9/11 and SEPTEMBER CLUES

[hoi.polloi]

Finally! I knew you'd overtake that kid one day if you danced hard enough ...

[simonshack]

*


SEPTEMBER CLUES

Summer 2007 - Summer 2010

3 years on - undebunked!

[simonshack]

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



SEPTEMBER CLUES on archive.org ! :blink: :huh: :lol:

http://www.archive.org/details/2008-Sim ... mber-Clues


********************************************************************
Weird. Probably the last place on the internet I thought it would be ever be posted!

What's going on? So what IS the archive.org (a.k.a. "the Internet Archives")?


Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive
"The Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library with the stated mission: "universal access to all knowledge."

I love it.

[brianv]

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



SEPTEMBER CLUES on archive.org ! :blink: :huh: :lol:

http://www.archive.org/details/2008-Sim ... mber-Clues


********************************************************************
Weird. Probably the last place on the internet I thought it would be ever be posted!

Wow Simon that's amazing! All to be confirmed next door in the TV coverage!

[simonshack]

^


That's right, Brian:



Now, anyone can do a Back-to-Back comparison between



- the TV NETWORKS' archived images of 9/11

and

- SEPTEMBER CLUES


within the very same website!





Now, how cool is that? B)




http://www.archive.org/movies/thumbnail ... mber-Clues

[simonshack]

*

Allright, folks - I think I have sussed out a very important aspect of the TV NETWORKS' TRICKERY on 9/11.

It has to do with the in/famous 17 SECONDS which I have tried to wrap my head around for a long time. :huh:

Please stay tuned.

[simonshack]

*




THE 17 SECONDS ENIGMA


As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 looms in the horizon, I really hope the question of TV FAKERY may finally be universally accepted - at least within the real, legit, serious and sincere 9/11 research community. Anyone who fails to see the 9/11 video fakery should now make a serious effort and recognize the evidence at hand.

To this end, I'd like to ask the reader utmost attention in reading and assessing this analysis as it should help explain - hopefully in a definitive way - how the television images of that day were broadcast and timed with the WTC explosions. You will have to be familiar with "SEPTEMBER CLUES E" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7VHf4TVIY" to fully grasp the present issue. Please watch it before proceeding to read this article. In "September Clues E" my observations focused on 2 conflicting timelines which different authorities released in relation to the supposed impact of "FLIGHT175" on WTC2.

- The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades reported a seismic spike at 9:02.54.

- The official timeline (released by the media and the FAA) claims that "FLIGHT 175" hit WTC2 at 9:03.11.

There is a seemingly inexplicable 17-second discrepancy between these two timelines. Now, let's assume the seismic Observatory's timeline is the more credible one (as they recorded underground explosions of the WTC demolition job). This would mean that, for some reason, the official version had to lie by a margin of 17 seconds.


Why? Why 17 seconds?

Because they had a (pre-fabricated) 16-second "plane-approach" video animation ready to be aired on TV (from their centralized 9/11 studio). In "September Clues E" all I did was to point out the fact that all the TV networks featured an audio "spike"( which I interpreted as a "GO!" signal ), precisely 17 seconds before "FLIGHT175" is seen impacting on TV. This common, synchronized audio signal heard on all networks would support the contention that all the 9/11 broadcasts were managed in the same studio. So, again - why do we hear it 17 seconds before the televised explosion? I propose the following explanation to this occurence:

The "GO!" signal was given to the central TV studio producer at 9:02.54 (as the WTC explosions went off) to make him launch the pre-fabricated video sequence illustrated in the animated gif below(THE MAGIG 16-SECOND SEQUENCE). This was most likely an obligatory safety measure (imagine if something went wrong with the explosives, and the TV 'planecrash' sequence was aired on TV without the WTC exploding in reality!) So, as the explosives went off in WTC2, a signal was given to launch the 16-second "plane-approach" sequence. Of course, this meant that the televised explosion was in fact, aired (give or take) 16/or 17 seconds after the real WTC explosion. This is why the official version had to go with the (fake) 9:03.11 explosion timeline.(in order to match with any recorded world clock data, etc...)


