## Wednesday, March 30, 2011

### September Clues revisited - holograms hurricaine turbulence

It has been a while, but Christopher P. Holmes, Ph.D. (Psych) has now
written a good recap on SEPTEMBER CLUES.  (see way below!)

Sadly, the (few!) wrong conclusions of Sept Clues
have been also swallowed,

Just quickly:

GUYS!! LOGICALLY there must have been holograms,
and some videos show them (distorted wings courchesne etc).
Simon should study some laser-holographic techniques
and then correlate the tv images to the technique.

Sure there were fake TV images, but there
were eyewitnesses who saw "weird planes"
and the "planes" looked different
(lighting, reflections) from different angles, as they would
if an imperfect real-time computer mainframe
had to calculate all the angles.

Eyewitnesses like the cameras and footage of
Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor.
I showed how their footage not fake.
Their camera positions and chain of custody
make this next to impossible.
Look for the iron sight, building heights, angles
and calculations.   I was surprised myself.
They had to be in the water or on a cherry picker.
As it turned out they were both on a moored boat,
and the angles show they stood on either end
of the top deck. Someone even made a 3D image
from their shots!  Years ago, haha.

Multiple photos of "Nose-Out" is proof. THINK!
IMHO there was a missile that carried "the screen"
and the liquid or gas "screen" (silver halide?) protruded
while the laser was still engaged, by mistake,
hence the nose-out.
Simon's explanation is not acceptable in the light of the other
photos of the "venus flytrap" etc etc.

If you think this rant is not for dunces, then you are right.
Because then only dunces will "understand" it.

There are about a dozen postings that illuminated the subject.
Sorry you have to piece together the info.
WHY DO YOU THINK IT HAD TO BE A
PERFECT CLOUDLESS DAY IN NEW YORK?
atmospheric turbulence! (see below)
What made it a cloudless day?  Hurricane Erin! see
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/09/matrix-prophetic-film-911-coincidence.html
Why was it planned for 11 september?
It was the founding date of the US treasury. (just kidding)
Seriously, get used to the fact that
they planned it YEARS in advance and that they
Matrix coincidence!
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/09/matrix-prophetic-film-911-coincidence.html
Bush directs the storm!
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2010/07/matrix-weather-directs-this-storm-bush.html

Laser-planes (David Thom pictures show a flash):

Wikipedia has a hint on how the plane-trickery was done: I highlight the important words with regards to 11 sept 2001:

There also exist holographic materials that do not need the developing process and can record a hologram in a very short time. This allows one to use holography to perform some simple operations in an all-optical way. Examples of applications of such real-time holograms include phase-conjugate mirrors ("time-reversal" of light), optical cache memories, image processing (pattern recognition of time-varying images), and optical computing.

The amount of processed information can be very high (terabits/s), since the operation is performed in parallel on a whole image. This compensates for the fact that the recording time, which is in the order of a microsecond, is still very long compared to the processing time of an electronic computer. The optical processing performed by a dynamic hologram is also much less flexible than electronic processing. On one side, one has to perform the operation always on the whole image, and on the other side, the operation a hologram can perform is basically either a multiplication or a phase conjugation. In optics, addition and Fourier transform are already easily performed in linear materials, the latter simply by a lens. This enables some applications, such as a device that compares images in an optical way.

The search for novel nonlinear optical materials for dynamic holography is an active area of research. The most common materials are photorefractive crystals, but in semiconductors or semiconductor heterostructures (such as quantum wells), atomic vapors and gases, plasmas and even liquids, it was possible to generate holograms.

A particularly promising application is optical phase conjugation. It allows the removal of the wavefront distortions a light beam receives when passing through an aberrating medium, by sending it back through the same aberrating medium with a conjugated phase. This is useful, for example, in free-space optical communications to compensate for atmospheric turbulence (the phenomenon that gives rise to the twinkling of starlight).

It is possible, using nonlinear optical processes, to exactly reverse the propagation direction and phase variation of a beam of light. The reversed beam is called a conjugate beam, and thus the technique is known as optical phase conjugation (also called time reversal, wavefront reversal and retroreflection).

One can interpret this nonlinear optical interaction as being analogous to a real-time holographic process. In this case, the interacting beams simultaneously interact in a nonlinear optical material to form a dynamic hologram (two of the three input beams), or real-time diffraction pattern, in the material. The third incident beam diffracts off this dynamic hologram, and, in the process, reads out the phase-conjugate wave. In effect, all three incident beams interact (essentially) simultaneously to form several real-time holograms, resulting in a set of diffracted output waves that phase up as the "time-reversed" beam. In the language of nonlinear optics, the interacting beams result in a nonlinear polarization within the material, which coherently radiates to form the phase-conjugate wave.

The most common way of producing optical phase conjugation is to use a four-wave mixing technique, though it is also possible to use processes such as stimulated Brillouin scattering. A device producing the phase conjugation effect is known as a phase conjugate mirror (PCM).

For the four-wave mixing technique, we can describe four beams (j = 1,2,3,4) with electric fields:

where Ej are the electric field amplitudes. Ξ1 and Ξ2 are known as the two pump waves, with Ξ3 being the signal wave, and Ξ4 being the generated conjugate wave.

If the pump waves and the signal wave are superimposed in a medium with a non-zero χ(3), this produces a nonlinear polarization field:

$P_{\mbox{NL}} = \epsilon_0 \chi^{(3)} (\Xi_1 + \Xi_2 + \Xi_3)^3\$

resulting in generation of waves with frequencies given by ω = ±ω1 ±ω2 ±ω3 in addition to third harmonic generation waves with ω = 3ω1, 3ω2, 3ω3.

As above, the phase-matching condition determines which of these waves is the dominant. By choosing conditions such that ω = ω1 + ω2 - ω3 and k = k1 + k2 - k3, this gives a polarization field:

$P_\omega = \frac{1}{2} \chi^{(3)} \epsilon_0 E_1 E_2 E_3^* e^{i(\omega t - \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x} ) } + \mbox{c.c.}.$

This is the generating field for the phase conjugate beam, Ξ4. Its direction is given by k4 = k1 + k2 - k3, and so if the two pump beams are counterpropagating (k1 = -k2), then the conjugate and signal beams propagate in opposite directions (k4 = -k3). This results in the retroreflecting property of the effect.

Further, it can be shown for a medium with refractive index n and a beam interaction length l, the electric field amplitude of the conjugate beam is approximated by

$E_4 = \frac{i \omega l}{2 n c} \chi^{(3)} E_1 E_2 E_3^*$

(where c is the speed of light). If the pump beams E1 and E2 are plane (counterpropagating) waves, then:

$E_4(\mathbf{x}) \propto E_3^*(\mathbf{x});$

that is, the generated beam amplitude is the complex conjugate of the signal beam amplitude. Since the imaginary part of the amplitude contains the phase of the beam, this results in the reversal of phase property of the effect.

Note that the constant of proportionality between the signal and conjugate beams can be greater than 1. This is effectively a mirror with a reflection coefficient greater than 100%, producing an amplified reflection. The power for this comes from the two pump beams, which are depleted by the process.

