9/11 and SEPTEMBER CLUES

Updates & comments about the movie that exposed the 9/11 scam

Postby hoi.polloi on April 21st, 2010, 1:18 pm

Even if the trench isn't exactly the location of the official simulated crash site, the material there is clearly more malleable than the rest of the surrounding area. It's a perfect place to feign a magical portal of softness that absorbs 80 to 90% of the plane.

I wonder why they never found a single passenger body part? :rolleyes:

This is truly one of the weakest and most unfortunate triumphs of the 9/11 lie. How did people fall for this?

There was no Flight 93. There was no Flight 77, 175 or 11. There were no passengers, no phone calls and no family members protesting Giuliani. It is a simulation mixed with adults playing pretend, like War of the Worlds.

If this 9/11 story continues to break down at the alarming rate it is doing so now, they may have to try to convince us that Martians really did land in 1938. This game began a long time ago.

Oh, New York Times ... what happened to you? You used to actually report about these things.

Image
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby Realism911 on April 21st, 2010, 1:31 pm

hoi.polloi 4 Apr 21 2010, 01:18 PM wrote: us that Martians really did land in 1938.


When I was a child My grandmother told me about this Hoi, When war of the worlds was first aired, in the form of a narative radio play (before Plasma tv with 300 channels :) )
People were actually petrified of aliens from mars taking over. :lol:
Realism911
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: January 3rd, 2010, 3:45 am

Postby simonshack on April 21st, 2010, 2:56 pm

hoi.polloi 4 Apr 21 2010, 12:18 PM wrote:
There was no Flight 93. There was no Flight 77, 175 or 11. There were no passengers, no phone calls and no family members protesting Giuliani. It is a simulation mixed with adults playing pretend, like War of the Worlds.




This is an image I put together for the intro of my September Clues powerpoint presentations...
Image
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby simonshack on April 21st, 2010, 8:45 pm

*

THE SMOKE-&-CHOPPER PROBLEMS

One of the trickier problems the animators of the FAKE 9/11 IMAGERY had to deal with was the smoke billowing out of the buildings. Since this was one of the rare, constant elements of motion-graphics needed in the pictures, it had to be consistent from shot to shot. Of course, smoke being such a fickle, erratic element, it is equally tricky for us researchers to use when wishing to prove anything. However, there are instances when the smoke comes into play. Here's one.

Moments before the collapse of WTC2, a police chopper flies over the rooftop of WTC1.
I've called him "PAT" in my SEPTEMBER CLUES Addendum which I hope you are familiar with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGyW-0MeBOU&fmt=18

HERE IS THE VIEW FROM "PAT'S" CHOPPER moments before the collapse, as shown (in black&white) on Israeli TV:
Image

THIS IS ALSO MEANT TO BE "PAT", moments before the collapse, so the question is:
Image



Another aspect worth pointing out is that of the well-known vortexes generated by helicopter blades. On the 9/11TV BROADCASTS, we often see choppers flying right through or/and in very close proximity of the WTC smoke. NEVER do we see the smoke affected by their passage. Of course, you'll have to either take my word for it - or spend 11 minutes to watch "SYNCHED OUT": http://www.blip.tv/file/2537820/
Image

I thought this subject was worth revisiting to consolidate what is now pretty much definitively established:
Virtually ALL of the 9/11 IMAGERY was computer-animated.
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby fbenario on April 21st, 2010, 8:47 pm

A Facebook friend sent me this quote when I theorized that the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government was so obvious that it seems like they may have wanted us to know it was an inside job. The link no longer works, and I've never heard of an 'mdmorrissey', so he may be a perp, for all I know.

The question then becomes why they wanted us to find out. I certainly don't believe they wanted us to find out about media fakery, but this analysis seems somewhat convincing. I would suggest they are quite happy for us to know it was an inside job, as long as no one figures out all the images were faked.

As I've said here before, they only have two ways to control us - guns and media. Guns are messy and would inspire immediate resistance, while media goes down easy with most people - like a spoonful of sugar in some very bitter, murderous medicine. As a result, I don't believe they would ever knowingly expose their use of fake images/videos under any circumstance.


