"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

[chuck22]

Two questions I have with regards to the obvious media fakery:

1. The Ball - What was up with the the flying ball that was shown flying into the buildings in one of the videos that day? I believe it was on NBC, and I'm just wondering why that was put into the fake video. Was it placed to cause speculation?

2. Apollo worked because of successful compartmentalization of the highest degree (left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing). I'm curious how many people it would have taken to accomplish this Hoax. Planting Plane parts, fake witnesses, fake T.V., fake flights, interviews etc. etc. etc. Is money all it takes to keep these people from talking? I mean, there's a lot of freak'n moving parts in this whole thing. You have ground controllers, NORAD personnel, and tons of media, civilians on or around the site to control. That's a lot of possible compromises.

Don't get me wrong, I know this crap was faked...but I'm trying to wrap my head around the amount of people that are actually corrupted. Thoughts on this much appreciated.

[hoi.polloi]

Two questions I have with regards to the obvious media fakery:

1. The Ball - What was up with the the flying ball that was shown flying into the buildings in one of the videos that day? I believe it was on NBC, and I'm just wondering why that was put into the fake video. Was it placed to cause speculation?

2. Apollo worked because of successful compartmentalization of the highest degree (left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing). I'm curious how many people it would have taken to accomplish this Hoax. Planting Plane parts, fake witnesses, fake T.V., fake flights, interviews etc. etc. etc. Is money all it takes to keep these people from talking? I mean, there's a lot of freak'n moving parts in this whole thing. You have ground controllers, NORAD personnel, and tons of media, civilians on or around the site to control. That's a lot of possible compromises.

Don't get me wrong, I know this crap was faked...but I'm trying to wrap my head around the amount of people that are actually corrupted. Thoughts on this much appreciated.

1. We can only speculate. Since you know the video is fake, why do you suppose a ball appears in it?

2. I don't know if what you say about Apollo is true, but if it is Apollo worked too hard to hide things. Have people gotten dumber? Why are we the only ones looking into this 9/11 stuff on a quasi-professional level? Why should we be made to understand how it was done? Only the perps can tell us when they got lucky breaks and when they really had to scramble to try to fix something. They are the ones that deserve these hard questions.

[chuck22]

1. We can only speculate. Since you know the video is fake, why do you suppose a ball appears in it?

Yes I agree all we can do is speculate. As far as the ball I'm speaking of-This guy has the footage at 4:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXvN8Nrk ... re=related
If I had to speculate: Cognitive Dissonance / When a mind has info overflow and can't differentiate it throws it all out.

2. I don't know if what you say about Apollo is true, but if it is Apollo worked too hard to hide things. Have people gotten dumber? Why are we the only ones looking into this 9/11 stuff on a quasi-professional level? Why should we be made to understand how it was done? Only the perps can tell us when they got lucky breaks and when they really had to scramble to try to fix something. They are the ones that deserve these hard questions.

The simple reason is, denial. It's easier for people to cling to the belief that: No one would do this. If the truth is accepted, it then becomes hard for a mind to comprehend the reality and implications of it all. Hence my mind warp: How many f'd up corrupted people are actively working towards this Satanic goal? I have probably in the hundreds of hours personally invested in the study of this and the implications that naturally follow once accepted. I've been to a few sites and learned the hard way that many sites have been put up to gauge reaction, collect data and information on the dissent. I personally know that NASA is deeply involved in this last point. On one site supposedly dedicated to such truths (labelled conspiracies), I personally discovered a script running on my computer raiding my cache and sending it to NASA servers. I hope this site is not like that one but at this point I'm convinced I might be in the minority and it really doesn't matter. My convictions have me gathering up the truth and filtering through all the bullshit. But you're right, it seems like more people would be involved and care. I'm one who does, and I spread the truth. If anything the seeds of truth are planted and hopefully they rise to fruition before the last Hoax. I'll leave it at that as I don't want to hop in my pulpit here on this forum and hijack the thread.