********THE MAGIC 16-SECOND SEQUENCE***********

Yes, you better believe it...This is what what was shown on the US TV NETWORKS on 9/11: a ludicrous, pre-fabricated animation simulating 4 cameras capturing the approach of "FLIGHT175". None of the 4 shots overlapping - as if 4 cameramen had been apportioned with their very own slice of time to film the event !

Moreover, consider this: ALL 4 segments showing the "plane approach" are not only perfectly sequential, but each one of them also features the same "now-you-see-me-now-you-don't" dynamics: PLANE ENTERS FROM EDGE OF SCREEN / THEN DISAPPEARS BEHIND EITHER SMOKE OR WTC.


Now, if you wonder what that "OOOOPS!!!" signifies, please know that I have been able to synchronize the 9/11 morning broadcasts PRECISELY, thanks to some identical feeds being aired on different networks. Evidently, the CBS animation was poorly edited/synched - and showed WTC2 exploding slightly earlier - about 1,5 seconds or so - than the ABC animation (the universally famous "International Shot"). The entire length of the 9/11 morning TV broadcasts - which all showed just two towers puffing smoke - was just an animated, pre-fabricated digital movie. Our kids' Playstation software is, today, much superior to the poor 9/11 imagery.

watch "SYNCHED OUT" www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk



I hope this will help clarifiy for all (as it has for myself) what that 17-second
discrepancy really meant and why it was a necessary part of the 9/11 TV hoax.

[MartinL]

A+ Work Simon! Bravo!

[godzilla]

Excellent reasoning Simon!

[proloft]

Ditto on the kudos!

Now it's even more concrete an idea that Don Dahler is a lying twat and was stalling for
time when he reported the second explosion.

I wonder what Plan B was? What if the demolition malfunctioned... what would the MSM have said then?




Don Dahler: Author, Journalist, Douchebag.
http://www.dondahler.com

[simonshack]

I wonder what Plan B was? What if the demolition malfunctioned... what would the MSM have said then?

Proloft,

Good question.

Probably, the MSM (or rather, their Central 9/11 LIVE TV studio) would just have held back and waited for the explosions to go off at a later time. Don Dahler (the ABC military reporter) would have waited for the explosions to occur and delayed his signal accordingly.

The fact is that his loud, double BEEP-BEEP heard in his ABC audio feed (which also bleeds into the live soundtracks of the other networks, as I have demonstrated in "September Clues E") occurs exactly 17 seconds before we see the "planecrash" on TV.

This signal was - in my educated opinion <_< - the cue for the Central 9/11 LIVE TV studio to launch the ready-made "16-SECOND MAGIC SEQUENCE".

[MartinL]

Ditto on the kudos!

Now it's even more concrete an idea that Don Dahler is a lying twat and was stalling for
time when he reported the second explosion.

I wonder what Plan B was? What if the demolition malfunctioned... what would the MSM have said then?




Don Dahler: Author, Journalist, Douchebag.
http://www.dondahler.com

I sent Don this e-mail, 4/26/09

Dear Don Dahler,

As you might be aware of there is a documentary film with analysis of the September 11th attacks that you and many others covered live.
The film points to some very disturbing and indisputable evidence, and since you are a part of the film I would strongly advice you to watch it and give us your response on the evidence presented in the film.

I decided to write you because from what I've seen of you on television you are a man of integrity and you take your profession seriously. I do hope you take the time to view this unique analysis, and that you also honor me with your response after you have seen it.

Part 1: http://blip.tv/file/1272900/
Part 2: http://blip.tv/file/1273564

Many thanks in advance from Norway!

Best regards,

And this is the response I got from the address [email protected]:

Thank you for informing me of your documentary. As you know, there have
been hundreds of such projects produced and I am often included in them
because of my reporting that terrible morning. More times than not, my
words are taken out of context or twisted completely. I am by some accounts
a CIA plant, by others I am also the voice of one Jim Friedl who called
into a different station. Some fellow with more time on his hands than
sense actually worked up a time-line on his website showing I was not on
the air on ABC when Mr. Friedl (whoever he is) was. My friends and family
find these strained efforts at logic humorous, except that they always
remind us of the tragedy of September 11th and the thousands of lives lost
that day, and the tens of thousands of lives lost in the subsequent wars
triggered by those attacks.

