"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Updates & comments about the movie that exposed the 9/11 scam
D.Duck
Banned
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm
Contact:

Unread post by D.Duck »

Simon,

That's great news that there was more then one "plane" that hit
the south tower and the 9/11 PSYOP makes more sense now
when you have showed us "your plane".

Now it all comes together that a million witnesses on the ground
saw a Big Boeing hit the towers cos those sneaky Arabic terrorists
used more then one "plane".

No wonder those towers collapsed in a heartbeat.

We need to find a passenger list from "your plane" and contact all those
poor family members to give our condolences and
maybe we could set up a memorial and ask for donations.

I wonder who the hijackers were on "your plane" and do you think
OBL piloted one of the "planes" himself".

If so, witch one of these "planes" do you think he piloted?

Regards
Richard "the investigator" Meter




Image
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********



"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"




And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :

Image

Now, what ARE those markers seen on this VHS home recording of the "BALL" approach?
If you wonder what the "BALL" is, you may wish to watch this fresh new theory :

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php
(yet another attempt to make us think that any REAL CAMERA was involved in filming the events of 9/11).
If you are familiar with the "MAGIG 16 SECOND SEQUENCE"(see top of page), you will see how absurd it is to believe that only that 7-second part with the "BALL" might be real footage of a real "spherical-drone-packed-with-explosives". More likely, the "BALL" animation segment being the longest single shot of "the plane approach" (thus more 'vulnerable' to analyses), they simply decided to portray "the plane" as a blurry blob, so as to avoid having to animate it realistically, what with pitch, yaw & roll motions, spatial size variations, etc...



So today's challenge (N°11) is...

Show us any real footage featuring similar markers running up and down the edge of a building.
http://www.septemberclues.org
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********



"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"


Aaand today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :


TO PAT OR NOT TO PAT - THAT IS THE QUESTION

In "September Clues Addendum" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGyW-0MeBOU I treated the issue of a police helicopter which I named "PAT".
Pat was supposedly hovering right above WTC1 and accelerated away (in North-West direction) just as WTC2 collapsed...
It so happens that Pat isn't reliably seen in all the various available shots of that crucial moment in time.


On the Camera Planet Archives, we see PAT in this location 5 seconds before the start of the WTC2 collapse:
ImageImage
ImageImage
On LIVE TV, PAT is totally absent. Some aspiring debunkers have said:
"Ah - but that's because the camera is too far away to capture that small chopper ("video compression", you see)."


Well...that would be the only instance of the entire day's broadcasts
which fails to visualize a chopper from any distance.

Image


But there's more...
Image
It appears unlikely that the different angles of these shots may account for
the total absence of PAT on German TV. Did the Germans shoot PAT out of the sky?


So today's challenge (N°12) is...


Give a plausible explanation for PAT not being invited on German TV.
http://www.septemberclues.org
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Heiwa »

Well, first of all WTC2 is not collapsing in front of PAT! It would appear - by careful analysis of available videos of uncertain origin/value - that the top part of WTC2 above the famous hole in the South wall (floor 81) is suddenly destroyed above the hole. No collapse there! I have made some simple observations about it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . And after the top part above floor 81 is destroyed, also the bottom part, floors 0 to 81, is destroyed from top down ... later. No collapse, PLEASE! As everybody should know by now - no skyscraper can be one-way crushed-down (collapse???) by a small failure up top. It doesn't work like that. Collapse is always from ground/bottom and up!

So what about PAT? Maybe she was flying around somewhere up and didn't know where she was and what was down? And then magic took place in front of her and she became part of it? And she was just wiped off the show?

If I win a prize for above, I donate it to Condoleezza, the ice dansing piano player that knocked GWB out! Maybe Condo knew PAT? You never know what women are up or down to?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

Heiwa scores no points towards the NASA Mars trip for spreading misoginy on the forum: PAT is not a girl nor a woman : it is short for Patrick Walsh, the NYPD chopper pilot who purportedly flied that chopper. And neither is Condoleeza, for that matter. Women are incapable of any wrongdoing whatsoever. <_<
http://www.septemberclues.org
Postal44
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:42 am
Contact:

Unread post by Postal44 »

One thing I notice so far, is that "Pat" seems to be in the more "natural" looking shots. By "natural" I mean the shots where the sky appears to be blue, or atleast as close to the blue as the sky is when I look out my window with my own 2 eyes.

In the shots where the sky is unnaturaly blue, like in the German TV shot, or in the 2 shots above where there is clearly some sort of masking/filtering going on, "Pat" doesn't appear in those shots, probably lost in the fake haze/pollution that was artificially put in.

In the other videos from the day where helicopters can clearly be seen zipping back and forth, they were probably digitally put it after the background was washed away.

Poor "Pat" was washed away with the backgrounds.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

Postal,

The funny thing is that PAT is actually clearly seen approaching the WTC1 on LIVE TV. PAT appears as a black spot which disappears in the black smoke, never to be seen again...And then WTC2 collapses - without PAT.

Image

The reasons for the many bloopers of the 9/11 animations are easier to fathom if one has some notions of video compositing and its peculiar difficulties. You may wish to try playing around with any decent video editing program, multitracking various videos in layers and using chroma/luma filters and the like to get the feel of it.