[hoi.polloi]

1. We can only speculate. Since you know the video is fake, why do you suppose a ball appears in it?

Yes I agree all we can do is speculate. As far as the ball I'm speaking of-This guy has the footage at 4:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXvN8Nrk ... re=related
If I had to speculate: Cognitive Dissonance / When a mind has info overflow and can't differentiate it throws it all out.

My point is the "amateurs" seem to be patsies and/or fake names. If the ball exists to make people get confused and dismiss all unofficial speculation as unconscious cognitive dissonance, they didn't do a good job. For a lot of people, the "ball" became something to invest time in investigating. After ten years what has come of it? Nothing but useless speculation as to what this ball is seemingly doing in place of an airplane, and coming in at another ridiculous angle no less. You may be right though; the initial sweeping effect on the grand population may be just as you say: confusion and subsequent rejection of anything frighteningly "off-putting" about the videos.

2. I don't know if what you say about Apollo is true, but if it is Apollo worked too hard to hide things. Have people gotten dumber? Why are we the only ones looking into this 9/11 stuff on a quasi-professional level? Why should we be made to understand how it was done? Only the perps can tell us when they got lucky breaks and when they really had to scramble to try to fix something. They are the ones that deserve these hard questions.

The simple reason is, denial. It's easier for people to cling to the belief that: No one would do this. If the truth is accepted, it then becomes hard for a mind to comprehend the reality and implications of it all. Hence my mind warp: How many f'd up corrupted people are actively working towards this Satanic goal? I have probably in the hundreds of hours personally invested in the study of this and the implications that naturally follow once accepted. I've been to a few sites and learned the hard way that many sites have been put up to gauge reaction, collect data and information on the dissent. I personally know that NASA is deeply involved in this last point. On one site supposedly dedicated to such truths (labelled conspiracies), I personally discovered a script running on my computer raiding my cache and sending it to NASA servers. I hope this site is not like that one but at this point I'm convinced I might be in the minority and it really doesn't matter. My convictions have me gathering up the truth and filtering through all the bullshit. But you're right, it seems like more people would be involved and care. I'm one who does, and I spread the truth. If anything the seeds of truth are planted and hopefully they rise to fruition before the last Hoax. I'll leave it at that as I don't want to hop in my pulpit here on this forum and hijack the thread.

I think it helps to consider that these people are not necessarily evil; but they do evil as a consequence of their culture. At least, that helps me "wrap my head around" the matter.

As for whether we are one of "those" sites which does deliberate harm to your computer or your personal information, there is nothing I can say or do to assure you that we are not. We are not a site like that. We are just a typical forum installed on a server, and we are using powerful words and images to try to describe our feelings about the media. For what my word is worth, which I guess shouldn't be much given we don't ask people to trust us, I wouldn't know the first thing about creating such a vile script. If you find something horrendous coming from this site, you can be sure that Simon or I don't have anything to do with it and it's probably someone trying to frame our research as "dangerous" or make people afraid of coming here.

I would not like it if we were seen as anything but innocuous citizens presenting grassroots findings about government corruption. But again - no obligation to trust us is on you - you can look all of our research up for yourself and sort out for yourself whether what we say has truth in it.

[fbenario]

I personally discovered a script running on my computer raiding my cache and sending it to NASA servers.

Firefox NoScript add-on!

[reichstag fireman]

I personally discovered a script running on my computer raiding my cache and sending it to NASA servers.

Microsoft, and more recently the big Linux distributions, specifically Ubuntu and Debian, and likely RedHat, too, almost certainly have backdoors which allow arbitrary code to be remotely installed on a target machine.

The software update function of the operating system is exploited to remotely "root" a user's machine. Once rooted, and irrespective of any security measures taken by the user, his machine, thereafter, has no network security.

Microsoft was caught red-handed over this, some few years ago, in what was known as the _NSAKEY scandal. A hidden cryptographic key bearing the name _NSAKEY was found hidden deep within Microsoft Windows. It was an asymmetric public key, to which there must be a corresponding private key somewhere. Since the key was titled _NSAKEY, we might guess who holds the corresponding private key.

