: http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/6...lues-part1.aspx
The above site does a revealing job, explaining how the news footage was faked. Part 1 is only about 10 mins long. There are now 5 parts in all available for on line viewing..

Hi soulshoes

How do I get to see these livevideo videos? I have registered but I cannot find anything to click to view the movie.

I'm not sure if these are the same video cuts but 'September Clues' entered into a google video search brings up this result

Yes Sgt. Rock that's them, I'd be interested in reading any feedback/thoughts from people on this site.

I've just watched the first one and it's the best I've seen -- good work.

Certainly indicts a lot of media workers and suggests that there's far more to the story of media complicity in 9/11 than unplanned misdirection.

Pulling out audio cues from multiple streams of footage to account for broadcast time delays was rather neat, as was spinning through the rainbow coloured news coverage. I particularly liked the moving bridge.

Peter Power was running mock broadcasts on 7th July 2005

One thing that's noticeable from the very early media coverage on 7/7 is that rather than getting their information from high-tech computer or TV screens in the studio that feature all the latest updates, many studio-bound contributors are reading the latest 'updates' from low-tech bits of paper.

Must be good it's made it onto the Conspiraloon™ Alliance blog :)

I've never been a fan of the faked footage lines, but that is pretty compelling stuff. Part 3 especially.

I am now suitably confused

interesting stuff, had me unsure too...who ever made that production had more than 17 seconds in which to do so, that's for sure

the closing bit seemed quite determined to recruit people into running into the street loudly proclaiming "no planes hit the twin towers", good for credibility

occams razor still keeps on jabbing me in the ribs reminding me that the easiest way to make it appear that planes hit the towers would be to fly satellite guided planes into them, job done...plus, a friend in New Jersey tells me the second jet flew over his apartment, and he watched it fly on to its target - and he doesn't work for cnn or anything :P

It's utter bullshit and it's things like this that are causing the 911 movement to implode - and I can't help but believe that that is the intention. If you wanted it to appear as though 2 planes hit 2 sky scrapers you'd crash 2 planes into 2 sky scrapers. There's absolutely no reason to do it any other way. The people advocating the no planes theories are either been played big time or they are deliberately trying to make all those who question 911 look like idiots.

All the rather convincing material in this video refers to the second plane to hit and they totally ignore the rather convincing footage of a 'real' plane hitting the other tower first?

Somewhere on this forum is a link to a stabilized version of the first plane hitting. It clearly shows (IMHO) a real plane. The light is right as is the sky and the only unexplained events are the flash of light at the nose of the plane just prior to impact and the smoke coming out of the top left side of the tower on impact.

Could the footage have been tampered with in order to provide the anomalies in order that they would be picked up on and at the same time shills would promolgate the no plane line. All designed to discredit the movement and confuse people within.

The nose-out thing is weird.

Indeed, I had already seen the nose out part on several other videos.

I wasn't saying I didn't accept the rest of what they highlight, just that ignoring the first plane weakens their claims that 'no' planes hit the towers.

@Muncher
I think you made the post giving links to many 911 video clips or it could've been Ant? I can't seem to find it on here do you still have the links? The 'Hit1 Stabilized' clip convinces me that the first plane to hit was real.

I think real planes hit, however that does not mean all the news footage is genuine.

Hollywood stars may be real, but that doesn't mean they don't cgi them anyway.

I have seen stabilized images of flight 175, but never flight 11.

Flight 175 here

I think the originator of NPT, Nico Haupt/Ewing2001, was always referring to the second hit when talking about NPT precisely because there is, apparently, only one clip of the first tower being hit by something, or at least only one clip in the public domain.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there are reams of footage of everything that happened on 9/11, including the first hit, hidden away in some archives somewhere.

REAL planes explode on impact

The only footage of Flight 11 is from Pavel Hlava (youtube link), the Naudet brothers and some photographs from Wolfgang Staehle and others

It's certainly possible. According to one of those videos all the archive footage used in them is available for download so it may be worth doing a comparison between what's used and what's downloadable from the source, although that doesn't tell us if the source was in some way modified. Anyone got tapes from the day?

For what it's worth, on the day of 9/11, having watched hours and hours of 'live' coverage, I was left with the overwhelming feeling that something was very amiss about what I had apparently just witnessed on TV. I picked up TV coverage viewing after the first hit at a point when none of the media appeared to know what had happened to the first tower.

exactly what i was thinking last night

as was this:

...to be 'discovered' at some crucial moment, perhaps when sufficient numbers of people are merrily running around shouting "no planes ! NO PLANES !" which is not so very far removed from this sort of Conspiraloonery™

just like when they finally released five years later the Pentagon double tree video which clearly showed flight77 crashing into the building.

not

not really like that no, in fact nothing like that at all

there seems to be some conflation of the penta-where's-the-plane-gon and the wtc in your post, exactly as those who would make us out to be Conspiraloons™ would wish

in order to solve this problem of planes or not, i suggest five to ten pages of youtubes being posted along with strongly worded debate between various groups of people who weren't there

not ;)

That conspiraloon blog does bad things to Firefox on Ubuntu.

Links to the whole of September Clues

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopi...b87b02df0a075fc

Its rubbish though isnt it? It never ceases to amaze me how people can see so much in extremely poor quality grainy news footage - zoomed in for miles, which is then compressed to buggery to be put on the internet. What exactly is a pixel study? It's just zooming in on lots of noise and artefacts - there is no extra information there.