The frequency of the conjugate wave can be different from that of the signal wave. If the pump waves are of frequency ω1 = ω2 = ω, and the signal wave higher in frequency such that ω3 = ω + Δω, then the conjugate wave is of frequency ω4 = ω - Δω. This is known as frequency flipping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics

Erin - Don't forget the Hurricaine.  Haarp may not be one, guys.

Now lets hear the UFO and contrail believer... talk about september clues

The Corporate Media's Live Coverage of the Fabled Airplane

Slamming into South Tower Coverage

Christopher P. Holmes, Ph.D. (Psych)

The September Clues
series begins by presenting the only five live coverage shots of the supposed airplane hitting the second tower.  This includes shots by the four major networks—CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC and Channel 5 WBII.   These brief clips of news coverage supposedly document a passenger airliner slamming into the South Tower of the World Trade Center and setting off an explosion.  Taken together, the corporate media initially provided under 15 seconds of visual evidence for such a fabled airplane.

As it happens, this fabled airplane is supposed to have entered so swiftly and completely into the South Tower that there was no subsequent external visual evidence of any airplane parts or sections whatsoever even though there was a fairly large hole in the building.  The fact that there was a hole in the Towers  is of course an agreed upon fact.  The fabled airplane entered so smoothly and completely into the building that it left no evidence of this beyond that provided by the corporate media videos and then subsequently by a number of 'amateur videos' supposedly made by impartial witnesses, but which also appear to have been created simply in media studios by half competent technicians.  In fact, the half-competent is an apt description of the secondary video sources, which like the corporate media shots, reveal varied and assorted types of video trickery and endless peculiarities.

Part A of the September Clues series opens with a rather shocking statement, noting:

Solid proof of their crimes are hard to expose.

On September 21, 2001

Almost all pieces of evidence were quickly removed

In fact, all but ONE

It is spread all over America on tapes recorded by American families.

And Verifiable on Official TV Archives

www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

As the film producer notes, these videos provide criminal evidences which are verifiable and which were not so easily removed by those involved to subvert criminal investigations.  Although over time, other physical evidences have emerged, such as particulate matter containing weapons grade explosives used in controlled demolitions and some of the imaginary high jackers themselves, living and breathing, and wondering why they were blamed for such horrendous crimes.  But the video evidences are here to stay, records of the criminal activities of the corporate media in deceiving the American public.  Fortunately, their methods are sloppy, their stories inconsistent and absurd, their actresses and actors not believable.  Although overall a good performance, these actors and actresses do not deserve Oscars but something else instead, such as criminal prosecution for their role in deceiving the American public while helping to mass murder their fellow countrymen.

CNN-The most trusted name in news

The first CNN coverage in Part A is only about a minute long and provides their original footage of the airplane which is in sight for approximately 2 seconds.

The CNN clip begins with the host and a guest witness, Winston Mitchell, who maintains that he is at the north side of the Towers.  The camera is centred on a view of the North Tower, while the south Tower is obscured behind.  When the 'supposed' airplane enters the scene, it enters from the right, crosses the screen and disappears behind the North Tower.  A second or so later an explosion is visually evident.  This video provides a view of the airplane passing behind the North Tower.

The two seconds of the fabled airplane occur while the host is engaged with this witness.  This is a fairly accurate accounting of this conversation which is proceeding as the plane is seen moving across the screen:

Host: Winston can you see … are you on the north side there were the mi ,,, the plane made, er, contact?

Winston: Yea, I am. But I'd say the huge, the hole is, let me just go and get a better look, right now.  (We then hear the sounds of Winston shuffling about as if going to have a look and some indistinguishable voice in the background.)

Winston:  The uh, I'd say, the hole takes about, (plane enters the screen here, crosses to the left and disappears behind the tower) it looks as though six or seven floors were taken out …  and there's more explosions right now,  hold on.  People are running … , hold on

Host: Hold on just a, we have an explosion inside.

Winston:  The building is exploding right now, you got people running up the street, I am going to go and see what is going on.

Host: Ok, er, just put Winston on pause there for just a moment.

Even in this 60 second clip, there are numerous anomalies.  I will review each of these according to what I consider the most significant to the lesser so. Some of these are addressed in the video series, while others are my observations and comments. Further, some of these anomalies only arise when the live CNN coverage is compared with other coverage of the live recordings on network TV or to subsequent amateur video of the supposed same events.

1.  Firstly and most significantly, the CNN coverage completely 'blacks out' for about a second at the moment of the supposed airplane impact—actually there are eight black frames.  Such a 'black out' can be produced by a half-competent technician using a fade out lever and then it can be simply reversed a second later.  Why, in the most important moment in a century of news, would CNN, the most trusted name in news, have such a momentary blackout right at the moment of supposed impact of the airplane?   CNN, in fact, was not the only network to feature such a bizarre black out at this critical moment. This is a complete anomaly requiring explanation as the most parsimonious explanation is simply that these blackouts were produced by technicians involved somehow trying to obscure particular details of the unfolding scenes or to guard against something untoward,  like tell-tale indicators cropping up on public TV.

Another peculiar element here concerns the fact that just an instant before the 'blackout' occurs and just briefly afterwards, other close up images of the North Tower are shown, but it is interesting how these scenes are flashed subliminally before the blackout and a moment afterwards, before the CNN switches back to its distant perspective on the North Tower.  How and why were these momentary alternative perspectives inserted just at these instances surrounding their fade out and for what reason?  The effect is to suggest that another big hole is being created in the second tower, as there was in the first tower.  This scene is then displayed for only seconds before they return to first distant view of the North Tower.  This is very clever camera work!  To jump to a totally different shot, flashed subliminally, then to a brief blackout and another subliminal shot, to convince us that something made a big hole in the Tower behind our line of sight obstructed by the North Tower.

2.   The airplane portrayed in this video is quite dark, almost black, which is peculiar as these airplanes are not painted black or dark grey and it is a sunny day in New York City.  The image is quite blurred and unnatural looking.   Further, the unnatural background is whitened and discoloured, given the prevalent sunny weather conditions. This supposed airplane  moves across the screen in an horizontal manner, which actually contrasts with another live broadcast which depicts 'a dive bombing' airplane which descends from above and varied amateur videos showing an airplane banking sharply before entering the building.

3.  The host, nor anyone else in the studio, where this event is being monitored live, ever mentions the appearance of a low flying airplane passing across the screen.  The host is completely silent until a visual explosion is event, at which time he does not report another airplane, but only an explosion inside the building.   This of course is what we would expect if these images were being concocted in a studio, as indeed no plane would be visible, because the image of a plane is being produced for public consumption, by your most trusted name in news.

4.  Although we are listening to Winston on the telephone across the street from the Towers, supposedly, and we can hear ambient voices in the background and we can hear Winston 'shuffle about' when he says he is going to look outside at what is happening, we do not hear any explosions coming over the telephone from Winston, even though he is reporting hearing "more explosions."  Why are these not heard on Winston's call, which of course they should be?  In fact, the sounds of explosions were missing from all of the eye-witness telephone calls, despite the callers reporting these on their phones!