I've made it a personal policy to never respond to these websites, films,
and allegations because, frankly, I find the people behind them to be so
radicalized as to be incapable of objectivity. They are usually
fundamentalists of a higher level of superstition, and no reason or calm
logic can dissuade them of their religious beliefs. I've watched them take
part in debates with scientists and actual eyewitnesses to those events and
they refuse to acknowledge any facts, choosing instead to discount
everything that doesn't fit into their paranoid imaginings as lies
perpetrated by the U.S. government on the world.

The only reason I'm responding to your message is because you sent one.
Never before has any of the acolytes of the church of the 9/11 conspiracy
bothered to try and contact me to ask what I think of their theories.

To be clear; I think you're wrong. But as a journalist I appreciate the
effort and thought you've put into trying to discover the truth. Inquiry
should never be avoided into anything, so long as the inquirer is willing
to remain open-minded and accept that the original thesis might be wrong,
as yours is.

So which are you? The open-minded seeker of truth? Or the fanatic so
convinced he’s onto something he won’t listen to opposing views?

The simple fact is, there were thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even
hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses in New York and New Jersey that day
who saw the airliners hit the towers and the towers fall from the top down,
who saw these events with their own eyes, not on television. So your whole
premise of a fantastical hoodwinking of the world through digital special
effects is patently absurd and ignores testimony any court in the world
would have to accept as incontrovertible. Or did the government manage to
project digital images directly into their brains, perhaps? Come on. This
is the biggest hole in these conspiracy theories. I and many other
journalists have talked to many people who recount exactly what the TV
pictures showed, are they (we) all agents of the government? Yes, some of
the early accounts mentioned small planes, but as any first year law
student learns, eyewitness accounts will vary and there will be some that
disagree with the majority because of many factors, including perspective
(the towers were very high and even large jets look small next to them),
stress, influence by hearing other people speculate, past experiences
including movies they’ve seen, etc.

You base much of your evidence (and your evidence is not fact, not proof,
but only speculation ? theories are not proofs) on curiosities of video
and audio which could be easily explained by audio-visual experts had you
made an effort to really find out why so many images and sounds differed.
I’ve been a photographer/cameraman/editor and sound-recordist, in
addition to writer and journalist, for almost thirty years now. I have a
national EMMY for sound work I did on a wildlife film, and I’ve used
almost every kind of video and film camera there is. I won’t go item by
item to refute your work, but I’ll speak about some of the things you
continuously belabor.

Video is an inexact medium. In 2001, most cameras weren’t digital, they
were analog. They recorded information on magnetic tape of various sizes
and speeds, and those images are then interpreted by the video player.
Everything from age of equipment to dust to how many times the tape is used
affects the picture quality. Even live cameras will never look exactly the
same, even with two of the same brand of camera set up next to each other.
Trust me; studio engineers work tirelessly to get the cameras at least
close enough in image characteristics to at least not be distracting to
viewers. Consider now you have dozens of different kinds of cameras that
day recording the attacks; the quality will differ widely between them all.
The question of the “black edge” or the “masked edge” which so
intrigues you is simply an anomaly of video. Zoom lenses record video
which is not going to be perfect because of lens distortion, and video has
never been fond of bright light and contrast as was experienced that day.
The pixilated shifts you also obsess over, like when parts of a building
visibly morays and then springs back to normal, is a characteristic of
microwave transmission, which is how these images were beamed back to the
stations. The video was transferred digitally over the airwaves, which is
why there’s a digital effect, that tearing and shifting. As far as I can
discern, you have no original footage in your video ? it’s all recorded
from other websites or are copies of on-air broadcasts, which degrades the
quality of the video signal exponentially. Again, if you’d sought experts
in this area instead of just using your imagination, you could’ve
answered your own question.