The simplest and most logical answer to this is that they were not that stupid. On the contrary, they wanted us to know. They have always wanted us--at least those of us who are not yet fully lobotomized by the mainstream propaganda--to know that they can do whatever they f#cking well want to with us, which includes not only 9/11 but also jamming a ridiculous and totally incredible fairy tale down our throats. They want us to know, very clearly but without having to come out and say it explicitly (this may come if martial law is imposed), as I have put it more bluntly earlier, that they've got us by the balls (short hairs for the politically correct).

http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/logical6.htm
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby fbenario on April 22nd, 2010, 1:58 am

simonshack 4 Apr 21 2010, 03:45 PM wrote:
Virtually ALL of the 9/11 IMAGERY was computer-animated.


Simon, you say 'virtually all'. Does this mean you think that some part of the footage was NOT computer-animated?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby simonshack on April 22nd, 2010, 9:49 am

fbenario 4 Apr 22 2010, 12:58 AM wrote:
simonshack 4 Apr 21 2010, 03:45 PM wrote:
Virtually ALL of the 9/11 IMAGERY was computer-animated.


Simon, you say 'virtually all'. Does this mean you think that some part of the footage was NOT computer-animated?


Note that I wrote "9/11 IMAGERY". That includes everything that was ever shown in relation to 9/11, including the aftermath - the vigils with mourning people*, for instance, were of course normal video.

To be sure, the crucial, 102 minutes of "LIVE" broadcasts was all pre-fabricated imagery - and so were the successive "amateur" clips and snapshots with 'planes'. The Naudet movie 9/11 was made with all the techniques available to Hollywood.


*edit (I meant to say, " - the vigils with people mourning over vicsim-fliers diffused by government agents/actors impersonating family members" )
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby hoi.polloi on April 22nd, 2010, 1:30 pm

simonshack 4 Apr 22 2010, 08:49 AM wrote:
fbenario 4 Apr 22 2010, 12:58 AM wrote:
simonshack 4 Apr 21 2010, 03:45 PM wrote:
Virtually ALL of the 9/11 IMAGERY was computer-animated.


Simon, you say 'virtually all'. Does this mean you think that some part of the footage was NOT computer-animated?


Note that I wrote "9/11 IMAGERY". That includes everything that was ever shown in relation to 9/11, including the aftermath - the vigils with mourning people, for instance, were of course normal video.

To be sure, the crucial, 102 minutes of "LIVE" broadcasts was all pre-fabricated imagery - and so were the successive "amateur" clips and snapshots with 'planes'. The Naudet movie 9/11 was made with all the techniques available to Hollywood.


I would argue that since all of - what - maybe 100 people actually realized that the entire 'catastrophe' was fake from the start? ... that the chances of some of the mourning videos being pre-fabricated and controlled is likely quite high.

Only the few shots they give to arguably average people in the hired studio crowds of several hundred people that were required to act as the injured and gawking could be counted as vaguely real, and even those - being dominated and fed to us by the lying story-tellers who came up with the whole operation in the first place - should be considered unworthy of the name documentary footage.

And not to backtrack, but I have to say Kudos for this argument:

Image

This is a brilliant argument, Simon. Why are those helicopter video layers so ineffective at affecting the computer-animated smoke? :rolleyes:
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4857
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby simonshack on April 22nd, 2010, 2:56 pm

hoi.polloi 4 Apr 22 2010, 12:30 PM wrote:
This is a brilliant argument, Simon. Why are those helicopter video layers so ineffective at affecting the computer-animated smoke? :rolleyes:


Heh - because, as you say, those 9/11 "choppers" are only layers, i.e. chopper- images inserted into the animation.
In fact, they switch from white to black depending on which background they are cast against :

Image


Some time ago, I tried to insert a random video of a real military chopper flying in an empty sky into the 9/11 scenery with my video editor. To remove the blue sky around it, I used a simple chromakey plug-in. This is what it looks like (of course, I could have inverted the settings to make it look like the ..uh..."real thing" above...) : :lol:
Image

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

I have to laugh out loud when, after time, I look at this 9/11 imagery again...
(believe me, I do take pauses to 'clean' my eyes and brain).
-What is it with these color-schemes?
-What is it with these leaning towers?
-What is it with these choppers ALWAYS zapping from one side to the other of the screen (perpendicular to the 'camera'),
casually flying by the WTC as if they had more urgent stuff to do? :blink: :P

ImageImage

What a joke it all was...
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby brianv on April 22nd, 2010, 3:52 pm

Simon, I mentioned the original BBC "Naudet" which disappeared from their website many years ago which I thought lost and gone forever. I found a capture I did, it was on Real Media and I was a complete video noob at the time.