5.  It is interesting to note that the host almost says 'missile' instead of airplane in regards to what hit the first Tower but he corrects himself in time.  (Alternatively, I think that this may be done deliberately to help create an anomaly, uncertainty and conflicting ideas about what happened or rather what was done.)   If we can have people debating whether or not it was a big plane or a small plane, or a missile, then we can obscure the fact that there was nothing, other than some half-competent technicians imposing a video image over an ongoing scene.

These are all major issues!  The momentary blackout, the discoloured artificial looking airplane and backdrop, the failure of the host to see an airplane, which must also have been visible for seconds before the two seconds on the screen, and the entirely suspect report of Winston that he is hearing massive explosions while his phone call shows him to be a liar and poor actor.  His 'shuffling about' is overheard but not a peep out of his explosions.

In sum, the folk at CNN have some interesting explaining to do.  This footage cannot conceivably be accepted as evidence of the existence of a passenger airliner hitting the second tower, no matter how much CNN proclaims to be—the most trusted name in news.

CBS

The second live network coverage on part A of this series involves the CBC.  The CBS clip is a minute and 15 seconds long with about one to two seconds of video coverage of an airplane and it offers all kinds of bizarre elements and peculiarities.

There is just over one second of visual contact with this fabled airplane, which this time, instead of approaching the Tower parallel to the ground as CNN portrayed, this fable airplane drops down out of the sky from above and behind the Towers.  The CBS camera angle is of both towers but it is taken from below the level of the Towers, as one cannot see their roofs.   About six seconds before the explosion is visibly evident, this fabled airplane is well 'above' both towers and dropping down from above, first appearing at the top of the screen.  This is called the 'dive bomber scenario.'  Somehow, this airplane above the Towers descends into the tower within a few seconds.  Of course, this is in total contradiction to the horizontal flight path displayed on CNN!  One simply cannot have both a horizontal and vertical line of flight of the same airplane at the same time.  There are other amateur videos which show over three seconds of the plane on its horizontal course, which are also completely contradictory to the CBS dive bomber footage.

The video once again is riddled with peculiarities, especially when considered in relationship to other evidences, or should I say fabricated evidences.  The image of the plane is not distinct and instead is like a little blob although it does suggest the appearance of an airplane.  Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary equipment and expertise to more closely examine details of these images.   This time, the scene has a blue wash and a dark airplane.

In the CBS footage, the most outrageous elements of their studio work involve the conversation ongoing while this plane drops down out of the sky in the background.  The host Bryant Gumbel has his producer's wife, Teresa Renaud, on the telephone live from Chelsey, a subdivisions of Manhattan north of Towers, past the other subdivisions of Tribeca, Greenwich Village and Soho.  This is the conversation proceeding during the time that the fabled airplane strikes the second tower.

Host: I understand that Teresa Renaud is with us right now. Mrs Renaud, good morning.

Mrs. Renaud: Good morning. How are you?

Host: This is Bryant Gumbel, I am down at 59th and 5th, where are you?

Mrs Renaud: I am in Chelsey and we are at, er, 8th and 16. We are the tallest building in the area and we, my window faces south.  So it looks directly onto the World Trade Centre.  And I would say, you know, approximately ten minutes ago, there was a major explosion from probably it looks like about the  80th floor, it looks like it has effected probably four to eight floors. Ur,  major flames are coming out of the, lets see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.

Host: Yes, Um, you're over in Chelsey?  Um, did you hear the explosion from your position?

Mrs Renaud: Oh, yes, yes we did.   As a matter of fact, we we heard it and and cause I was just like standing there, pretty much looking out the window, I didn't see what caused it or if there was an impact.

Host: So you have no idea right now ...

Mrs Renaud:  Oh, there's another one, another plane just hit.  Oh my God, another plane just has just hit another building, flew right into the middle of it. Explosion.

If one listens to this segment several times over, one realizes how preposterous it is.  Most significantly, this witness in one breath states "I didn't see what caused it" and then in the next breath, says "Oh,  there's another one, another plane just hit."   Of course, Mrs Renaud knew what the story was meant to be and she betrays her prior knowledge of this.  She forgets in the moment and cannot keep her story straight from one moment to the next.  Once again, no explosions are heard over her phone line, despite her report that she is hearing them.

The claim further that she witnessed this second plane hitting the building is a complete fabrication.  Firstly, why does she not mention a plane until after the explosion and not before.  It is only after the explosion that she reports 'another plane.'   No media newscaster or cameraman sees the airplane before it hits the building or reacts to anything prior to when the explosions have already occurred, which it seems is what they take as their 'cues.'  Further, the second plane hit the building on the opposite side from her line of sight, and the manner in which it dive bombed down from above, would not possibly have enabled her to see that it was a plane that set off the explosion.  Simply take the police to Mrs Renaud's apartment and take photographs from there to document the possibility of these things.

Of course, there are other anomalies in the conversation.  Firstly, why does she refer to 'we' as hearing the explosion and then to "I" as standing at the window?  Does she have a multiple personality disorder or is there someone there to support her and guide her through her acting bit, but who is not to be mentioned?  I personally think that someone indicated to her so as not to say we, or else she just remembered and shifted her usage.  Consider her use of 'I' and 'we' in these segments:  "I am in Chelsey and we are at, er, 8th and 16. We are the tallest building in the area and we, my window faces south. … "   This makes sense as she is likely referring to 'we' as to indicate she and her husband, TV producer Jack Renault of the Early Show, as people are apt to do in using 'we,' although it is curious how it is then "my window."  When asked if she heard the explosion, Mrs Renault responds, "Yes, yes we did," and then she continues on, "As a matter of fact, we we heard it and and cause I was just like standing there, pretty much looking out the window."   (By the way, these are not typing errors, but her actual word usage. I am not used to such phrases as "pretty much looking out the window.") Likely, her producer husband is hiding away in Chelsey with her helping to support her through her acting ordeal and she is not supposed to refer to him, but she cannot help it due to her anxiety, uncertainty and the mechanical speech automaticity of referring to 'we.'

Other elements of her conversation suggest anxiety and deception.  Why does she see 'major flames' coming out of the building.  This is somewhat unusual description but one must wonder why she is seeing flames, while everyone else including the CBS live coverage is viewing primarily billowing black smoke from an oxygen starved fire.  Further, consider how she adds on the word "Explosion" at the end of her last statement.   I have never heard anyone in my life simply say 'explosion,' without it being in a sentence or something and she simply says it in a most ridiculous sounding way to add it on.  She just sticks it on the end probably realizing that she had forgotten to say 'explosion' as it was written on a piece of paper before her.  As a clinical psychologist, psychotherapist and having worked with criminal offenders for 12 years, this whole thing is an obvious hoax and she is a liar.  Once again, one has to be almost brain dead, like the majority of the American public, not to question these things.

Another curious feature of this segment is the 'swooning' of some fine actresses in the studio produced to document the dramatic crashing of the fabled airplane into the second Tower.  When I hear these swoons, they sound more feigned than real to me, as if part of a dramatization and produced on cue.