That private key could be used to sign rogue packages containing a network backdoor. Those packages would then be forced onto a machine via Microsoft's normal security updating operations. The public key hidden within Windows would ensure those rogue packages were authenticated as genuine and originating from Microsoft. However, those update packages would install a backdoor on to the target machine for remote electronic espionage, for use by persons unknown.

More recently, Debian and Ubuntu (owned by the billionaire Mark Shuttleworth, domiciled today on the Isle of Man Crown dependency), have both fallen victim to a similar attack. The attack also exploits a weakness in the public key infrastructure for package-signing.

On several occasions now, the Firefox browser has been the target of man-in-the-middle attacks, based on flaws in its cryptographic framework. This has involved forcing fake root authority certificates into the browser. These certificates (used in the secure sockets layer or https) are used hierarchically to validate other websites. Once a root certificate has been hacked, there is no trust left for the user. The Dutch government was implicated in the most recent attack of this type.

[Tufa]

I was reading here with the purpose of "debunking a September clue" ...

When discussing computer security and the encryption it may use, remember these:
1) ENCRYPTION can only amplify the security of a key-channel into the corresponding message-channel. If you have no key-channel, or no security of that channel, then you do not have security. If you use public key encryption, you still have to carry keys. If you don't carry keys, your key-channel can consist of the security of the Windows installation. Whatever that would be. (This is kind-of axiom, and I have never seen any proof.)

2) In public-key encryption there is much fuzz on "publishing" the keys. Never seen that. I have never been able to verify any public key. I once read that you should "call up, and read the key over the phone" "recognise his voice". If you use certificates, this note instead apply to the certificate's public key.

3) Don't expect the encryption to be "hacked". A better threat model is to investigate what happens if a key is "compromised". Say that FBI drag out some guy from the office of the key signer. You need to replace the key; carry the new root certificate to your computer. How?

4) Every function that you can perform using public key encryption, you can also do (better, simpler and cheaper) using ordinary classical symmetrical encryption (proof: direct implementation, call me!). Public key encryption is best used to produce various academic proofs in research papers.

5) Expect every possible commercial encryption tool to be vulnerable to hacking. They are afraid of "Terrorists" , and have installed a back-door on purpose. (They once came to me..) Expect all the "download" encryption algorithms to be WEAK. Do you really expect that Big Government would allow you to communicate in secret? Especially cell-phone encryption is vulnerable, if it works at all.

So, with reference to the post above, even if you do it right, you still have security problems.

[simonshack]

*



I just bumped into this David Icke forum thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 452&page=3

There's this "Denton" guy protesting about September Clues.

Hey, Denton: if you happen to read this, please try to be the first real and credible September Clues debunker!

[Equinox]

YES- Debunk you must …

I sometimes wonder - after almost half-a-decade of analyzing the 9/11 imagery, just why it took such a long time or me (or anyone) to notice the atrocious crassness of it. There are mysteries aplenty in this world, but this particular mystery (why I didn't fully grasp the evident bogusness of the entire pool of 9/11 imagery) has had me scratching my head for a long while. I now realize that this was all part of the 9/11 plotters' plan.

Back in 2007, I made my very first 9/11 imagery analysis: The Grand TV Illusion. Of course, I wasn't quite content with it: the poor quality video resolution at hand left me wondering if I had pushed too far my interpretation of the given visuals. Perhaps I was just looking at standard video artifacts - caused by digital conversions/compressions?

