September Clues

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
TV fakery/NPT disinfo debunked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That not a debunking, I know in my heart that a "disinfo" stuff

september clues are not talking "ghost plane" or "secret weapon"

They are talking about how fake the new media is, Missile did hit the building and one thing

All of those link even loose change are part of government plan to confused people, ever wonder why september clues was reject by many? That because September Clues is the only one telling the truth, loose change is part of the government, even here i learned:

by Lord Tsukasa
August 17th, 2009



Loose Change 911: An American Coup

Loose Change is one of the leading 9/11 truth films/groups.

It was created by Dylan Avery (Who lives in San Diego, with it’s strong US Military presence), whose father, Fred Avery, is related to a professional AP photographer named Richard Drew (Took fake pictures of the “Jumpers” on 9/11 and of RFK’s corpse on the night he was assassinated).

Though Dylan Avery officially lives in San Diego, he has another address in Virginia (The Spook State)!

Dylan Avery and the two other creators of the film are devoted to trying to discredit the idea of military-media cooperation/TV Fakery on 9/11.

When you bring up the solid evidence of the media’s role in faking news coverage that day, you are immediately banned from the Loose Change forums.

It’s quite clear that exonerating CNN and the other mainstream networks of any role in cooperating with military-intelligence to commit mass murder/deception on 9/11 is more important to Dylan and his cohorts than the concept of freedom of speech, discussion, and ideas.

Knowing that the Loose Change is an important part of the controlled-opposition matrix in the 9/11 movement (”movement” = “move the mind” in Latin), I decided to investigate the ties of their website using a WHOIS Lookup (Check it out!), which allows me to find out who runs their website.

I learned that the website is not run by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, or Korey Rowe. Rather, it’s run by a man named Patrick J. Kwiatkowski and it’s “tech guy” is a man by the name of Douglas Fraser. Kwiatkowski is the CEO of Microcinema Films.

Who runs Microcinema Films?


Joel S. Bachar -- Founder and President of Microcinema Films

A bit of research will show you that this man deeply involved in the production, financing, and distribution of the newest Loose Change film:

The film was financed by Joel Bachar

en.wikipedia.org...(film)#History

Bachar was an associate producer on Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, a film by Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, and Matthew Brown.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, who is Joel S. Bachar? Here’s the dirt:

Joel has been a member of the National Nominating Committee for the 1998 and 1999 Rockefeller Foundation’s Film and Video Fellowship, and he also has sat on numerous arts granting panels and film festival juries

www.answers.com...

But wait, there’s more! Remember Douglas Fraser? He’s the LooseChange911.com “tech guy” and he has quite an interesting background. Check it out:

-He held a co-op position with the US Geological Survey (A US Government agency)

-He worked in the telecommunications industry as a US Government Contractor for 7 years

-He graduated from Virginia Tech University (A hot-spot for DOD/CIA/DARPA/Monarch covert mind control research and black operations)

-He spent several summers in a Defense Department summer program!

The source for these amazing facts about this little-known LooseChange911.com ‘insider’ can be found in his bio: www.spoke.com...

Still think Loose Change is real?


Whatever you guys do is doing the "disinfo", not debunking.

you people should be ashamed to be involved in the biggest lie to control the world, why are you doing this to people, it is very wrong!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IceDash
 


You posted just 6 minutes after me. Most of that time was probably spent copy-pasting the spam you just posted. Do you know what that tells me? That you didn't even look at the links debunking "September Clueless" and therefore not interested in the truth.

NPT, tv fakery and "September Clueless" have been debunked for years. Nobody is falling for that disinformation. Might as well stop wasting your time.





[edit on 25-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


It's pointless to waste our time with this one. I'm just dumbfounded as to how Jerry Springer let this one get away ?
I'm outta here.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


No, I did know this and you didn't even read what the truth about Loose Change is, yes I copy paste that word because it show who they are

I know all 9/11 truthers, loose change are part of government's plan

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF BEING INVOLVED IN LIES

I cannot believe you fell for TV media lies, everything in september Clues is perfectly explain why all these TV fakery happen but the problem is, The truth is so powerful and many of you cannot handle this because it too much and it too big

One day, you and all of you will be ashamed that september clues was right all along

However, the link post for the debunking about september clues only explain at least THREE!!! I read it and it full of lies like the nose-out, those are lies and show the plane nose from early frame, it not the same explantion as the september clues explain

Those debunk are very small compare to all the videos that show in septemeber clues


I do stand by september clues and you want to believe and drink with poison wine with the governments, that's fine

I am so sad that you guys refused to believe that new media have capable to make any fake image to control anything

I do believed everything that happen on september 11 is one big fat lies and one day, it will exposed and put to shame to all the government and all 9/11 truthers.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I rebuked you all

I am leaving, you have blood on your hand for believing in a lies.