Of course, these are my comments simply on the conversation ongoing while the fabled airplane appears and disappears very quickly in the background.  However, overall, I would have to consider that this CBS segment offers evidence of conspiracy to commit mass murder to ensure one's corporate media status, but no credible evidence to establish the existence of any fabled airplane.

In the September Clues series, at the end of the CBS coverage, the film maker has inserted a photo of an individual, David Handschuh, a witness who maintains, "I didn't see the plane although I was right below the tower."   David is shown against a backdrop photo of an explosion outwards from the South Tower but no evidence of an airplane.  Of course, David was below the Tower, truly on the scene—instead of a mile away in Chelsey wondering how WE did.

WNYW FOX 5

The third of the live shots analyzed in Part A of the September Clues series is provided by a feed from a helicopter, which seems to be located a mile or so from the Towers when a fabled airplane suddenly appears on the screen and then hits the second tower.  This time the video image of an airplane is present on the screen for approximately 2 seconds.  Of course, no one mentions seeing the airplane ahead of time even though the helicopter line of sight would have allowed the pilot, crew and cameraman and to see an airplane well before the impact.  Of course, in none of the live clips does anyone ever mention an airplane until after the visual sight of an explosion.  After the cue provided by the explosion, the media immediately begin to refer to this fabled airplane.  Once again, there is an artificial wash to the screen.  I would think it must be easier to fake these things if the visuals obscure the background which would allow for clearer differentiation of this fabled airplane.

Once again, the whole clip is less than a minute in length, but within this period, the half-competent technicians make such profound mistakes that it is almost ludicrous—demonstrating conclusively that the images being presented were being fashioned within a video studio and an image of an airplane has  simply being superimposed over the background of the Towers.  Of all evidences, this clip is the most damming evidence of the media's fabrication of the airplane images.  Of course, if there was really an airplane, then there would be no need for such a fabrication.

This clip begins with the helicopter miles away from the Towers with a panoramic view of New York, showing the skyline for miles to the right of the Tower, the direction the fable airplane is supposed to come from.  However, in the opening panoramic view there is no airplane at six seconds before impact.  The cameraman then zooms in on the Towers in three steps, getting a closer and closer look.  However, it is only after the cameraman has zoomed up the final time that suddenly an airplane appears on the screen as if from nowhere.  No one noticed the airplane ahead of time, of course because there was nothing to see from the opening panoramic view.

What is most shocking in this video, beyond the sudden appearance of plane out of nowhere, is what is referred to as the 'nose out shot.'  When the image of the airplane appears to enter the tower from one side, it appears to be completely unimpeded by its passage through the building and its 'nose' is then seen projecting out from the other side of the Tower!

The host even says afterwards "the plane went right through the other tower," giving recognition that he also had seen this nose out shot. Of course, he shouldn't have reported that and no one claimed subsequently to see the nose of an airplane sticking out of the other side of the Tower, although that is shown in their video.  At least, it is shown for just a moment before they go to their infamously clever black out.

Not only does the plane appear to pass unimpeded right through this massive steel framed building until its nose sticks out on the other side, but the film producer then does a comparative analysis of the pixels of the images of the nose entering and existing the building, and the images are almost completely the same.  This is patently absurd; firstly, that the plane would pass through the building unimpeded and at the same rate of speed, and further that the nose of the plane would still be completely intact.  The only possible way to explain this is that the fabled airplane is not really a airplane, but an image superimposed over the background.  However, this image, because of the drift of the helicopter to the left, is moved too far along the horizontal axis.  The image of the plane needed to have stopped in its motion .28 seconds earlier. In Part A, the film producer shows how this likely happened.  He also has shots which show how the plane image is a layering, as at one point, the image of the airplane bumps into its layered boundary, and its nose is cut off.  In fact, one can also see the overlapping of layer edges as the plane enters into the Tower, as if a real plane can cause pixel bleed. One has to watch the video to see these things and how phoney they are.

Once again, we have a Fade to Black just after the moment of impact, or rather of the explosion.  The fade out of the video feed is in three phases and lasts for 15 frames.  There is then a three frame fade in.  This is time enough to try to hide the nose out shot and resume a natural coverage of events. How ridiculous is this, to have such blackouts at these moments of impact or studio mischief.

This whole video clearly documents the fabrication of this fabled airplane. Such preposterous images cannot possibly be taken as serious evidence of this so-called fabled airplane.  No airplane, largely of aluminium, can pass through a steel framed building without impedance and emerge intact on the other side.  And then, it is not even visible to anyone afterwards as sticking out of the building!   These shots alone of the fabled airplane reveal the farce of what the public came to accept.

Even more absurd in regards to the 'nose out' shot, concerns how this clip from Fox is then replayed by supposed rivals (and co-conspirators) at CNN within six minutes of being presented on Fox.  However, when these images of the airplane entering and exiting the south tower are replayed on CNN, the banner at the bottom of the CNN screen is used to obscure all the critical images of the airplane including the nose out shot.  However, the hosts on CNN actually say such things on air as:  "Well there you see it, a second airplane hitting the South Tower."  However, despite saying this, they are completely obscuring the actual image of the airplane by their banner, so that we don't actually see anything of any airplane!  They are just telling us that we are seeing it, so that we will think that that is we saw.

As it happens, the original Fox videos "have been remixed" and the critical nose-out shot is now removed from their archives.  Of course, this is just further evidence of the fraud they have helped to perpetrate, their fabrication of evidences, the obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence—against themselves.  Of course, these days, the US has become a completely lawless insane nation, a nation of double speak and mass lunacy.

Fox anchor, Jim Ryan offers the only truthful comment of the Fox coverage.  He remarks,   "I think we have a terrorist act of proportions that we cannot begin to image at this juncture."   Yes, Mr Ryan was certainly right, as the mass of the American public had not even begun to imagine who the true terrorists really were.  Instead the corporate media already had some patsies lined up—Mr. Osama Bin Laden and his unholy warriors, recovering from strip bars, alcohol and cocaine in the days before, but leaving Korans behind.  Jim Ryan's coworkers then offer a chorus of "Oh my God,"  "My goodness, a second plane has crashed into the other tower …"   My God, we had not imagined, although it seems that at least some of those within the corporate media had and knew full well what they were doing on that day when they sealed their fates.

NBC

Part B of the September Clues series begins with a live clip from NBC, which has the fabled airplane on screen for the longest period of time—approximately five seconds.  This footage is shot from a helicopter which is above the towers, such that we can see their roofs.  This airplane seems to descend down from above and behind the towers.  The plane image is very blurry, appearing almost like a blob, white on top and dark underneath, and it is shown against an unnatural grey-washed skyline.  The film editor refers to this image as 'the ball.'  The image does not feature distinct wings.

Just after the image of the plane blob descends and before impact (which is outside of the line of our sight), the screen switches to a close-up of the existing damage to the North Tower.  This 'Ball' version is available in the NBC archives. We then witness synchronized explosions in the North Tower which occur as the fabled airplane is supposedly striking the South Tower behind!  No one mentions these visible additional explosions occurring while the fabled airplane is supposedly causing such explosions in the building behind.

