New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Has anybody mentioned or considered the total and entire lack of any plane wreckage at the Pentagon? I was duped that there were 2 planes at the twin towers, but at the Pentagon "crash" it was immediately obvious that something was missing.
In all the video I've seen of the Pentagon on 9/11, there was not a single scrap of anything closely resembling anything like a plane. No wings. No tail. No engines.
Just a burning hole.

My apology for this off-topic digression...

bigbrain:

Your account is Not banned, but your posting privileges do seem to have been temporarily curbed. Perhaps you could [should] respond to the U2U you received ... I'm fairly certain that it addresses the cause for such.

If you feel it was unjust, or for Anything other than repeated T&C [posting etiquette] violations, I'm sure SO would be more than happy to hear "your side of the story".

Try sending a U2U addressing your concerns and or apparent grievance.

? just a thought ?

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We now return you to:
» 9/11 Conspiracies » New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery » Post Reply

 

Originally posted by beekersguy
Has anybody mentioned or considered the total and entire lack of any plane wreckage at the Pentagon?

Don't forget Shanksville! The photo and videos of the crash site scream LIES instantly to those with an open mind. There is simply no way a plane crashed in that field. It was either blown up mid-flight, or there was never any plane to begin with.

Given the lack of evidence of the plane, again apart from odd scraps, it would be fair to say i think that there was no plane in Shanksville. It is consistent with no plane at the Pentagon, and none at the towers.

Shanksville is unique though, because it implies a seperate staged event, specifically created for the conspiracy theorists.. the whole "shoot down" slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld was no slip. It was carefully placed information, allowing the CTs to construct their conclusions before considering actual evidence; Few bits of debry scattered over several miles. Nothing to substantiate a plane or its passengers.

Has anybody mentioned or considered the total and entire lack of any plane wreckage at the Pentagon? I was duped that there were 2 planes at the twin towers, but at the Pentagon "crash" it was immediately obvious that something was missing.

Take look at these pictures or are you one of those who will ignore
anything which does not fit your paranoid fantasy


Fuselage debris oustside building



Reason dont see lot of debris from Flight 77 is that plane penetrated
building and most of debris (that not burned in fires) remained inside

Part of Combustion chamber inside building



Landing gear piece

www.pentagonresearch.com...

Compressor rotor from engine

I've been reading a few pages of this thread, still haven't discovered the source of this image. If anyone knows if this image should be trusted or not please inform me, thanks in advance.

For my purposes I'll call the side facing us "face 1" and the side of the building facing to the right "face 2".

1) Face 1 and face 2 are almost the exact same "brightness". Face 2 is facing away from the sun at a slight angle and should not be the same brightness. Regardless of anything face 2 should be dimmer than face 1 without a doubt. In no photo I've seen (yet) is face 1 and face 2 the same brightness except for the above picture.

Consider the following photos as reference points.

Notice how face 2 on the other tower is dimmer (as it should be). Notice how the other buildings in the frame have a shadow cast over their face 2 equivalents.





2) If this image is proven authentic then I have strong reason to believe that the object protruding from the building is solid for the following reason :

1. It has a clear outline which form a shape.
2. It cast a very distinct shadow.
3. It's underside is shadowed.
4. If it were dust , compressed air or whatever once it exited the building it should spread up and down instead of just out creating more of a bubble effect as we see with the other explosions. This object has a very distinct cylindrical shape.

3) HOWEVER I just did analysis of the "object" zoomed to 500% , here it is for your viewing pleasure.



Zoomed this close the object does not appear to be solid. It displays more of a gaseous form as it doesn't appear to be symmetrical. The top front part especially displays this characteristic.

Download and zoom the original image for yourself. The closer I zoomed the more it appeared to not be solid and more like a gaseous cloud. I'm not saying this makes any sense, I'm just saying that's what it looks like.

Assuming this image is legitimate....

I don't understand why anyone would buy into disinformation such as this. The entire idea of there being no planes on 9/11 is the stupidest, most unsubstantiated piece of garbage I have ever come across. All it does is detract from the truth and legitimate evidence. By even looking into these theories and spreading them around, you are helping to cover up 9/11 even more... which is exactly what the conspirators want you to do.