Luckily, in 2010, the very stupid 9/11 perpetrators decided to release higher-resolution versions of their horrid digital animations. The below HQ frame of this CNN shot is from the NIST-FOIA batch of imagery released in 2010. (Huh? Have you ever asked yourself why NIST would have been sitting on/archiving this 9/11 image pool ? Wouldn't the TV networks have that material stored in their archives? )

Anyways, the below image was supposedly shot from a "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building... How anyone can still believe these are real/genuine images by a broadcast-quality CNN camera is quite beyond me. Note the <<<clear masking line>>> around WTC1:
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88I0jZ8xYo


Here's a frame of the collapse of WTC2 - supposedly from the same "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building". All I have done here is to apply a brightness/contrast filter to highlight the absurd, pitch black cartoon-outlines around the buildings (and other problems):
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKyHn8pxGo


The 2 above images naturally lead to the following simple and logical conclusion:

NOT ONLY WAS THE IMAGERY OF AN AIRPLANE IMPACTING THE WTC SHOWN ON TV a digital animation, ALSO THE WTC COLLAPSES were digital animations.

Original Frame-- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5, Clip 20 (WTC2 Collapse, 9:59am) CNN
Source--- CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKyHn8pxGo
Time--- 0.10 seconds

Original Frame-


A brightness/contrast filter added.


All horizontal/ vertical masking lines/layers now visible.


A zoom in on “WTC1 and 2” And “WTC7”



Highlighted all the masking layers/Lines.


Notice how edge of the “WTC7” roof naturally obscures the “WTC2”


Layers "C" and "D" do actually appear through the WTC-7.



The CNN shot is a fake because-
A)--- It is filled with "horizontal" and "vertical" CGI with masking lines which are clearly visible.
B)---The vertical masking lines “C” and “D” of WTC-2 appear transparent through what is meant to be an obscured section of façade on “WTC- 7 face.”







Originally sourced-- 9/11 TV Archives - CNN Sept. 11, 2001 9.29 am - 10.11 am@ 34.45 Minutes

Re- Released NisT --- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5 20





Originally sourced--- CNN Sept. 11, 2001 8.48 - 9.29am@ 22.08 Minutes



Re- Released--- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5, Clip 15


Sample---
[/quote]




Originally sourced-- 9/11 TV Archives - CNN Sept. 11, 2001 9.29 am - 10.11 am@ 34.45 Minutes

Re- Released NisT --- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5 20










YEEEES- Debunk it…

[Haze]

Hi,

I can't find here this video so I publish it !


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS0dNaseISM

It's a demonstration of fake smoke, which is just copy and paste.

The second part is multiply by 2.


The third part is invert.

[simonshack]

Hi,

I can't find here this video so I publish it !

Dear Haze,

I am well familiar with the "Smoke & Mirrors" video. It is a fraud conceived to deligitimate the September Clues research - "a fraud of a fraud" - as I have explained here: viewtopic.php?p=2366384#p2366384

Anyhow, bienvenu to the forum, cher Haze. Our member El Sushi (the French translator of SC) has told me about your Agoravox page where you've posted the French version of SC - and helping diffuse the research to French speakers. Nice!
http://www.agoravox.tv/actualites/media ... ique-36354

I presume that you are relatively new to our research, so please spend some more time reading the many 9/11 topics on Cluesforum in order to get a wider perspective and grasp of it all. If you have any particular questions ( before posting your next contributions here) you may even submit them to me in French (which I read and speak fluently) by e-mail at simonshack@libero.it. Merci - et bonne lecture !

[Haze]

well so sorry.
Forum says that i'm a newbie; and it's right

[ElSushi]

Welcome on board Haze.I don't really know what to say about the French series of SC being published on what looks like an "alternative" media called Agoravox. I wasn't actually expecting that much but I appreciate your consideration.The fact is that most of the comments left of the page somehow gave me an impression of "déjà vu", to say the least...and since I believe you are a moderator of that media site, I warn you that the person using the "CptAnderson" profile name on the site is highly suspicious in my humble opinion...and he also appears to be a moderator on your site...so, "méfiance"...

[ElSushi]

Here comes the French equivalent of that other Anthony Lawson for our classic Master Series of "September Clues Debunked"

That one has just been published a few days ago on YouTube via the mysterious "0rd0n0vus" (http://www.youtube.com/user/0rd0n0vus),and well, to be frank, I don't really think it is worth to comment that video given that there's pretty much nothing consistent in that other failed attempt to debunk September Clues.Failure it is.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNHun73o-g