Once again, no host or commentator comments on an airplane before explosions in the South Tower are evident.  Immediately then, a witness online with host Elliot Walker, the NBC news anchor, another news media person who claims to have witnessed the first impact and who has been silent in the background,   suddenly pipes up:  "Oh, my goodness. Oh, another one just hit, something else just … a very large plane just flew directly over my building and there's been another collision. Can you see it?  I can see it on this shot. Something else has just … and that looked like a 747."

This is again most peculiar and unbelievable.  She reports a very large plane as just flying directly over her building, which somehow she then knows to be a 747, although of course we do not hear any of this on her phone line, nor of the explosions which then occur.  She then states that she can "see it on this shot," referring, I guess, to what she is witnessing on TV?   But of course, none of the live TV shots show anything distinguishable as a 747, as she reports.  Once again, this witness is an obvious fraud and her story unbelievable, another of the pathological liars assimilated into to the corporate media of America, that great country of liberty, truth and justice—what a joke.

Such false witnesses plant the seed ideas that constitute the story line being fabricated for public consumption—the high jacking of passenger airliners by Muslims.   If there were no imaginary airplane story, then the public who is not brain dead, might wonder, what caused such fine Towers to explode and fall at near free fall speed all neat and dandy into their own footprint, in such a dramatic fashion.  The passenger airliner fraud was to camouflage the fact that bombs or some forms of explosive devises and charges had simply blown out holes in the building, roughly designed to look like the damage that a airplane might inflict on a building, and then the whole building was brought down in a controlled demolition, all supposedly caused as a consequence of the fabled airplanes.  What a remarkable fraud!

The September Clues series then features a short shot of a scene very similar to that shown on NBC, described as 'a private VHS tape" which shows the banner of Live Chopper 4.  In this segment, the ball shown on the NBC video is not there, but instead, there is a very faint near invisible object which streaks across the screen, suggestive more of a missile.  Further, this video has a series of line markers which keep appearing and disappearing on the side of the building where the explosion is to occur, and a final marker occurs just at the explosion site a moment before the explosion.  These moving marker lines are somehow being coordinated by a lab technician and are not present on the same scenes of the NBC footage.

Of course, this is all quite ridiculous as we cannot have both of these videos as simultaneously valid depictions of what occurred.  Why is the missile not on the 'the ball' video, or 'the ball' image on the missile scenario.  Obviously, the most likely, simple and parsimonious explanation is that both are the products of media manipulation designed to fabricate misleading evidences and then further to mislead and confuse people.   Could it have been a missile instead of an airplane?  Or was it simply inconsistent and sloppy media work and pixelated images imposed on existing live coverage shots?  Certainly, we still have no credible evidence for a fabled airplane hitting the South Tower, but we do have evidences of the half-competency of media personnel.

September Clues
then compares video versions shown on the NBC live and on the Evening News.  On these two videos taken from almost the same angle and perspective, the planes have different trajectories on the video.  However, the evening news has a much clearer image of a plane and the background is now completely eliminated and there is a grey wash.  Further, there is evidence on both videos of a 'black spot' appearing for an instant seen between the two Towers, as the airplane supposedly passes behind the first tower.  Although both videos have this black spot suggestive of a airplane behind, both of the images look totally artificial and these spots are at different heights on the same buildings!   Obviously, NBC has spruced up its evening news to provide a better image of a fabled airplane for a sleepwalking public—all of whom are absolutely convinced that there was an airplane, because of course, they personally saw it on their own favourite TV.

It is not as if any of these first four live shots, and variants latter released, which appear to be second efforts, offer any real evidence of any real airplane.  If there was such a real airplane there would simply be no chance for such inconsistent, mutually exclusive shots and clips, and fraudulent witnesses!

WBII-Channel 5

The fifth of the live shots of the fabled airplane hitting the South Tower on that day is also from the same perspective as the different NBC shots, but a different airplane, different trajectory and with the black spot passing between the buildings at again another height.  In this live shot, the background is completely obscured with a hazy discoloured sky. Again, the fabled airplane enters the screen from the left and is in view for about three seconds.  This airplane is a streaky black blob moving across the screen, but at least is has partly discernable wings in several frames.

Just as the fabled airplane hits the building, one of the female new hosts is stating, "I believe that could be a police helicopter that is, OH, WOW…," while a second female anchor then comes quickly online to correct this, stating, "We just saw another of what I believe was a plane."   It is of course useful to have such clarifying statements from our media personnel to inform us of what "we" just saw.

This concludes the opening analysis of the live shots of the 9-11 fabled airplane hitting the South Tower.  This material covered here thus far is only about 15 minutes in length of the hour and a half of the September Clues series and we are still only on part B of the series.   The results of our analysis thus far must, by any sane logic, be supportive of what the film editor concludes on screen:

9/11 TV

was one big lie.

It is simply not the case that there are one or two oddities, peculiarities or anomalies in the live coverage shots of the fabled second airplane, and in the variants of these shots later inserted into the news coverage.  Instead, every one of the five clips presents numerous inexplicable elements in the depictions of the airplane and in the conversations ongoing within the studios, and with supposed eye-witnesses.  Further, the different shots are even inconsistent with each other.

This concludes what I have most wanted to focus upon in my presentation on this September Clues series—the original live coverage of a fabled airplane hitting the South Tower.  In the days, weeks and years after, other amateur videos emerged, supposedly turned in by objective witnesses at the scenes but these also show all kinds of other anomalies.  What appears to be most likely is that the news networks simply had individuals ready to film the second explosion in the South Tower from different perspectives when it happened, so that airplanes could subsequently be inserted or overlaid onto their videos which captured the actual events—which were the interior explosions.

Pentagon and Shanksville Absurdities

September Clues
series, Part B, then shifts the focus to the events at the Pentagon and West Virginia, where we had other fabled airplanes.  September Clues features some amusing footage as related to the airplane that disappeared into a hole less than twenty feet wide in the Pentagon and of another airplane that disappeared into a fifteen foot hole in a field out in Shanksville.  Both planes disappeared with no signs of any major clearly identifiable airplane parts, although it seems possible that a missile might have struck the Pentagon.

Part C has the most ludicrous video coverage another news media personality, Mike Walter.  Mike's early report, on that fateful day, concerned what happened at the Pentagon.  He states in the first clip:

"I saw this plane, a jet, an American Airliner jet, coming, and I thought this doesn't add up.  It's really low, and and I saw it, it just went, I mean, it was like er, a cruise missile with wings."

This in itself is already peculiar.  Why does Mike say in one line that it is an American Airliner jet and then in the next line, describe it as being like a 'cruise missile with wings?'  This is patently absurd.  [1]  However, Mike later does another interview to explain again what he witnessed.

I looked up and I saw the jet banking, and er clearly, you see the AA on the side and I knew it was American Airlines jet, and er, it went into a steep decline and accelerated.  Boom, right into the Pentagon, the side of the Pentagon. And, and the wings on the jet just folded back and it just kind of crumbled, it kind of came together like an accordion and just pierced the wall of the Pentagon. There was this huge … Boom.