I am so sorry for all of you that do not see how new media is full of lies.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by IceDash
 



They are not real people


Try telling that to the victim's families faces before going any further with your charade.

This nonsense has been debunked. Why am I even wasting time here?

[edit on 26-3-2010 by john124]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Little did I know all those years watching "Cheers", "Wings" and "Frasier" that they were just figments of my imagination. What other conclusion could I come do knowing that they were written/produced by the unreal David Angell, who died in the unreal Flight 11?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Some of my friends died at world trade center,a fireman who i played online with It is REAL. And YES it was an inside job.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I usually stay out of this forum because I invariably get too ticked off to be civil, but I just have to say something here.

Your post is without a doubt the most ridiculous on I've seen on ATS, and that's saying something. To suggest that the people who died at the WTC weren't real is extremely offensive.

Many of my coworkers are former New Yorkers, and many of them know people who died at the WTC. Several of them take 9/11 as a vacation day every year because they are still too traumatized by what they witnessed and all that they lost. One has chronic lung issues from being caught in the dust cloud as she ran from the subway station below the towers.

OP, I'm going to put you on ignore now because I don't ever want to read any of the garbage you're spewing again.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Although I am not a linguist or semanticist, to me IceDash is not affecting a backwoods, "Jethro" style of communicating, but instead, it is meant as an English-as-a-second-language presentation, however it is laughable in the extreme. All I can say is, thank God for spell check!

Likewise, the inherent falsity of this discussion is added to by posters who say things like "my mother knew a victim's mother, and she grieved too," while going under public identifiers like "RedBird." Please, if you are going to offer personal tributes identify yourself publicly, otherwise it is meaningless. (With just the slightest bit of digging, if you were interested, you could uncover my full---out and proud---DOX.)

OF COURSE full media collusion, video fakery, and the no-planes and Vicisim theories are key to understanding the events of 9/11. You cannot begin to understand the full parameters of the conspiracy until you use these attributes as some standard benchmarks. For the denizens of a message board that purports to discuss everything from UFO's to deep politics, to then act morally and intellectually superior to their consideration, is itself a logical fallacy I see through.

This being my first post on ATS, I am at risk for breaking the TOS, and I apologize for my arrogance, but I couldn't discuss the "issues" without first addressing the "issuers."

(P.S. I am no friend of Simon Hytten's or Max Konrardy's, but that doesn't stand in the way of my hunt for truth or support for what they have brought forth. An interesting topic for discussion would be what PTB is---or are---behind the SeptemberClues efforts. Any bites?)



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IceDash
 


I did literally hundreds of hours of study on the different TV fakery. I found explanation after explanation that made perfect sense. The centerpiece for me for the September Clues series was the plane going in from dramatically different directions. I bought into that idea, so I painstakingly worked on analyzing that. So I spent about 150 hours re-creating the camera angles in a flight simulator program. I then used a flight simulator and after about 500 tries simulated the WTC2 plane crash from one of the camera angles. From that point I simply switch to each camera angle and replayed the crash. What I saw looked EXACTLY like what the news clips showed on 9/11. In fact, I plan to publish this research at some point but since its pretty much a waste of my time as this stuff is not used as argument anymore, so it won't be for years down the road. Meanwhile, you are more than welcome to recreate what I did with the flight simulator and try it yourself. If you U2U me I'll give you all the tips and advice you want on how to accomplish that.

That said, I did end up with about two videos and one picture of what are unquestionably genuine anomalies that most certainly portrayed something in video that could not have reflected what actually happened. And one video that may be a physical impossibility. I also seemed to see three points at which I believe fake siren sounds were being inserted. None of the TV fakery websites even spotted any of this stuff though they are the only real anomalies I know of. They are quite minor things. I got to the point where I called a video expert analyst and they said it would cost $150 to $700 per item analyzed. It would also require a couple hundred hours of research to figure out the original camera details to the degree that information is available.