There should be no doubt in ANYONE'S mind that the REAL FLIGHT 175 hit the WTC South Tower. There should also be NO DOUBT in anyone's mind that the WTC North and South Towers collapsed because of controlled demolitions. And finally, there should be NO DOUBT in anyone's mind that this nose-out video is doctored.

The conspirators did this on purpose! There is a nose-out because they wanted to create an additional layer of cover-up and detract from the truth. They wanted someone to figure out that this video was doctored and spread this information far and wide. Not only does it discredit real investigators, but it adds another case of deniability for the true conspirators! Even if anyone could prove that this was knowingly doctored in a real investigation, the only group it could be pinned on would be a stupid local news station with its traffic copter. Noone's going to buy into the fact that 9/11 was a huge conspiracy between the government and the media, because it's not true and could never be true!

If you want to really help out in the 9/11 Truth movement, please see websites such as 911review.com or oilempire.us, which help to debunk complete garbage such as this. And I am in no way trying to insult the people who have made these nose-out assertions, I am simply trying to tell them that their efforts are futile. The group of conspirators who planned 9/11 are not the type of people who make mistakes; especially mistakes as ridiculously obvious as this one.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by OhMyGOodness]

Originally posted by estar
www.livevideo.com...

Now don't get me wrong I believe a large airliner crashed into this build however:

Anyone who can not see in clip 3 of this video, that the nose of the plane CLEARLY exits the other side of the building- either needs glasses, or is just lying to themselves for some reason.

I don't know how more clearly this can be proven.

Now don't ask me how it's possible the nose came out unscathed, perhaps it didn'd hit any of the MAJOR support beams, and only the aluminum shell on the the side it impacted and the side it came out of.

Maybe it's a freak camera occurance of high speed objects appearing behind a still object (that it has gone through) before it actually has gone through it. All sorts of wierd stuff can happen with cameras being out of focus, objects moveing at a high rate of speed ect.




[edit on 19-8-2007 by Nola213]

I mean who knows, maybe the government used special airliners with high tensil strength carbon or titanium nose cones.

I think back to that perfect circle that was made in the "C" ring of the pentagon where there plane debris supposedly exited.

Maybe they made these nose cones just a bit too strong, and if one perhaps didnt hit enough support colums or encounter enough resistance it would come out the other side of the WTC *shrugs*.

I'm just throwing out possibilities here, off the top of my head.

-But by no means do I buy into no planes, TV trickery, or CGI on 11 September 2001.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by Nola213]

I just have a hard time at the moment swallowing this idea. I think idea could be a way to throw people off the trail. I think we have to look at the context of this idea. What I am saying is that as time goes on, we are going to hear several more ideas on what possibly happened to throw everyone off the first trail from Loose Change.

So you put an idea out there to only be debunked later by the press or websites and eventually people will stop subscribing to any 911 inside jobs which will be eventually labeled as "Conspiracy Theory"

I would I have to say that I DO BELIEVE it was an inside job and I do believe research from the movie "Loose Change" is more accurate.

REMEMBER, this is a story that the administration or the people truly behind 911 would like to go away but it has not so far. So I would not doubt that they are trying to come up with ideas or ways to debunk "Loose Change". I think this story should be heard on TV. But you don't see it on television because no one has figured out a way to debunk "Loose change" yet.

They already tried to arrest one of the co-producers under false claims of going AWOL in the Army. He was let out a day and a half later after proving he was innocent and had an honorable discharge.

Just think about all the people who were witnesses to the Kennedy assassination and were killed or ended up missing. The closer you get, the harder insiders work to suppress the truth. Any one who's done a little research on history will know that kings or leaders of countries were masters of propaganda and would just flat out lie to people to keep order. Why not our own government? It's amazing how I still run into people who think that our government would not lie to the American people.

I think as time goes on you will see more and more ideas of what really happened. It's what the military has done to throw off Ufologist for years, that is why you have so many different stories because its a good way to lead people to investigate a story that leads them to a dead end.