Now there is no mention of the cruise missile with wings, but Mike has now fabricated that he witnessed how the airplane on impact with the Pentagon was able to "fold its wings back"—enabling it to fit into the under 20 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon.  To anyone with any semblance of intelligence, this is a complete affront to you.

Mike is then shown repeating his tale once again and trying to discredit all the questions and rumours circulating concerning his report.  He wants then to "set the record straight."  Now he works for WUSA- TV 9 NEWS NOW in Washington and he feels compelled to explain his story once more to fellow television employees.

One of the things that really bothers me, is the fact that er, people constantly are calling me, and emailing me, and want information about this, and I am happy to talk to them. But a lot of them say that, er, well, you know, physics just says that this is impossible, what happened.   But what happened is pretty obvious.  The force of this jet hitting the Pentagon at about 500 miles an hour.  When something hits a concrete structure like that, you know, this belief that the wings would go in is just ridiculous.  What I saw was the actual jet going in but the wings folded back like this (demonstrating with his hands).  So that's why, when you look at the hole, you say its not big enough, but that why, the wings were not strong enough to withstand the impact, they folded back, and that's why the jet went in, and that's why the hole that you see isn't as large as you might imagine in another structure.

Basically, the only reason that I am doing this, is because (visible gulp) over the last five years, I have been getting a lot of phone calls, emails and, and my words have been twisted, and I figure that if you are going to the internet for information, then go and find the right information.  One other suggestion, keep an open mind, but always try to get the facts.

Mike Walter's explanations are absolutely ludicrous maintaining that this airplane folded its wings back on impact with the Pentagon within some split second and his appearance on this video is most revealing.  His eyes are continually shifting to the right indicating that he is lying and try to recall what he should be saying.  He provides only an absurd explanation of his reports and acts as if he has adequately addressed the facts of the matter.  Anyone who gives any type of credence to such an obviously dishonest and invented speech is really quite mentally and emotionally limited themselves.  We see in the invented stories of these media personalities, how their descriptions are so non-sensible, disjointed and deliberately evasive:  Like Mrs Renaud, who was "pretty much looking out the window."  Personally, I have never pretty much looked out a window in my life.  Nor have I ever heard of an airplane folding up its wings in an instant, denying all laws of mechanical motion and of inertia.  Of course, the Hollywood of news services in America can really concoct almost any imaginary tale, and they have enough pathological liars on staff that it is no problem to produce any kind of witness one might want.

In the September Clues series, while Mike is talking, the film director shows on screen the fabled airplane entering into the South Tower with its wings conveniently disappearing inside.  This is at the same moments that Mike is explaining, "When something hits a concrete structure like that, you know, this belief that the wings would go in is just ridiculous."   Of course, this is exactly what is shown as occurring with the South Tower on the faked amateur video.  Mike's explanation of how he saw the wings fold back in the instant of hitting the Pentagon is far more absurd and ridiculous even than this.  Did the five ton engines also fold back!  This man is such a pathetic hypocrite and liar no matter where he works.

The September Clues series then follows Mike with what I regard as an honest reporting by the CNN News anchor, Jamie Mc Intrye on scene at the Pentagon.  This individual has not yet been scripted and in his naivety actually reports the truth!   In response to a query concerning the 'fabled airplane,' Jamie responds:

You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.  The only site is the actual side of the building that has crashed in.  And as I said, the only pieces left, that you can see, are small enough that you can pick them up in your hand.  There are no large tail sections, wing sections, er, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around that would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.

Of course, poor Jamie had latter to recant.  How had this massive airliner which had been able to fold up its wings and fit into a small hole, now been able to leave no substantive evidence of its existence?

Of course, Jamie had to subsequently make his reparations for having actually been honest on the TV News.  His latter testimony on the CNN News has the banner overlaid, "CNN's Jamie Mc Intrye confirms the plane at the Pentagon."  Oh, yes, the most trusted name in news is at it once again.  Jamie is asked about the release of some new videos by the Pentagon to supposedly show the fabled airplane striking the Pentagon.  Very handy of the Pentagon to obstruct justice by withholding the thirty plus videos of the whole affair, but they do now manage to produce two brief and edited videos from one particular perspective.  The hostess asks Jamie about this breaking news:

This is again a more complete version of the six still frame images that CNN obtained unofficially back in March of 2002 and broadcast then.  The full tape has been something that the government has been holding, er, as evidence in the trial of Z. M., but now that that trial is over, they have released the full video, er, and the video, which runs for a minute or so, shows what happens just before the impact, and also the plane coming into the building.  It is from two separate, ah, cameras, both at the same location, at a Pentagon checkpoint entrance and it is hard to see as we are playing it here. It is sort of stop action video.  Again, very similar to the still frames that we saw before.  But when you run the video back and stop it, at one point, you see what appears to be the nose of the plane just entering the frame.  The very next frame, there is an explosion.  And then in the second angle which is taken from another camera, a little bit lower down, er, you can see, er, what appears to be a white flash, that also looks like the plane.  But again, its not going to be distinct enough to convince conspiracy theorists, but for anyone with any common sense, and er, given all the other evidence we have, there is really no doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Jamie has recanted and his future is assured.  And while Jamie is giving these shallow descriptions of one frame that "appears to be the nose of an airplane" (the frame shown below with a barely distinguishable white projection on the left side of the picture) and of another frame in this "stop action video," a euphemism for an edited version, "a white flash that also looks like the plane."

Neither of these images provides any evidence of an airplane!  He then appeals to our "common sense" to accept such ridiculous concocted, edited and spliced videos and stills as conclusive evidence of the existence of a fabled airplane.   Even the video which we are being shown is highly suspect and shows no evidence of an airplane!  It is as if the public is supposed to believe his words rather than what they are actually being shown visually.   If American citizens had any common sense they would begin to demand the arrest of these Pentagon officials and the seizure of the tapes in total, along with all these fraudulent media personalities willing to help mass murder their fellow countrymen and obstruct the true processes of justice and criminal prosecution.  I wonder what the going price for souls is on that ill-fated planet Earth.

September Clues
then provides some coverage of the 'fabled airplanes' which supposedly crashed or was blown up in Shanksville.  This material begins with a copy of a photograph depicting a mid sized mushroom type cloud which is quite symmetrical in form rising from the background.  It simply looks like a bomb had exploded and created a cloud over the hole in the field.  It certainly does not look like an explosion caused by an airplane crash landing with momentum and impacting the ground to spread debris and fire over an area of land.  The crash site itself looks like a 20 foot hole with some garbage in it.

Of course, officials happened somewhere to find an Arabian passport and bandana, and a fabled victim's licence, which had expired in 1998.  This fabled airplane, Flight 93, also managed to disappear so completely that its remnants were gathered up in a few paltry buckets and containers.  Once again, there was no credible evidence of any fabled airplane crashing in Shanksville, but only evidence of more deception and lies.