If you are REALLY convinced about September Clues being right, and are ready and willing to spend the money to have this proven by expert video analysts, then I'll help you out by emailing you all the anomalies I've got and also tell you all I know about the video sources. If the analyst finds something that is totally fake I'll pay you back the money for the fake clips.

The only thing that seemed especially odd that I did not research was the disparity between the impact time from what was seen on TV and the impact time from what was measured by the earthquake monitoring equipment who's technical name I don't know how to spell so won't try.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
I plan to publish this research at some point but since its pretty much a waste of my time as this stuff is not used as argument anymore

The no-plane disinfo cult absolutely does still argue the camera angle BS and that the planes were all coming in at different angles, so go ahead and post your findings. It's not like it will change any of their minds anyway.



Originally posted by truthquest
The only thing that seemed especially odd that I did not research was the disparity between the impact time from what was seen on TV and the impact time from what was measured by the earthquake monitoring equipment

I'm not sure what the time difference is. If you know, please post it. But earthquake seismographs register vibrations in the ground. The planes hitting the towers nearly a quarter mile up would not cause significant vibrations on the ground.

Basement explosions, on the other hand, most definitely would.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The no-plane disinfo cult absolutely does still argue the camera angle BS and that the planes were all coming in at different angles, so go ahead and post your findings. It's not like it will change any of their minds anyway.


I must disagree with you there.

I think you are using some strange logic there.

I doubt many of the 'no plane dis-info cult' believed the 'no-plane' theory to begin with. They have steered away from the OS and changed their minds many times.

They have changed their minds before, I don't think it would be that hard for them to change their mind again.

Regarding 911, I have changed my mind many times.

I'm sure I can change my mind again.

I believe I can be convinced that the OS is true, or that there were no planes.

However although I expect to have my opinions criticized with argument and evidence, I wouldn't give much ear to those who would call me names 'un-patriotic', 'sheeple', 'lunacy fringe', 'cultist' etc...

I understand you have been bringing valuable evidence to the table to enlighten us all, and for that I salute you, but you should avoid hitting below the belt if you expect your criticism to be taken seriously.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by countercounterculture
I wouldn't give much ear to those who would call me names 'un-patriotic', 'sheeple', 'lunacy fringe', 'cultist' etc...

The few that created the "no planes at the WTC" and "tv fakery" theories actually create, i.e., manufacture some of their "evidence". These theories have already been found to be disinformation. Those who manufacture or create disinformation are disinfo artists.

It doesn't get much more simpler than that.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by countercounterculture
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The no-plane disinfo cult absolutely does still argue the camera angle BS and that the planes were all coming in at different angles, so go ahead and post your findings. It's not like it will change any of their minds anyway.


I must disagree with you there.

I think you are using some strange logic there.

I doubt many of the 'no plane dis-info cult' believed the 'no-plane' theory to begin with. They have steered away from the OS and changed their minds many times.

They have changed their minds before, I don't think it would be that hard for them to change their mind again.

Regarding 911, I have changed my mind many times.

I'm sure I can change my mind again.

I believe I can be convinced that the OS is true, or that there were no planes.

However although I expect to have my opinions criticized with argument and evidence, I wouldn't give much ear to those who would call me names 'un-patriotic', 'sheeple', 'lunacy fringe', 'cultist' etc...

I understand you have been bringing valuable evidence to the table to enlighten us all, and for that I salute you, but you should avoid hitting below the belt if you expect your criticism to be taken seriously.


I disagree strongly with countercountercultural's argument. I could never again believe in the OS. For others to do so means to me that someone has spent some time behind the curtain with the wizard pulling the levers. Those are the only two real categories in life in my view: insiders and outsiders to the control box.

Could I ever believe that no-planes theory is false? I don't think so.

The evidence for no-planes theory, as assembled best in September Clues, is "not-good." This is not surprising given that the heart of a giant covert scheme was a technical manipulation of the public's perception. If they didn't have the skills needed in hand in 2001 they really would have waited to proceed.

The genius of the work attributed to Simon Hytten is that it was enough to crack the cosmic egg. You can't unscramble eggs, or turn pickles back into cucumbers, to use my more favored analogy. There is better evidence for no-plane theory than there is evidence that belief in a crucified and risen Jesus Christ atones for an individual's humanity and will ensure everlasting life---yet Jesus has the larger following. To date.

