A proper trolling

This forum allows all members to start topics. Warning: Heavily moderated
MrBatsh$t

A proper trolling

Unread post by MrBatsh$t »

Hi everyone, I'm here today to give you a lecture on why September Clues is wrong in many areas. This might take some time so stay with us. I see no one bothered to do this until now; maybe it was because it’s common knowledge. If you have a free open website I am expecting to be able to finish my posting without being removed. I will be respectful and will only explain the basics and not be personal.
brucethejam
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brucethejam »

Hi! Just to be nosey, what's 'common knowledge' and who are 'us'?
MrBatsh$t

Unread post by MrBatsh$t »

It starts with this statement:

1) ‘On September 11 almost all pieces of evidence where quickly removed’ All the evidence was all over the place for months, so it was not very quickly removed.

2) First thing he establishes is that only 5 live broadcast of the 2nd strike were shown on tv. This is possible due to the short time between each incident, doesn’t prove anything.

3) Winston’s inside a building reporting what he had just witnessed, you can hear people in the background raise their voices, he explains that ‘there was an explosion and people are running up the street.’ He says ‘hold on I’ll tell you what’s going, on...’ Now Simon puts the caption NO ONE sees nor mentions ‘plane’ this is a very cynical caption, no one says plane, but that does not imply their wasn’t one involved. Then the caption ‘screen blacks out on impact’ We all know the transmitter was on top of the tower, they cut to a different signal explaining the blackout, this gives credence to the damage to the tower at that moment.

4) Now its Bryant Gumbel’s turn who is talking to Mrs Theresa Renaud, Bryant Gumbel’s askes Theresa ‘where are you’ She replies ‘I am in Chelsea, we are at 8 and 16th, we are the tallest building in the area!’ ‘My window faces south so it looks directly on to the world trade centre. Approximately 10 minutes ago a major explosion probably what looks like the 80th floor probably about 8 to 4 floors, major flames are coming out, let’s see the north side and also the east side of the building, yes she goes on then says she didn’t see what caused the impact Bryant Gumbel ‘So you have no idea right now... Oh there’s another one, another plane just hit, Oh my God, another plane just hit another building. Simon now get out a map to explain that she was a long way from the building even though she just explained she had a great view of the twin towers. So this is just conjecture easily disproven. It was a large plane, the largest and tallest buildings around.

5) Simon put up a caption of photographer David Handschuh ‘I didn’t see the plane, although I was right beneath the tower.’ The towers got four sides, if he was on any other side looking up he wouldn’t have seen it, just the explosion.

6) Now Simon moves to the live shot 3 WNYW FOX 5 ‘a picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene, Jim Freedle in Hoboken said it appeared to bank sharply and smash directly perhaps purposefully into; oh my goodness!' Simon’s showing us the fade to black that is a drop in transmission due the explosion effecting the towers power system and the transmission of pictures. All pictures have a delay when shown on TV, so someone faded to black when the pictures was lost and faded in the new broadcast; this is done all the time. ‘God there’s another one, oh my goodness, there’s another one, now its obvious I think that there’s a second plane just crashed into the world trade centre, I think we have a terrorist act of proportions we cannot begin the imagine at this juncture!’ Simon puts the words ‘Prophetic words from Fox anchor Jim Ryan.

7) Simon now put up the caption ‘as we will see now, ‘The Terrorists’ made some Crude Mistakes’ This had no basis so far because Simon hasn’t shown anything untoward that cannot be explained.