[1]  Actually, this is not too absurd, but it is Walter's later statements which are absurd.  The Citizen's Investigative Committee (December 2010) has produced a film documentary which seems to establish that there was indeed a passenger type aircraft which passed north of the route usually depicted as the flight path of the fabled airplane, and which approached the Pentagon extremely low but then veered off and ascended.  This is a different flight path than that depicted where the light poles on the highways were knocked over, which was staged.  So the fact that people may have been witness to a large passenger plane at the Pentagon is still consistent with the thesis that there were no airplanes actually destroyed on that ill-fated day, when the elites sealed their fate.   Also, Walters might have been confused as having legitimately seen both, although not in the way he describes.

Amateur Videos of the Fabled Airplane

Striking the South Tower

Part C of September Clues is entitled 'Flying Elephants' and deals with a first sample of the amateur videos of the second fabled airplane.  (Part F of the series later deals more extensively with the amateur videos, see Forged Out.)   These are reportedly shot by "the man on the street."  In all, there are now at least 36 of such efforts.  However, as pointed out by the film editor, "A back-to-back comparison shows how they all disqualify each other."  He then documents obvious inconsistencies and absurdities.

The first amateur video is called the "Al-Quaeda shot," reportedly found by the FBI on the Al-Quaeda website—or should we say the CIA-aeda website.  This tape shows a dark charcoal coloured airplane on a horizontal path for about three seconds before striking the South Tower.  This is then directly compared with the 'dive bomber scenario' which shows a breathtakingly steep descent with a G-force levelling within the last seconds.  These trajectories cannot both be true.

The filmmaker then examines the image of a dark charcoal airplane.  These planes are a silver grey colour and it was a bright sunny day on 9-11.  So how one would have such a phoney black plane on this horizontal flight path is of course an anomaly in itself, but then especially so, when there are other videos of the supposed same event which show the plane as almost white.  In fact, the video of the fabled airplane entering the Tower as shot from below the South Tower, shows clearly the almost white wings of an airplane.  Once again, the fabled airplane cannot be both dark charcoal and bright white at the same time under the same lighting conditions, although of course, one can do almost anything one wants within a media studio.  Of course, this makes it complicated if different studios are producing different versions and effects to create the TV media's image pool of these events.  Of course, none of this would have been necessary if there had been a real airplane.

There are all kinds of other anomalies in different videos.  One dramatic video showing the plane entering the Tower as shot from below is really most peculiar.  The videographer has the South Tower in view but is including a picture of man who seconds before the explosion looks up in coordination with the sound track of an airplane and then down again.  Who would normally frame a video of the Towers in this way to portray this whole event?  More likely, it is being staged with a scripted actor, or assembled as a composite in a lab.  Another video features an older Jewish man who is describing the plane impact on the first Tower, when the second explosion happens in the background.  Yet the scene behind him is actually being produced by some type of virtual reality software, which produces the most peculiar frames of a type of 'glass man' who walks behind the scene and half of his head disappears.  It's like a game boy or computer graphic scene.  This is all preposterous.  These witness and events are staged and fabricated.  Further, in this clip there is no sound of an incoming airplane.

There is yet no credible evidence for these airplanes but all kinds of criminal evidence for the fabrication of evidence by media personnel, news reporters, actors and actresses, sound effects produced in sound studios, and so much more.  It is all a house of cards, touch it and it crumbles under any kind of serious investigative examination.

And if so many of these evidences of a second plane are fraudulent, the simplest explanation is that there must not have been an airplane at all, as then there would not have been any need to fabricate such evidences.  If one is presenting the truth, it is all so simple.  Creating and maintaining a delusional system is more complex and requires such video labs, software and computer expertise, half-competent technicians, Hollywood whores and the pathological liars of the corporate media.   The methods of the news media and Hollywood itself can easily produce such image files and deceptions, and do it routinely.

Part C of the September Clues series concludes: "Various techniques were used to produce the 9/11 image pool."  At least, they might have better co-ordinated their efforts to make their videos consistent with each other.  Of course, none of this would have been necessary if there had been a real airplane, real witnesses and sounds.  One of the amateur videos even contained the same "Oh, my God," sound track element as on one of the TV productions, and other feigned swoons and such!

In one of the amateur videos released in 2006, the "Bob and Bri" clip, the people had an excellent view of the two Towers moments before the second strike.  However, at the moments of impact, the camera jumps around and several frames have been edited out, even though the sound track is continuous.  However, on the last frame before the impact, there is no evidence of a plane whatsoever.  But why were frames edited out of this clip?  The September Clues editor suggests that perhaps it was to edit out a frame of a missile, although I would suspect it was designed to create a reason to believe that something had been edited out, such as a missile, when really there was nothing there, which would have been evident if the video had not been tampered with. The way the video is edited leaves it unclear what happened.

What a joke.  The only way to explain all the anomalies on the amateur videos, the most simple and parsimonious way, is to conclude that they are all simply fabricated evidences intentionally created to deceive and confuse the public and to mix with other authentic pictures.   (We will examine more of these amateur videos and who produced them in a later section, Forged Out, as presented in part E of the series.)

The Supernatural Physics of Disappearing Airplanes

As it happens, fabled airplanes are not like quantum particles, which could be here, there and everywhere at the same time, exploring all possibilities simultaneously.  An airplane cannot simultaneously be charcoal and white, grey, a blob or ball, a distinct jet, a small plane and a large plane, descending horizontally and vertically, all rolled up into one in imaginary space-time.  The numerous amateur and corporate media images of the planes present a hodgepodge of possibilities and inconsistencies.  Of course, if there was simply an airplane, such inconsistencies would not exist and there would be no need to fabricate clearly artificial images.  The studio offers a world of visual effects and possibilities.  Of course, in the real world, these amateur videos can't all be true as airplanes are not like quantum particles.

Part C of September Clues also raises the important issue of how a supposedly real airplane with wings and a tail of aluminium was able to seamlessly enter right into the steel framed South Tower, so completely and without obstruction, such that it then completely disappeared from view.  There are no photos of the hole in South Tower as showing any evidence of an airplane inside.  Further, no parts of the airplane broke off and fell to the ground upon impact, as one would certainly expect of the weaker aluminium wing and tail structures.  In fact, the motion of the airplane into the building shows no obstruction to its flight path at all!  The 'nose out shot' discussed earlier showed the motion of the plane right through the whole building in a jiffy in a completely unobstructed manner.  These are either instances of Divine Intervention, new methods of dematerializing material entities or more simply, half-competent video technicians.

Most peculiar is one of the amateur videos depicting an airplane directly entering into the South Tower. On one frame of the video, the left wing has completely disappeared and yet there still is no hole there in the Tower.  The timing is slightly off.  This same video also shows synchronized explosions both above and below the right wing as it enters the building.  These explosions could not be caused by the wings but are obviously evidence of planted charges, which were not obscured by the superimposed image of the airplane.  Of course, it is much simpler to fake an airplane entering right into a building, than it is to show a non-uniform crash with parts breaking off upon impact.  The fabled airplane just slips into the building so nicely and tidy, simply vanishing!  Isn't that clever and cunning of them.