If, for instance, I wished to have a camel running across the Manhattan skyline, I would take some footage of a camel running in the desert. I would overlay my running camel video on the scenery and apply a filter to remove the desert around the camel. This will render the desert 'transparent' and I would see the Manhattan skyline 'bleed' through the desert area. So far so good. But if I also wanted to overlay an extra layer of a crumbling building over the same imagery, I would have to be very careful (when filtering this extra video layer) so that my camel doesn't get affected. If not, my camel may lose thinner features such as legs or tail (or color patches too similar to those contained in the extra layer) - or be wiped out entirely.

In the case of PAT vanishing just as the WTC2 collapses, this may have happened: the extra processing for the collapse sequence may have affected poor PAT's video layer and wiped him out entirely. Just a little, tentative technical speculation, of course, but arguably a plausible one.
http://www.septemberclues.org
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

I must say I'm quite disappointed at the lack of PAT fans defending his flyover during the WTC2 collapse. Didn't the WHOLE WIDE WORLD see PAT over the towers as the World Trade Center 2 collapsed? Does this detail leave everyone speechless? Well, I, for one, have no words. So ok...Let's get on with the September Clues summer debunking game! :P
http://www.septemberclues.org
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********

"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"



THE WONDROUS CHOPPER SHOT


And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :

Image

The chopper swivels around - and the background stays locked on the Manhattan scenery in the distance.
The chopper skid in the foreground is in sharp focus (even the nuts and bolts are crisp and clear) - yet the backdrop is pretty sharp too!..


So today's challenge (N°13) is...

What sort of lens and camera was used to obtain this beautiful, steady panorama?
http://www.septemberclues.org
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

Of course it's composite. It's genuine chopper footage, but technicians take the footage and display it creatively so the viewer can see the chopper in the image. That way, the viewer is better orientated to make sense of the news and enjoy the full impact of CBS programming. It's evidence of nothing more than the complex task of bringing up to the minute news to millions of homes.

The composition rather than the content is 'fake'. The Towers were hit by planes and fell down because of it killing between 2 and 3000 people simultaneously in a Schr?dinger’s cat wave-type event and this imagery, however TVtastic it is, doesn't prove otherwise.
godzilla
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by godzilla »

idschmyd @ Aug 7 2010, 05:10 PM wrote: Of course it's composite. It's genuine chopper footage, but technicians take the footage and display it creatively so the viewer can see the chopper in the image. That way, the viewer is better orientated to make sense of the news and enjoy the full impact of CBS programming. It's evidence of nothing more than the complex task of bringing up to the minute news to millions of homes.

The composition rather than the content is 'fake'. The Towers were hit by planes and fell down because of it killing between 2 and 3000 people simultaneously in a Schr?dinger’s cat wave-type event and this imagery, however TVtastic it is, doesn't prove otherwise.
So basically you're saying it's completely faked. Right?
"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." - Henry Kissinger
Postal44
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:42 am
Contact:

Unread post by Postal44 »

The cameras are generally mounted under the nose of the helicopter. Most likely for the exact reason in that clip, so nothing will block the camera.

I can only imagine the horrific midair accident that must have happened at that particular moment. Either that's the landing gear of the helicopter taking the footage, as the helicopter gets twisted around and back on itself, or it's the landing gear of the helicopter that's crashing in to it. It only appears that the camera is rock steady, because Simon cleverly edited the video to make it show what he wants it to. :)

I particularly like this photo

Image

where the camera is taking a picture of....itself?

Edit - This past weekend I got a good look at news chopper and it seems that the part in the picture above is located towards the tail of the chopper, the camera is under the nose. So the picture above is the helicopter is pointing in the opposite direction from the WTC's, and the camera is pointing back at them to get the shot. Why not just turn the helicopter around? Could they have been leaving the area so as not to suffer the same fate as Pat?:)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Oh well...You might prefer this one ...It all depends on your state of mind :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image

I do think that anyone who has studied the 9/11 images and still think they were REAL has some severe cognitive issues.
Try switching off that TV set - it should help.
http://www.septemberclues.org
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

THE KILLER SHARK:

Image

Anyone who wishes to explain this is welcome! Anyone?
http://www.septemberclues.org
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

godzilla @ Aug 8 2010, 01:39 AM wrote:
idschmyd 4 Aug 7 2010, 05:10 PM wrote: Of course it's composite. It's genuine chopper footage, but technicians take the footage and display it creatively so the viewer can see the chopper in the image. That way, the viewer is better orientated to make sense of the news and enjoy the full impact of CBS programming. It's evidence of nothing more than the complex task of bringing up to the minute news to millions of homes.

The composition rather than the content is 'fake'. The Towers were hit by planes and fell down because of it killing between 2 and 3000 people simultaneously in a Schr?dinger’s cat wave-type event and this imagery, however TVtastic it is, doesn't prove otherwise.
So basically you're saying it's completely faked. Right?
When I first saw this clip - on Sept Clues I expect - I discounted it as obvious hooey, a TV style mash-up that didn't necessarily point to a war crime. I know two people who've seen it and neither sees anything unusual in it. Now that really is dumb. It's TV fakery, sure as eggs, but is it News fakery? In context, yes, of course if f#cking is. But for those not aware of the context, I don't think this piece of TV magic signals a war crime. Not on its own.
Post Reply