8) Simon’s next caption ‘Let’s focus our attention on this FOX-TV SHOT’ So we will and see what Simon's got next; Simon’s going on about a three step zoom, when there is only 2 and a bit, the zoom on these camera are high tech compared to your average camera, so nothings out of place here. Then he admits that you see a plane with the caption ‘You just saw an airplane crashing into the south tower’ I agree we just did. Then he put up the caption ‘Yet, you may agree that any plane...will not crash through a steel building...emerging the other side with its nose intact.’ No one has tested to see what a large body jet will do when crashing into a building. Simon’s using deceptive language calling the building steel, the building is made from more than steel, glass, concrete, aluminium, and many other compounds, but the main point is the plane had plenty of gaps between the steel beams that only glass prevented a path to the inside. How can you say with a straight face that the nose of the plane came out the other side, this is not what we see in the video, there is an explosion in every direction, the first bit of the escaping gasses blast out, not in a nose shape at all. Then he goes on to prove that they don’t match, if you look carefully enough.

9) Simon then makes the unfounded statement that ‘we may thus establish that this airplane cannot be a Real Airplane,’ If only he would have taken some time to explain why that is from the footage, other than showing the viewer a nose for nose comparison that doesn’t match. This may be what he does latter on the film. Now he puts this caption up ‘Instead, it must be A Graphic Image of an Airplane’ how would that be done then? ‘How then, - one may wonder ? Did this monstrous video-trickery go so wrong? A: There wasn’t any video trickery because you haven’t shown that the planes fake! Now we get his take on how it could be faked, of course he misses the fact that the plane is in the wide shot. He demonstrates with a graphic plane inserted that really does look fake and world fool no one. He then shows the plane entering the picture, then the camera drifting off to the right and that’s why there is that explosion that he claims is a digital plane nose when anyone can see it looks nothing like the plane and there is fire and bit flying out with it. He is saying that they put this nose out footage because they forgot to cut it out in time. That doesn’t hold true when you can delay the broadcast for several seconds. Why have the nose out if they could have removed it because it is delayed, no its simply exploding gasses.

10) Amazingly he does help the viewer see that it was exploding gasses, when he show you the video with caption ‘(final 6 seconds of two other shots) you see the out gassing that travels out of the building but this time from another angle. You could see how that might be mistaken for a plane nose shape, but is clearly seen as a cloud of dust and followed by the explosion that we see exactly in the nose out shot (so called)

11) Part B Starts with the Ball? This is just down to poor resolution of the camera. Simon put up a caption ‘? Width of a 160 ft’ not realising that the planes a distance away from the building making it look small, he uses the 208ft tower for comparison. You have another witness called Elliott Walker say ‘Oh another one just hit, something else just hit, a very large plane just flew directly over my building’ another confirmed sighting of the (digital?) plane. Simon chips in ‘Once again, TV Anchors fail to notice plane approach,’ maybe they are amazed and stunned by what’s taking place to notice. Simon’s also wondering why people are ringing in the news station. I would think that is normal, I’ve seen it happen with many other events, are all them fake too.

12) Now Simon Shows the viewer chopper 4 footage that’s so distorted and then he says it’s from a VHS recording, That explains why we cannot see the plane then especially against the blue / gray water below. Simon surly come across the word camouflage, the planes blending in. The next is the markers, Caption reads ‘This home VHS tape also shows an inexplicable series of ‘markers’ on the impact corner of Tower 2’ He answers his own question with this ‘VHS tapes are always putting lines into footage, probably a tracking problem.

.
13) Simon show the ball shot again, and you can see it’s a plane, maybe its blurred down due to the poor quality of footage. Now Simon starts on the flight paths, showing us two seemingly contradictory flight paths, but if you take a closer look you can see they are filmed from differing perspectives. This explains why they look odd. With a bit of time anyone could work out why. Now Simon moves on to the black spot moving between the two towers, this is also because of differing perspective. Have you ever been on a bus and seen a building in the distance move across the horizon, but feel your position to not have changed that much, a slight bend. If you look for this in pictures they can look odd, but you will see this if you observe your surrounding in detail. Simon demonstrates this very effect when he comes to the black stop passing between the twin towers, one shot is lower down looking level and the other is a lot higher up looking down on the tower. This is why the dots don’t match up.


