9/11 and SEPTEMBER CLUES

[hoi.polloi]

Hello, I just was wondering if Simon or anyone else here has coined the term, "Planehugger"???.

"A Planehugger"

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html

Hehe - yes it's a funny word. However, I guess it was coined quite some time ago by the 'funny folks' who ...uh...'pioneered' the no-plane discourse early on - only to start acting incredibly stupid, kooky and confusing so as to discredit the whole concept by association... :rolleyes:

Ingersol Christian Angelica diJezus Beamer from the UK has just filed a copyright infringement against us. She says she knows the cartoon airplane you have illegally appropriated images of. It's her cousin, and they both knew cartoon flights AA11 and AA77 very closely, since they were little planes. She left this comment on the 9/11 airplane memorial so it seems she is a real person really genetically related to airplanes:

"Oh AA11, or "Dubble-A" as we used to call him, was such a gregarious plane. Always smiling. His face was ruined by acne as a child, but he just kept on smiling and flying all over and he was so very real. His acne was like his laughter - contagious. Maybe it wasn't acne, but we miss him terribly. Wherever you are, Dubble-A, we love your new wings and will you bless us from above in your heaven sphere with your magic fairy angel magic?"
Love, sad and depressed, terrorist-hating Ingersol Christian Bungerton ... I mean, Beamer. I mean, Beamer Bungerton. Mother of AA77's wife's swimming instructor's dog (who also knew George John Abraham, who died in WTC3, who knew Todd Beamer, no actually he WAS Todd Beamer, but sometimes Todd Beamer was called "George John Abraham" by his friends. It was a funny joke that we all remember. Will you help us out with some cash? Send your sympathy clams to: http:://www.toddabrahambeamerfoundation.co.uk)

[brianv]

LOL Hoi!

sympathy clams :lol: A la Vongole? :P

[i811st]

"A Planehugger"
Hehe - yes it's a funny word. However, I guess it was coined quite some time ago by the 'funny folks' who ...uh...'pioneered' the no-plane discourse early on - only to start acting incredibly stupid, kooky and confusing so as to discredit the whole concept by association... :rolleyes:

Oh well, i had a strong feeling that I hadn't invented anything new. But that picture was worth the shut-down. LMFAO...too funny! thanks for that one.
Oh yeah, and I was Also wondering or just wanted to comment on the Addendum video.I was pleasantly surprised, and impressed that a BRAND-X track was used in the opening soundtrack overlay. Good stuff, my man. :rolleyes:

[fbenario]

So, Canada's government-owned broadcaster no longer thinks Bin Laden did 9/11, or that fire brought down the buildings. They aren't touching media fakery yet, but at least it's a start:

"Moreover, the CBC no longer refers to 9/11 as "the day that Al Qaeda orchestrated by OBL hijacked planes and flew them into buildings causing them to fall". They simply say "Hijacked planes (but not indicating by whom), flew into buildings and then those buildings fell (but not citing a cause)"."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/22449

[antipodean]

I've just come across this excellent article, in support of Sept. clues, & it's associated research.
Even giving a mention to the known 911 shill actors, Humphey, Welz et al.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/120138

[simonshack]

Feeling the winter chill? Check out ...


THE "JUMPERS"
Downfall of the failed falls

(new page added to http://www.septemberclues.org)
http://www.septemberclues.org/simulated_sceneries.htm (link at top right)






I felt I had to add this page since many have started asking about the people in the towers : " If the towers were evacuated, why did we see those terrible scenes of people jumping to their deaths?" I know it still has to sink in for many, but it's all computer imagery - once again. The still pictures have been long exposed as crude frauds. The videos needed to be conclusively exposed too. I realize now that the very dramatic nature of those faked scenes is precisely what has 'protected' them from being scrutinized. Anyone who dared to do so would have been accused of 'callousness' and of being 'disrespectful of the victims' - and I predict this is exactly what will be happen. Not to worry - one gets used to it in this 'line of work'... <_<

[fbenario]

Some of you already know that the very first thing every new Facebook friend of mine sees on my page is a box that says:

9/11 Truth - Read my blog: http://quiscus.wordpress.com/

Watch TV Fakery video:
septemberclues.org

At the video site, read the Vicsim Report.

Today Paste magazine, one of the most respected alternative music publications in the US, published an interview with me about my gigantic 2009 year-end music list:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2 ... world.html

Last year, when Paste published my 2008 list, they got 18,000 page views of it.

Paste linked to my music blog, which directs people to my Facebook page if they want more music posts ... where the first thing they see are the links to the video and the Vicsim Report!

Simon and Hoi, if Paste gets anything like the same number of hits on this year's interview, we may expose many hundreds of new people to the video and report. Pretty sweet plan, eh?

[SmokingGunII]

Feeling the winter chill? Check out ...


THE "JUMPERS"
Downfall of the failed falls

(new page added to http://www.septemberclues.org)
http://www.septemberclues.org/simulated_sceneries.htm (link at top right)






I felt I had to add this page since many have started asking about the people in the towers : " If the towers were evacuated, why did we see those terrible scenes of people jumping to their deaths?" I know it still has to sink in for many, but it's all computer imagery - once again. The still pictures have been long exposed as crude frauds. The videos needed to be conclusively exposed too. I realize now that the very dramatic nature of those faked scenes is precisely what has 'protected' them from being scrutinized. Anyone who dared to do so would have been accused of 'callousness' and of being 'disrespectful of the victims' - and I predict this is exactly what will be happen. Not to worry - one gets used to it in this 'line of work'... <_<

Excellent page, Simon!