The only conspiracy ideas you will see on TV is the ones that the Military Complex or the Mainstream Media can debunk with the spinsters they can hire. Distraction is what is being spoon fed to American's who turn on the TV for 30 minutes a day. Which is why stories like recalling Toys from China or Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith seems to make the headlines instead of the real news.

Everyday at work I start to slowly hear more and more people talk about 911 being an inside job. So I just try to slowly point them in the right direction of finding more information without being to overbearing and I hope that they at least come to their own conclusion. (positive or negative)

I do my best not to use the word "Conspiracy Theory" because it has a negative connotation to it. I think we need to come up with a new word to explain our ideas and we need to label ourselves and not let others do it for us.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent there. Never the less, it was interesting thread and I will keep my mind open to this idea.

Thanks

People that believe in this theory need to remember this saying

"Discretion is sometimes the better part of Valour"

I don't care how passionate you are on this theory, you need to get this through your heads EVEN IF TV FAKERY IS TRUE, IT DID NOT BRING DOWN THE TOWERS!

Please think long and hard about that.

Whatever was subbed in for the planes DID NOT bring down the towers, missle or whatever.
Everbody no matter what they believe about the CT is in agreement with this.
So since the "TV Fakery" line of reasoning does so much damage to the whole truth movement, shoud you not apply your discretion and FOCUS ON WHAT ACTUALLY brought the towers down.
This you can sell to newbies on 9/11 and many more will consider what the truth really is.
Starting someone off who is CT 9/11 virgin so to speak with the TV fakery tale will send them out of the movement for good. You must understand this for the good of the truth movement.

FOCUS ON what actually brought the WTC 1&2&7 down.
No TV fakery on WTC7 is there? Yet it came down too.

I wish people like killtown could get this through there thick heads.


[edit on 19-8-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

yeah. there's that, and then there's also focus on what the media and/or 911 commission IGNORES, despite it's sensationalism/importance.

wtc7 falling at freefall rates.
motive/risk/reward.
promotion of incompetents after the fact. no firing for MAAAASSSSSSSIVE runaway pancaking incompetence.
illegal destruction and withholding of evidence.
100 more lines of non-conspiracy related things.

oh, wait. it's too late. this is 1984.

Originally posted by twitchy
Edit:
Also it's important to remember that there is no such thing as true Live network television, Remeber Frank Zappa's live "F you", or The Door's "Girl, we couldn't get much higher?" They don't broadcast anything that is truly live anymore, there is always a delay to allow producers and the like to edit out unexpected things like that. Plenty of time to key up a boolean add animation and run it as live feed.

I hate to show you up man.. But..




Andrew Dice Clay... A few F-Bombs On CNN.

Typically I wouldn't show this but the point you made isnt exactly true and well.. This proves it.

F-Bomb = 5 times and Ahole = 1 time.

DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DONT LIKE SWEARING!! PLEASE!!!



[edit on 8/20/2007 by ThichHeaded]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33



good post, my exact sentiments at this point Blue Jay.

However in BSregistration and Killtowns defense....

I believe these guys hearts are is in the right place, but they should stay away from the No Planes, and TV Fakery angle because it is just going to drive people away from the movement, and newcomers will just consider us nutcases. I truely, believe this is not what they or ANY of us want. They just want to be heard.

I truely hope people like this find an outlet to Vent their aggression, and focus it positively in the right places, and on concrete theories as Blue_jay suggested above.

Cheers BSregistration. I have alot of respect for the time you put into your work. The nose coming through the building definitly needs further explination, but I don't think it was a CGI plane. I believe it was either pixels bleeding behind the building (as I said earlier, we're dealing with high rates of speed, and who knows what type of camera, and settings were used), or the nose of the plane was reinforced (and it was remotely controlled into the tower), and the flash that occurs before impact destroyed all the major steel inner support column in that area, allowing the plane to cut straight through the building and come out the other side.

I believe these might be some better areas for you to investigate, without confusing people, or scaring newcomers off. But it seems you truely believe in your work, so I doubt I or anyone else will change your mind.