You also spend a lot of time trying to show that differences in angles,
etc., prove there were a number of badly made versions of the attacks
created, but as I watched your accounts of this is was obvious these were
simply different perspectives of the same scenes, and perspective can have
a huge impact on how things appear. In the one scene where you insisted
the cityscape disappeared it was clear the camera angle was slightly lower,
thus eliminating the buildings. Keep in mind, this was shot with a long
zoom lens so even the slightest adjustment of perspective is going to
change the background radically, even if it changes the foreground
minimally. Put a drinking straw to your eye and peer through it at
something at eye-level, then lower your head even just an inch while
focusing on the same item. The scene changes radically. No mystery there.

I did get a chuckle out of your PAT sequence and my only explanation for
why the helicopter “appeared” to disappear in that one perspective is,
again, the failure of degraded video to hold onto every visual element,
especially in the high-contrast haze of that morning at great distances
(and the sky was very hazy at the scene itself from the first few moments
of the fire onward, even if crystal blue skies prevailed everywhere else).

Microphones are the same ? they will sound different, especially with the
many different kinds of commercial camera-mounted mikes out there. Some
are unidirectional, some are omni directional. Most are very cheap if not
attached to a professional-grade camera and thus vary greatly in which
frequencies they are most attuned to pick up. In the scenes where you
compare the loudness of the crash noise, sometimes buildings were between
the mike and the crash, which would dilute the sound. Different cameras
have different built-in sound filters, too, which will wash loud noises or
specific tones, like bass, out.

Interestingly, a few moments after the second tower collapsed, I walked
down Church Street toward the horrible scene of devastation, and as I did
so, I passed a jet engine, still smoking, which had landed on a bus stop.
Was that a marvel of video technology too? Or the body parts I witnessed
amongst the dust of the enormous debris pile? Or the very real grief of
the thousands of family members I met who will never see their loved ones
again? Are they part of the vast conspiracy too?

Time and again as I watched your documentary, I kept marveling at how much
meaning you gave the most meaningless things. I suppose if one were to
obsessively explore a video of a cook making a meal one could come up with
an endless number of strange and suspicious things, and then if one
presented them with the passion, self-assuredness and, frankly, paranoia
you do in your video, one could make it seem like a grand illusion was
taking place!

Had the events of 9/11 occurred in a contained area, such as a lunar
landing or a Vegas magic act, I could entertain the idea of fakery. But
this happened on a stage writ large, with more eyewitnesses both on the
ground and watching on television around the world than have witnessed any
single event in the history of mankind. What they saw unfold in front of
their eyes happened in the same exact moments whether they watched in
person or in front of their television. This is the single most damning
fact for your theory. You can’t simply wish that away because you’re
intrigued by the prospect of a huge conspiracy and have noticed some
oddities in the video clips you’ve poured over.

The attacks of 9/11 were conducted by a radicalized group of well-trained,
devoted, albeit deluded individuals. Their journey to that moment in time
has been thoroughly documented. The masterminds confessed and can be heard
bragging on tape. But you and the other conspiracy theorists don’t
believe any of that. You won’t believe anything I’ve said here. You
won’t believe the empirical and well-reasoned item-by-item rebuttals to
these ridiculous theories by independent scholars, journalists,
investigators and publications which have access not only to worn-out video
clips but the documents, forensic evidence and actual eyewitnesses
themselves.. Because ultimately, you and the team of murderers who killed
thousands of men, women, and children that day, many of whom, incidentally,
were my neighbors, have one indisputable thing in common: you have tipped
over the edge of reason into the world of superstition and illogic. They
believed they were serving the cause of their God because some evil,
hate-filled religious leader brainwashed them into thinking so. And you
and others like you have latched onto this fetish and refuse to seriously
consider anything other than your own religious beliefs that somehow a
government which so consistently botches so many relatively simple
endeavors, like making sense of a health care system or taxing its citizens
in a fair and effective manner, could launch such an enormously, impossibly
complex mission to dupe and murder its own people; a mission which would
have to involve thousands of conspirators. None of whom has ever come
forward.