NB The Antenna!

Image

I still have the URL for the original file too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/v ... ash_vi.ram

It was here also

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/ ... gp.med.ram
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby MartinL on April 22nd, 2010, 4:49 pm

I think the term is "dub in" (the inserted helicopters) B)
MartinL
Member
 
Posts: 319
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 11:08 am

Postby simonshack on April 22nd, 2010, 4:58 pm

MartinL @ Apr 22 2010, 03:49 PM wrote: I think the term is "dub in" (the inserted helicopters) B)


I always try to use simple terminology - we have all sorts of foreigners reading this board, even Norwegians !... :D
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby Terence.drew on April 22nd, 2010, 5:18 pm

[QUOTE=simonshack,Apr 21 2010, 08:45 PM]



Another aspect worth pointing out is that of the well-known vortexes generated by helicopter blades.

Image

The huge vortices generated by the wings of large aircraft have also gone AWOL in 911 footage.

This should have been very unfortunate for the 911 'aircraft' because these vortices represent the lift generated by the aircraft's wings. No aircraft can fly if these are in absentia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw8ZvGEsc8c

Air traveling over the top of a wing is going faster than air traveling beneath because of the curved shape of the wing. When this differential pressure meets at the wing tips, the high pressure air rushes to the lower pressure air and forms the vortex which is then dragged along by the forward motion of the plane.
The result is not one, but 2 horizontal tornadoes which are formed at the tips of aircraft wings and stay spinning in the air (at up to 150 miles per hour)for up to 2 minutes after a plane has passed. This is the reason planes do not take off directly after each other but are staggered. A small plane encountering these forces would be flipped over in an instant.

Image

Any exploding gases or smoke from a large jet crashing into a building are exploding INTO these horizontal tornadoes and would 100% interact with them. Hot gases and smoke. The lot.

There should be 2 large swirls and a V in the middle, an owl's face - the V representing the other aspect of lift which is simply that an aircraft pushes air downwards, with more air being pushed downwards where the wings are widest nearest the aircraft body.

Image
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Postby SmokingGunII on April 22nd, 2010, 8:59 pm

Ha! The vortex's.

Two subjects that I like to raise with people who refer to me as "the bloke who doesn't think planes hit the twin towers". The vortex's spewed out by jet engines and trying to reconcile how a plane's wings can cut through steel I beams at WTC yet when they hit lampposts at the Pentagon, they merely uproot the post from the base and lay nearby. :P

I've always maintained that cars directly behind a plane would have been thrown across the freeway. Apart from Lloyd's impaled taxi, we see a scene of serenity, punctuated by groups of USA Today employees rehearsing their lines.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Postby simonshack on April 22nd, 2010, 10:14 pm

Terence.drew 4 Apr 22 2010, 04:18 PM wrote:
The huge vortices generated by the wings of large aircraft have also gone AWOL in 911 footage.




Image

Yes, Terence. My (limited) personal experience with aerodynamics comes from having visited very expensive wind tunnels in which Formula1 racing cars are tested to optimize their drag coefficient. In simple terms, any object travelling through air brings with it - at a few lenghts behind it (depending on the object's lenght and other parameters) a wake. To put this into perspective, imagine for a minute a large passenger plane crashing into a wall. Its wake would, within a few seconds (exactly how many can be calculated - but I'll leave that to the aerodynamics experts) hit the wall too. As it hits the wall, the spinning wake turbulence would make the plane's explosion-smoke swirl in a way similar to the picture above.

This is certainly not seen in the 9/11 WTC impact images. The 9/11 video animators just totally forgot about it.

Another Occam's razor-proof of the TV fakery...
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to September Clues - the movie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests