It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Media Lied On 9/11 - Here Is Proof

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:35 PM
Stunning new video (Sorry if its been posted before)

this is AWSOME, and seems very straight forward.

Watch all the parts, a, b, c , d, e & f


[edit on 29/9/2008 by shauny]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:56 PM
Yes, they did, but September Clues has been posted before.

...and others where the series is discussed.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Niobis]

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:52 PM
All is good... there are new people to this section of ATS passing through all the time, as well as ATS newbees. So a little repeat once in a while is a good thing. Especially when it is a topic like this one that is so pressing.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:02 AM
The media lied?!? No way. That's impossible.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:44 AM
I've been around the block with 9/11 conspiracy theories, and this is the first time I've run into September Clues...

And I have to say, many of the things it brings up are extremely puzzling and disturbing. I dislike much of the 9/11 truth movement for its arrogant assumptions, but this raises some serious questions, especially part one.

Thank you for posting it, even if it's a repeat. I hope this thread can stay open.

Aside from searching tons of old threads, are there any explanations for the points the video brings up?

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:17 PM
reply to Johnmike

Here's a video that attempts to debunk September Clues:

Here's a debate of the FOX5 "nose-out" shot:

My 2 cents:

I haven't finished watching the first video, as it is about 30 minutes long, however the first few points seem like desperate attempts to me.

If I were to judge the above debate, I'd say Ace Baker took it all the way. Steve Wright does make a good argument, but it's not enough. One thing that is not brought up is the fact that there is no plane before the zooms, which is an important issue.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:25 PM

One thing that is not brought up is the fact that there is no plane before the zooms, which is an important issue.
why do you think it is such a big deal.. my god.. the friggin first tower was in flames.. there was allready hundreds of cameras taking footage of it.. so they happen to zoom in to take a closer look at the burning building.. and then that second plane comes... Im sure they had to hunt and hunt to find that shot.. like I said .. there is hundreds if not thousands of film being shot that morning.. the odds that someone was gonna catch that second plane coming in .. is not surprising at all.. what about the footage of the guy on the ground.. that just happens to point his camera straight up to film the burning tower.. and he catches the second plane coming in.. was that planned also.. ??

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by philjwolf

The fact that the North Tower was on fire has absolutely nothing to do with the missing plane in the FOX5 shot...

It's a big deal because about 2 and 5 seconds before the "plane" hit the South Tower, it was NOT in the shot, when it definitely should have been. It's also a big deal because after the third(last) zoom in, the "plane" comes in on the very next frame. That's a highly unlikely coincidence, wouldn't you agree?

I'm assuming you mean Evan Fairbanks' video by "the footage of the guy on the ground". Well there's a lot of things wrong with that video too.

For starters, it's not even the original video. Mr. Fairbanks has admitted the FBI took his original and "made a dub". Even he did not view the original before the FBI took him "to a safe place". What we see is a copy.

"When I told them what I had on videotaped, they brought me to their command center. They have the original, which has five minutes of audio. This is a copy. Sorry there's no sound."

Quoted from a New York Times article by Sarah Boxer on November 22, 2001. Since then, it seem as if they removed the last part of her article.

Second, it contradicts other videos. In the Fairbanks video we see white wings on the "plane", but in others the "same plane" has black or gray wings.

Third, the "plane" melts into the building. Often referred to as a "butter plane". It violates the Laws of Motion. There is absolutely no buckling or deceleration upon impact. As Mr. Fairbanks has said, "it disappeared like a bad special effect", which is exactly what it is.

Fourth, the guy in the video does not look up until the "plane" is fully inside and the explosion starts. Did he not hear the roar of two 767 engines, which are about 1000 feet away from him? Did he not hear a 200 ton plane crashing into a building at 500+ mph?

No, because the plane wasn't there.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:58 PM
Wondering why the September Clues series were numbered differently (1-9 and A-H) I found this.

Parts A-H include more anomalies and make a better point than 1-9. The updated version can also be downloaded in high quality, which is now in my opinion the only way to enjoy September Clues.

Here's the link for anyone interested in enjoying September Clues in much better quality than YouTube:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:56 PM
Has there been any discussion on the trajectory of the 'object' that hit the south tower? The part I'm referring to specifically is 1:30-3:45 of video 3. It seems that there is a clear discrepancy in flight trajectories unless we're being bamboozled by the video's author.

Edit: I'll link to the video I was watching since this video could be chopped up a million different ways on youtube.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by flybynight]

top topics


log in