People refuse to accept the implications of no-plane theory because it assaults and offends the rational mind. We do not want to accept that our leaders would stoop so low on a scale so vast. That so much sorrow and suffering was induced in the name of God and good. And that we were such patsies and pushovers. Nor do we want to face a future of such upheaval as we must to put matters right. Nor will our masters easily let us.

One thing countercounterculture gets extremely right is the tone of the discussion. We can't go on with the status quo; it has lost all purpose and validity. Since I think that I am the only non-aligned, "walk-in" to the 9/11 debate---that everyone else is a vested player to the drama---then this is likely to be some internal projection of mine concerning my view of my own station in life. This may indicate an area where I am mistaken. That's the best I can do for now.

Besides, no-planes theory is old news. "Vicsims" theory is much more transgressive and upsetting to established patterns of thought. The whole "matrix" is crumbling.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by truthquest
I plan to publish this research at some point but since its pretty much a waste of my time as this stuff is not used as argument anymore

The no-plane disinfo cult absolutely does still argue the camera angle BS and that the planes were all coming in at different angles, so go ahead and post your findings. It's not like it will change any of their minds anyway.

I'll think it over.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by truthquest
The only thing that seemed especially odd that I did not research was the disparity between the impact time from what was seen on TV and the impact time from what was measured by the earthquake monitoring equipment

I'm not sure what the time difference is. If you know, please post it. But earthquake seismographs register vibrations in the ground. The planes hitting the towers nearly a quarter mile up would not cause significant vibrations on the ground.

Basement explosions, on the other hand, most definitely would.


I'm glad you brought that up. I really didn't do much research but I think it could be done without a lot of effort. The September Clues series points out that a professional recording studio did record the impact. Therefore one of the research points would be to collect the original recording file from the studio. The second step would be to figure out from the available video as *exactly* as possible what time the plane impacted the building. The third step would be to get the local earthquake monitoring data.

The final step would be to put them into a video editor, paying very close attention to the time-line, and see how they all line up. I find that whole thing quite interesting and would certainly be interested in the results.

At this point I'm renewing my research into 9/11 again but I won't be focusing on this stuff yet.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The few that created the "no planes at the WTC" and "tv fakery" theories actually create, i.e., manufacture some of their "evidence". These theories have already been found to be disinformation. Those who manufacture or create disinformation are disinfo artists.

It doesn't get much more simpler than that.


Yes.

I agree with you.

I suppose my argument is rather semantic, as my beef isn't particularly about the material but rather about your criticism of those who have taken it seriously.

I'm sorry to say I haven't checked out all of your references due to my familiarity with the material, but it wasn't too hard to spot where September clues was reaching.

Some claims that I was unfamiliar with, such as the 'impossibility of focusing foreground helicopter skids as well as background image' from a chopper camera, I found to be completely false from my own research.

(The same phenomena here at 0:17, if you'd like that for future reference.)

Perhaps I misunderstood you, as it seems your beef is with those who created the movement rather than those who have bought into it.

One point I'd like to make about September clues, is that it does raise some common questions (ie: BBC reporting OS before events unfolded), and I'd hate to see the importance of such questions invalidated via association of the 'no planer cult'.



Originally posted by stevenwarran2
I disagree strongly with countercountercultural's argument. I could never again believe in the OS. For others to do so means to me that someone has spent some time behind the curtain with the wizard pulling the levers. Those are the only two real categories in life in my view: insiders and outsiders to the control box.

Could I ever believe that no-planes theory is false? I don't think so.


Well, we can agree to disagree then!

Mainly because I doubt that on 911 you immediately discounted the possibility of real planes.

I base that on your post. It seems you haven't jumped on the no-plane band wagon for mysterious esoteric reasons, but rather, you have come to your conclusion based on the evidence you have at hand.

If there were more/other evidence at hand, I believe you would base your opinion on whats available, and susceptible to changing your mind.

On that note, I think we can agree that we both would like the truth of what happened on that day.

I think too often we are placing the burden of proof on the various truther movements.

I don't think its surprising that there is so much debate about what happened on that day due to the cover up, and non-transparency of investigations by the US government.

While we argue how we can prove the particular hypothesis we are peddling, we detract from the fact, sometimes, that the burden of proof lies with the US government. Not the various truther movements, whom, I think we can all agree, have severely limited evidence at their disposal.