Again much respect to you and all of your work. I look forward to Part 2 of your video as well

Sorry if this was posted already, but, can someone with knowledge of cameras, and filming tell me what would cause this blurring effect as the "plane", passes behind the first tower.

Short video, only 2 minutes:

www.youtube.com...

Too many millions of people in NY and on national TV feeds saw the second impact, period. I was one who saw it on network TV and can say with certainty that this was not faked. Not even George Lucas had the technology available at the time to make anything like that. Period.
Now the Pentagon feeds, maybe that's where the real disinfo was going on. I, for one remember a supposed picture shown of a large commercial airliner's bottom fuselage crossing the beltway at 30-40 ft altitude from a car I believe, flashed on one of the networks. Never saw it again....... Anyone else remember this? Why hasn't been seen again? And whatever happened to the strong investigation of the Pentagon attack on the forums and the media (:@@ ?

[edit on 31-8-2007 by WhatIsay?]

[edit on 31-8-2007 by WhatIsay?]

I have linked the video that cinches it for me. The power down and maintenance the week before 9/11 is the smoking gun.

power down and maintenance of wtc

I am a bit shocked at ATS' stance on this topic, especially when considering all the views they entertain on UFOs and the like, however I was not witness to the "trolling" that was apparently going on.

Moving on - this series of videos has been amazing, and as a motion graphics artist myself, with industry experience using motion-matching solutions, this captured my interest even further.

As far as all the lighting issues and nose in/out arguments are concerned, I'm not convinced either way, however the news clips, awkward retractions, prophetic statements, strange edits and furthermore were some of the best I've seen yet, and on a fresh approach.

I can certainly see why this is such a hot topic, and under scrutiny, but I for one find this to be just as credible as any other - instead of taking the "explosion" angle, or the "silverstein made money" angle, or the "fire can't
melt steel" angle - this is yet another, while incorporating the formers.

I now know that TV fakery is a lie

Recently it came to my attention that a man that survived the collapse with another man witnessed the incoming plane from the twin tower on his floor, he was standing up talking on the phone and saw the plane incoming, he worked for a fijan bank of some sort. At the last second he was able to jump under his desk and survive. His office was totally wiped out to the point that he couldn't find a way out. The second man that had been coming down the stairs heard him yelling for help. Helped to orient him and get him off that floor and they got out of the building together.

This survivor testimony has convinced me, that TV fakery is a big lie, I don't care what the video shows, I will take the survivors testimony, over that any day.

And if you think he saw a hologram, well I would say you are seriously deluded.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

I was never one to support the no plane theory for the towers . The shanksville crash site is an absolute joke the pentagon can not convince me that a huge plane disintergrated into tiny little shreds into that little hole . Now what has opened my mind up further was the watching of all 8 parts of september clues on livevideo there are grounds here for more investigation. I implore all experts to study the complete 8 parts and post a reply after seeing the lot yes Im sorry I have gone to the end to post a reply but last night there was only a couple of pages now theres 24. I liked the missile trail and the fake chopper crosses there's a lot to digest here go to it

Originally posted by scientist
as a motion graphics artist myself, with industry experience using motion-matching solutions, this captured my interest even further.

What did you think of the Fade to Black bit scientist? If we could find out if that was indeed a fade to black, that would certainly seem suspicious. Is is possible to identify editing software by the fade itself? Like Adobe Premiere has a certain way of fading that is surely different than say Final Cut Pro.

In response to an earlier post, yeah holograms are a little fringeish for me, but it seems in researching web fairy and other origins of that theory, the whole hologram bit seems to have originated in the oddities of the footage that was aired. The nose of the plane really does vanish into the building before any sign of impact, and there really is a fade to black when the projectile exits. Why? Who knows at this point, but we all saw the same footage, and yeah something really doesn't look right. Nobody is trying to discredit eyewitnesses and survivors, as Yes something hit the WTC complex, obviously. The question, for me at least, is what. Wasn't some of the victims of that day an MIT team of engineers working on missiles disguised as civilian airliners at the time?
I wouldn't hang this theory up yet folks, and I certainly wouldn't relegate it to paltry holograms. Something's really screwy about the first televised impact.