It's very very easy to edit together a lot of confusion and chaos and make it look like there are anomalies. The problem, and it always returns to this, is that there is no reason on earth for them to have done any of this. To pull it off would have been ludicrously, impossibly elaborate and more importantly pointless. Why risk your incredibly complicated scam going wrong and exposing the whole plan to the world? It just makes no sense. Why involve dozens, potenially hundreds more people than needed? Any of which might talk? You could just get some Arabs to hijack planes and really crash them and they'd never be able to prove for sure you did it.

I think the idea that some post 911 trickery may have been done is much more credible. It would be much easier to fiddle about with the footage on the internet 6 years after the event in an attempt to muddy the waters than it would to do it live, on the day, in front of the eyes of entire world.

It has been exposed a dozen times over but the public don't give a krap. They don't even have to make the scams that complicated anymore, just show us a few cartoon airplanes and a picture of a turban headed bogey man and folk seem happy to invade any country these days.

I agree that the scumbags behind 911 certainly have nothing but contempt for the puiblic fedor. Getting some real nutters to really fly planes into towers is the simplest, cheapest and least risky way to get what they want - endless war, colonial conquest and a police state at home. A bizarre, nonsensical, over-elaborate light show, staged live in front of a billion viewers, with an extremely high risk of going tits up isn't. This is a diversion and a really obvious one.

The 'nose out' is either a badly covered up mistake of video fakery, illustrating a plane disappearing into a building.
Or the 'nose out' is a missile, because a plane could not fully penetrate a building making an exit hole.
If the 'nose out' is video fakery why fake a missile.
Either way September Clues proves that no planes hit the towers.

How exactly?

Because of the 'nose out'.

If you subscribe to the mocked up military planes theory, it is possible that the planes fired missiles on entry. This would support a "pod" theory, and explain the "nose-out", which would in fact be a "missile-out".

Just as an aside, I do believe a missile was used at the Pentagon, and this is best demonstrated by THIS PICTURE.

Surely not! Rumsfeld picked up the piece of burning hot metal and announced 'American Airlines' from inside the Pentagon!.

i'm sorry Soulshoes, i do not take that footage as proof™ of anything

also the idea that 'nose out' is proof of 'missile out' flies in the face of missiles as airborne torpedoes, things which are designed to obliterate their noses upon impact with a target

i really do find this pod and missile business a strange line of reason, the plane lining up with the tower is going in no matter what, there would be no need to fire missiles at it first

I agree, I was just offering up an alternative alternative theory.

Personally I think two planes did hit the towers, as to whether they were the planes the official story tells us they were is up for debate. The towers came down because of explosives (not a heat ray from a satellite).

I don't know what hit the pentagon, but it wasn't the official plane.

I don't know what happened at Shanksville, but it looks more like a shoot down than a "heroic passengers over-power bad guys and crash the plane" Hollywood script.

I do believe that people argue too much about the how's rather than getting together to challenge the whos, but maybe that's what were supposed to do...

When I first viewed Sept. clues I took it with a grain of salt, because it stated that the computor graphic plane inserted into the footage, was to maybe conceal a missile's trajectory. I thought oh! using the video fakery line of thought, to push the missile arguement.
Somebody insisted that I watch it again & again, it doesn't matter wether you believe that Sept. clues proves NPT or not, because what it does prove is that the nose out theory is absurd.
Therefore the 'nose out' has to be a result of video fakery. Which calls into question the validation of ALL footage, showing the towers being struck. You can't cherry pick the footage that best suit's your line of reasoning.

quite right, you cannot

thanks to cgi, if you saw it on a screen but not in person, you can no longer know for certain that the thing really happened

and i also agree that the nose out thing is at least indicative of meddling, whether this was deliberate in order to cause division amongst people trying to figure out what happened, or maybe news companies who missed the shot trying to create that all important scoop footage i really don't know, but at the moment i'd say those two have to be the prime suspects for this seeming fakery

Ok, so I've watched the bits of September Clues and I really enjoyed it. It's made me want to watch 9/11 Octopus again (which is along the same lines of TV Fakery).

Very cool stuff...!

Now this Sean Murtagh guy is a fairly high ranking employee of CNN, & just happen's to be about the only none anonymous eye witness who say's he saw a large passenger aircraft hit the towers. Then his company screen the first breaking footage of the hits at the towers, which includes the obvious nose out.

How many dubious 7/7 eye witness's are there ?

September clues part 6 is live now.

11/9 happened exactly as it appeared too. 4 planes were hijacked by Arab terrorists who attempted to crash them into prominent buildings, succeeding on 3 occasions. The arab terrorists in question were almost certainly aided and abetted by American intelligence and their plot nurtured by the elitist scumbags who have subsequently profited so greatly from it. I truly despair of the no planes and the controlled demolition theories. The advocates of these are been unsubtly manipulated by the very same criminals responsible for them. Its both an superb diversion and a way of muddying the waters to prevent the real truth ever been found. They did the exact same thing with the JFK assasiniation and 44 years later we're still no nearer uncovering the truth. In 44 years time we'll still be here having pointless arguments about controlled demolition whilst the criminals have moved on to their next atrocity.

Surely the issue is not whether there were planes or not, but rather the fact that the American administration is at best criminally negligent and at worse criminally complicit in the attacks of 9/11?

I've often wondered why the 911ers in America haven't all yet figured out that they would be better of united on common ground such as that provided by the view that there was some degree of, as yet undetermined, criminal activity by the State on 9-11.

I guess at least part of that reason is because the movement appears to be entirely devoid of any class-based political analysis of 9-11, favouring instead arguments about what the truth *might* be. With a correct historical and political analysis of 9-11 the 9-11 movement would then have something on which to base a political strategy, as a unified entity, to oppose the criminal system that led to its being created as an oppositional political grouping in the first place.