitness problem.
Since, especially when first facing the possibility of fakery, people often refuse to give up on the idea that it was impossible to control or censor eyewitnesses in a crowded Manhattan, I think it was important to demonstrate to everyone how it could have been possible to fool people anyway, using such a plane-shaped missile.

Once one realizes that eyewitnesses could be controlled/directed/ignored/prevented just like anything else, then the missile possibility can be gently put aside.

An old article, but one that ties in here.

Doctored photos create false memories

It is said that the camera never lies, but according to new research published in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, the camera not only lies, but those lies can lead to the creation of false memories.

Read the rest here:
http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy ... es_lie.php