We shouldn't be asking ourselves how we can prove or disprove the OS or the various Truther arguments, because ultimately we all too often come up short in the evidence department.

We should be asking ourselves how can we pressure and expose the US government, how can we convince OS believers that the burden of proof has not been met by the US government.

Why can't we convince the believers of the OS, that the OS itself does not meet the burden of proof?

If we tackle this right we can recruit OS believers into the truth movement, if only to pressure the government to prove the OS.

I'm sorta going off on a tangent here, I love what the truth movement brings to the table. A lot of what I say is what many truthers agree. I think what I'm trying to say is: instead of trying to answer what happened, we should be asking how can we convince our peers and our governments to expose the hidden evidence

Maybe that's futile, but I think it isn't any less futile than our attempts to explain what happened with the evidence we have uncovered on our own.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
From the moment September Clues first appeared about two-and-a-half years ago, a concerted effort has been made across a wide swath of the internet to stymie and shut down any possible positive discussion of the material.

I was a member of Jeff Well's Rigorous Intuition back then. When I started a thread advocating for and linking to September Clues 7 on August 23, 2007, www.rigorousintuition.ca..., the thread was immediately locked and I was banned forthwith based on a directive of Jeff's dated August 20, www.rigorousintuition.ca..., which stated peremptorily that



Advocating or advancing theories contending that no planes whatsoever struck the WTC is not permitted, and such threads will be subject to locking, moving to the Fire Pit, or deletion.


In the same vein, yesterday, I began posting on Phil Jahan's long-running 9/11 forum, Let's Roll, for the first time, and within the day I was permanently banned for speaking positively (albeit only tangentially) about no-plane theory.

Likewise, members of this board often speak in the high-dudgeon tones of a petulant Duchess as they robotically repeat, "no-planes theory has BEEN PROVEN disinfo."

Although I am not accusing any member posting on this board of being an actual Duchess, I am saying the discussion, here as well as elsewhere, has been stilted and stultified by what would appear to me to be an organized and semi-professional effort by gatekeepers, flamers and spammers.

As to the material itself in September Clues, Phil Jahan has an "avatar tag," or "ID tag," or whatever those little quotes are called that clutter up the bottom of one's thread posts with expressions of personal integrity, that reads:



"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton


No-planes theory (and moving further along now, Vicsim theory,) are two of the first principles and primary truths by which I have begun to understand what happened to us as Americans on 9/11. They offer me an authentic and liberated position from which I can view the further trauma that has unfolded across the planet as a direct result of the events of 9/11. They also allow me to look backwards to see the progressive loss of American values over the past century. In other words: they make sense to me!

As I tried to explain to Jahan before I was banished, we are now moving to a deeper place of understanding our effrontery, where we see the harm done to our emotions and spirits:



"I don't think my post was off topic in the slightest. When we spoke on the telephone recently you said you had never heard of the Reality Shack forum. There, they have been doing exactly the same type of work that you now are claiming, "is some of the best damning evidence that's been found and presented for ages in 9/11." This is independent of no-planes theory. It is called Vicsim theory. But it is equally as transgressive and upsetting to standard logic and rational thought as is no-planes, so beware. It has eclipsed no-planes as "the most divisive antagonistic theory in 9/11" to use your words. Think about it: the concept is not only have they been misleading our eyes, but they have been misleading our hearts."


I don't know what "really happened" on 9/11 any better than anyone else does, but I do know that the story we were told in the media by our government is total crap. "Vicsim theory" would be a rude, disgusting and heartless concept were it not true, but unfortunately it is true. In one form or another, the victims of 9/11 are all false, fake and fraudulent creations---more importantly, so are their surviving family members who continue to pimp their stories in the same sick media outlets. Proving victim falsity will be easier than physics, energetics or perception.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stevenwarran2
 


So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that all the firefighters that died on 9/11 are all "false, fake and fraudulent creations " ? I find that a bit hard to swallow. I don't profess to have all the answers to what really happened on 9/11. I see scores of indiscrepancies, impossible 'facts', OFFICIAL lies and counter-lies, miraculous 'coincidences',etc., in the OS. I also see a lot of theories posted within the TM that my rational mind refuses to process as valid. But to see someone claim that there were no victims on 9/11 goes well above and beyond my comprehension of 'reality'.

Perhaps you would care to explain to me as to why and how you can hold such a belief ? 'Enlighten' me, if you will ?





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join