You present your argument forcefully and passionately like an enthusiastic
scientist revealing a new discovery, with intricate detail and thoughtful
observations, but ultimately your entire case amounts to nothing more than
a witch-doctor trying to explain a lunar eclipse to his acolytes by
describing a gigantic turtle crawling across the sky.

Truthfully and sincerely,

Don Dahler

[SmokingGunII]

Simon - I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Martin - I remember you posting this before - the length of his reply tells me all I need to know. B)

[MartinL]

Is Don Dahler also the mysterious Jim Friedl aka "grade9 chopper-guy"?

In the first 2 ? minutes of this video, anchorman Jim Ryan (WNYW in NY) is interviewing an alleged eyewitness “Jim Friedl,” who supposedly saw the first big Boeing “bank sharply” and then “fly directly” into WTC1, from a vantage point somewhere in Hoboken, NJ.

Jim Ryan then goes on to summarize the previous interview until 3:02 of the video, at which time we observe the fireball from the alleged second plane impact.

Nine seconds later, at 3:11 of the video, “Jim Friedl” appears to still be on the air, asking “Was that a plane?” Thirteen seconds after that, he again pipes up, saying “Oh, my God!”

Nothing unusual so far here? until seventeen seconds later at 3:41 of the video, when a man speaks into a radio, saying the following: “[Grade] 9, Chopper 5? Is anybody on?”

This is what immediately caught my attention. Although there is some distortion due to the fact that this man was speaking into a radio, his voice sounded much the same as the voice of “Jim Friedl,” the same “witness” they had just interviewed and was still on the line 17 seconds earlier.

Notice how quickly the chopper radio call is faded out. The fact that it was faded out at all proves that this voice came from an incoming feed to the studio, meaning that it cannot be claimed that this voice came from inside the studio.

Source: http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/10/91 ... riedl.html

Notice how Don immediately jumps in to refute Peter’s speculation of demolition, in spite of the fact that he’s just admitted that he can’t see the base of the towers. How can he be so sure that there was no explosion when he clearly was in no position to see it?

By virtue of this one exchange, Don blew the doors off the cover that had been so carefully crafted up to that point. I find it incredibly ironic that his credibility was destroyed in concert with the destruction of WTC2......

Finally, who was “Jim Friedl?” Well, if he lied about seeing a large plane hit WTC1, and he lied about being in Hoboken, and he was most likely in contact with the chopper that fed us the live image with the inserted CGI, do you really think he’d tell the truth about his name?

He identifies himself as Grade 9 when he hails Chopper 5. This could open up speculation of military association (E9 Grade is the pay scale for a Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major in the Army), which would lead to speculation of the chopper also being military. It could also be a call sign he chose for himself if he worked for either a media or FEMA chopper crew..........

Besides being one hell of a smoking gun, this theory opens up the possibility that Don Dahler could have been doing more than just reporting on the events of the day. He may also have been orchestrating the events of the day.

Please go to the source for audio-comparisons and more analysis:

http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/91 ... ds_12.html

[antipodean]

Shouldn't the BBC footage also be factored in to this ?
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109110834-0916

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys3h3uCKSPc

On the old forum I posted a link to a site showing simultaneously, what all the 6 networks (including the BBC) were broadcasting over about a 45 minute period, prior to & just after the 2nd hit.
The BBC appeared to screen the 2nd impact 10 seconds before the other networks.
Which made me think the 'Central TV studio' may have been situated some where in the UK.

That site has since stopped showing the simultaneous footage.
http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgrou ... Part1.html

All that simultaneous 9/11 footage, from the different networks can be accessed here.
(But the footage may well have since been tampered with)
http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110831-0912

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109110834-0916

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

http://www.archive.org/details/fox5200109110831-0912

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

The closest to this I can find, to the footage being shown simultaneously is on killtown's site.
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

I also somewhat futilely tried to raise the issue as a debate on the 9/11 Oz forum.
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1787