14) The backdrops gone? No the position of the camera is different, this is another perspective problem. Simons caption ‘2 pretty much identical Tower Perspectives’ No they are totally different, the only reason they even slightly look the same is the sheer size of the towers and the distance of the camera. One shows water the other sky behind the buildings.
SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Unread post by SmokingGunII »

When are you going to start?
brucethejam
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brucethejam »

Of course the nose of the plane didn't go through the building in reality, mainly because there was no plane!!!
brucethejam
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brucethejam »

I don't think you understand, no plane can disappear fully into a concrete and steel building! Fire a bullet at 4 inch thick steel filled with concrete, the bullet wont go through! There were no planes Mr BS!
SimonJCP
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:23 am
Contact:

Unread post by SimonJCP »

MrBatSht,

I was typing a full response to your points while I was at home. I am currently typing on an Internet cafe's computer, as I had to leave for the grocery store.

I'm simply informing you that I intend to respond to these in full. This is not, by any means, an irrefutable rebuttal to the evidence presented in September Clues.

Thank you for being respectful -- I will give you the same treatment. Civil discourse is too rare these days, and I think that the issue of media fakery on 9/11 is something that should be discussed/debated, as well as the credibility of witnesses like CBS Producer Jack Renaud's wife, Theresa.

I, myself, believe that the mainstream-media faked the 9/11 imagery and that the evidence presented in September Clues is largely accurate. I'll respond when I make it home.
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

Batshat is a joker, SimonJCP. Let him battle it out on YT.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

I am waiting for MrBatsht to actually 'debunk' something.

What ought we to do about this ... patiently wait for intelligence to appear somewhere within an extended rant?

Organize your thoughts and post it all at once, MrBatsht. I have started for you.
MrBatsh$t

Unread post by MrBatsh$t »

Deleted
brucethejam
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brucethejam »

The reason we cant see the plane isn't because of camouflage, it's because there isn't a plane! A camouflage that renders an object invisible? Indeed!
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Unread post by Dcopymope »

His style of "debunking" September Clues seems awfully similar to the "debunking" style of Anthony Lawson’s video, a video full of hot air but no substance. For the new members here who haven't seen it, please see Lawson’s silly debunking video in the link below and compare & contrast the nitpicking, I smell a rat in our mist. I could debunk every single point this "Batsht" clown has made but since September Clues isn't my research I won't waste my time.

September Clues - Busted! U-Tube version
MrBatsh$t

Unread post by MrBatsh$t »

I've finished for today, I will take some constructive criticism of my September Clues debunking. I hope you keep in mind that I've studied most of the footage out there and have looked at every aspect of the conspiracy. I'm not really a debunker; I'm a truth seeker and nothing more. If I find that there is strong evidence for fakery I'll be the first to post up a video about it. So far I've drawn a blank. It should take me a week to go through all of the videos point for point, so it should be interests to see what the result will be. Someone wanted to ask questions, I think we should always ask question, look at thing with a critical eye. Re-examine what you believe in.
brucethejam
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brucethejam »

Dcopymope 4 Oct 3 2010, 09:33 PM wrote: His style of "debunking" September Clues seems awfully similar to the "debunking" style of Anthony Lawson’s video, a video full of hot air but no substance. For the new members here who haven't seen it, please see Lawson’s silly debunking video in the link below and compare & contrast the nitpicking, I smell a rat in our mist. I could debunk every single point this "Batsht" clown has made but since September Clues isn't my research I won't waste my time.

September Clues - Busted! U-Tube version
He does read very similar! That yt guy likes to alter truths, my god! What a load of BS!
It doesn't read like you're debunking, more offering an opinion!
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

Oh no - I can't seem to find the "Batshit Clues" video series!
Did you delete them, Batshit? Why? I used to enjoy them - put them back up !

Some time ago, I even wrote a comment praising "your original way of promoting September Clues"!
http://dental-insurance.etowns.net/bats ... -pt-3.html
http://www.septemberclues.org
Post Reply