Bite size pieces that can't be taken out of context. May I suggest that you add the two almost identical shots of WTC7's collapse. One with the large shadow on the red brick building and one without. I posted it on 911m and should have the URL somewhere if you don't have it to hand?

[WillWilsonII]

Simon I was wondering what first tipped you off-what shot made you say "this CANT be real!" I personally did not see any "footage" till 7 years later. Having grown up near Seattle, it was all over by the time I woke up. 7 yrs later I saw in slow motion some of the various "private" footage, wondering why someone would show this;what am I looking for.....wait..this aint right!!!" Did you know right away or did you have a similar experience? I have a thousand other questions I'll save for later :)

(side note: we were told the Space Needle was one of the so called "failed" targets -probably because NY is so far away and wouldnt scare us as much!)

[fbenario]

In reading an article on the anti-war movement (totally ineffectual as it is), I came across this line, which I thought you might enjoy:

Consumers of corporate news media--especially those whose understandings are framed primarily from that medium alone--are embedded in a state of excited delirium of knowinglessness.

[simonshack]

Simon I was wondering what first tipped you off-what shot made you say "this CANT be real!" I personally did not see any "footage" till 7 years later. Having grown up near Seattle, it was all over by the time I woke up. 7 yrs later I saw in slow motion some of the various "private" footage, wondering why someone would show this;what am I looking for.....wait..this aint right!!!" Did you know right away or did you have a similar experience? I have a thousand other questions I'll save for later :)

Will, I'll tell you a little story - if you will :-)

Your question brought up sweet old memories of 'yore'... I was at the time a graphic artist/cartoonist working in the motor racing 'circus'. My side passion was photography and one of my best friends in the circus was Keith Sutton - today perhaps the greatest living motorsport photographer. I became his eager apprentice in race tracks around the world since he proposed, to my delight, to assist him at major race events. He entrusted me his top-notch Nikon equipment with those monster lenses and I did my very best to learn and be up to the job. It took a while before I got a hang of it - and to realize the meaning (and difficulty) of shooting fast-moving 'missiles'! Here's Keith today, by the way:

Interview with Keith Sutton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3auFx3my-14

In those years, I witnesses many racing cars crashing and smashing onto guardrails - none of them ever piercing right through them... (btw, I was also a good friend of the great Ayrton Senna - his life, sadly, ended against a guard-rail. I wept his loss for weeks. )
So, to get back to your question, what made me first question the 9/11 imagery was, in fact, a few days after 9/11 when I saw (what probably was) the 'Hezarkhani-shot' on television :


I cried out loud: "Hey, that plane just went inside, wings and all!!" However, for some reason that I still cannot fathom, years went by without me 'processing' or 'acting upon' that absurdity - although I certainly questioned the official 9/11 story all along...

What later 'woke me up again' were all those still pictures of that 550mph 'airplane', sharp and nicely framed with the WTC, just a second away from impact...As I realized there were over a DOZEN of such perfect shots I recalled what, statistically, occurs in the real world of motorsport photography: in a racetrack arena crowded with pro-photographers, only one or two will be lucky enough to snap a sharp and tidy shot of a sudden and unexpected event. The series below is frankly ridiculous:


(There are actually a few more than the above 10 pictures available).

The odds of all those photographers catching "the very last second of life of FLIGHT175" (nicely framed with the towers/scenery - all crisp and sharp) is beyond believable. This was an average tuesday morning in Manhattan - and the fact that WTC1 started burning 17mins earlier does not make it any more plausible.

[brianv]

My tuppence?

Watch and learn!!

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

[ozzybinoswald]

Watch and learn!!

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

From 37:44

I'm rushing out and so this might be done better but this is the sort of thing I see through the entire video:

[simonshack]

Yes Ozzy...I think a re-posting of the below gif is in order on this thread. It shows how the smoke was indeed applied with a software program which cloned serial smoke patterns. The reason they chose to do this was to make sure the various 3-d composites of the burning towers (enveloped in smoke) matched with each other.



To those who wonder where this frame is taken from:
It is from a video which is currently viewable on the "NATIONAL MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM" website.
It is meant to be authentic imagery of 9/11 :lol:


It may still have to sink in for many people, so here it is again:

THE FACT THAT NO REAL IMAGERY EXISTS OF THE CRUCIAL TIMEWINDOWS OF 9/11 IS EVIDENCE IN ITSELF - THE MOST SOLID PROOF OF FOUL PLAY AVAILABLE.

This may sound as 'out of ordinary' proof. That is because 9/11 was an extraordinary hoax played upon mankind.

[SimonJCP]

It's amazing how we see the military/media perps using the same old techniques over and over again. Cloned smoke? Check this 2006 article out:

Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?

This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.)

It’s so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it.

But it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were “enhanced.” There are also cloned buildings. (See below.)





http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... eirut&only

The 9/11 attacks were the "big op" and a number of deception techniques were employed by the military in order to carry it out, cover it up, and PSYOP the viewing audiences. It is undeniable that the military perpetrators considered these methods of fakery to be both effective and highly sensitive. Thus, they would not want us to know about them, as they are being used to fake events even today.

This might be why criminals like Ace Baker and the mysterious team at PerpItOut attack research into the use of this type of fakery on 9/11.

One must ask the question, though -- why are the perps at Little Green Footballs (LGF) promoting the story? That's a flag-waving, NeoCon blog. Could they be useful idiots who reported something important for once? Or perhaps they're attempting to convey the idea that they're honest journalists and that, had 9/11 been a fraud, they and others would have exposed it a long time ago.

Regardless, it is clear that the methods of fakery employed on 9/11 continue to be used by perps.