People sometimes wonder why the South Tower was blown up first, before the North Tower, since the latter had burned for longer.  As it happens, recordings of the emergency firemen transmissions included a fireman on scene who states that the fire was now confined to only a few floors and that with two more hoses, they would likely be able to get it under control.  Of course, it would have been embarrassing to have had the fireman arriving on scene at the hole and finding no airplane!  The demolition of the South Tower had to be first as the firemen in their bravery and selfishness were about to deal with the first emergency.  Of course, they had no idea that the whole building was pre-wired for a controlled demolition and that to the likes of Kissinger, they are nothing more than the soldiers, "stupid, dumb animals" to be used as pawns in the game plans and strategies of the criminal psychopaths who high-jacked America.

The Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth should attempt to model impacts of such aluminium airplanes passing into steel frame buildings and determine how such an impact would really unfold.  This scenario of the airplane entering into the building without obstruction and then disappearing completely from view is another of those jokes in this whole 9-11 fraud.  The fact that these things are given any credence documents the naivety and lack of common sense within the American and world public.  It is as if people are so used to the techniques of the road runner, cartoon characters, the Simpsons and impossible things, that they no longer have the intelligence to question the most obvious of frauds.   Even the sizes of the holes left in the Towers barely accommodate the massive planes which are supposed to have slipped inside so cleverly and cleanly.

Of course, all the planes on 9-11 vanished in one way or another.

Eye-Witnesses to the First Fabled Airplane

Part D of the September Clues series then presents some of the original eyewitnesses on the five major news networks.  All five networks had first hand eye-witnesses of the first 'fabled airplane' handily on the phone with four minutes of the first explosion—"virtually all of whom were news media professionals."

CNN live featured Sean Murtagh, the vice president of finance and a CNN producer, online at 8:50 am after the explosion at 8:46.

"I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be cruising er slightly lower than normal altitude over New York City and it appeared to crash into, I don't know which Tower it is, but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade Centre Towers.   … It was a jet, er, it looked like a two engine jet, er, maybe a 737.  … a large passenger commercial jet … "

Notice that Sean was unsure of which Tower this fabled airplane has crashed into but he describes where it hit in the tower—in the middle.  Was Sean unaware of which tower was which even though living in New York?

Fox News, a few minutes after the first strike, had on-line one of the producers of "Fox Report," Owen Moogan, on the scene:

I am on the roof of my building which is about five blocks to the south of the world trade centre and I am looking right now at the World Trade Center.  There is a massive gaping hole, er on the second Tower.  It's unbelievable to look at, there's a massive hole

Host:  It looks something like out of a movie. There is a huge hole in the side of Tower number One, (the host correcting Owen as to what Tower has been hit.)

Owen:  Tower One.  (as if repeating to himself so as to remember)

Host: Owen, your apartment is just a few blocks from it.  Did you hear anything?

Owen:  I was lying in bed, ah, and all of a sudden I heard what sounded like, er, a plane or something coming extremely low and then we just heard this shattering explosion, I came to the roof and … (cut off)

Owen is supposedly looking at the towers from his rooftop, but makes a mistake as to what Tower has been hit.  Could he really live five blocks away from the Towers and not know how to distinguish the two even when he is supposedly looking at them?  Further, when the host corrects him, Owen repeats it to himself out loud—I would say so as to remember what he had forgotten.

The next clip is of Senior ABC Producer Mark Obenhaus, of the "Seeing is believing" show, who has apparently seen 'the incident.'

Um, well I was leaving my house to go to work and I walked down the street to go to the subway.  I was at the corner of Franklin and West Broadway, and as I was approaching the subway, a tremendous roar, er, went over my head and I looked up immediately, and it was a plane, um, and much, lower than I have ever seen a plane in lower Manhattan.  And it was a large plane, I couldn't (cough) identify it as anything specific, except that it was a commercial jet certainly. Um and it, it, my eyes followed it because this is approximately fifteen blocks from the world trade centre and it, it just slammed right into it and it was completely engulfed by the building.  It was extraordinary.  No wings flew off.  Nothing like that.  It just went directly in creating this cavern like hole.  It reminds you of the worst kinds of effects in movies, but you are reassured that you are watching a movie … that it's an effect, but this is not.

Mark then leaves shortly to 'work the story.'  Don't worry Mark the plane was an illusion too, although the explosion and hole were not.  It is interesting that Mark describes the airplane, noting that "It just went directly in creating this cavern like hole. "    It certainly was peculiar how that plane was so completely engulfed as Mark notes, as if produced by movie effects and he is seeing this from fifteen blocks away unobstructed by the buildings of the city!

Such a witness is vital to immediately beginning to create the myth of how an airplane actually went into the building, lock, stock and barrel, like a movie effect and it conveniently disappears from view.

Back then to CNN, where Dr. Jay Adlersberg is online, a medical reporter for ABC's Eyewitness News, who was also downtown at the time.

I am actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Centre from about half the building up to the top, and about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, er, a small plane, I, it looked like a propeller plane came in from the west, and um, about twenty or twenty five stories below the top of the centre, it disappeared for a second and then exploded, um, behind a water tower so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Centre.

Now we have a small plane, perhaps a propeller plane.  Again we find such unusual wording, as "it was very visible that a plane had come in … and appeared to crash."

Another first hand witness was Mark D. Birnbach, a FOX TV employee.  The Host opens by asking Mark if he was able to see any markings on the airplane:

Yea, there was um, there was definitely a blue logo, it was like a circular logo on the front of the plane, towards the, definitely towards the front.  Um.  It definitely did not look like a commercial plane.  I didn't see any windows on the sides and, as far as I knew, when I saw it coming down, I was like, well LaGuardia (the airport) is pretty far away and that plane is really slow, and er definitely it looked very low, and um, I am completely panicked.  I am freaking out.  I can't believe what I just saw.

Most of these so-called first hand witnesses have peculiar elements in their comments, not only the er's and um's, disjointed sentence structure and repeating elements.  Mark says the logo was "on the front of the plane, towards the, definitely towards the front."    Mark is describing something different from the last witness, "definitely not a commercial plane. " Note also he describes not seeing "any windows on the sides," as though one could see both sides at once!  He does not say that he couldn't see any windows on the side of the airplane, but on the 'sides.'

The problem for such scripted witnesses, in my view, is that they were trying to describe what they haven't really seen but they know approximately what they were supposed to have seen or to report.

Further, it is fine for the news networks to air somewhat conflicting stories and then to resolve the cognitive dissonance produced in viewers over time, by coming to a mutual agreement and story line.  However, even in these first hand eyewitness accounts, we have conflicting comments: that this fabled airplane was "a large passenger commercial jet," "a commercial jet certainly,"  "a small plane… like a propeller plane" and "definitely did not look like a commercial plane."

To me, none of these are credible witnesses.  Although I do think that Mark was freaking out and panicked and couldn't stay on the line, as he was realizing the nature of what he had become involved in and its seriousness.  Within the media itself, many witnesses so-called and others are only partially aware of what is unfolding, as part of the necessary compartmentalization and 'need-to-know' strategies routinely used in such staged false flag events.

The September Clues series then shifts focus and offers a clip from 41 seconds after the second fabled airplane strike.  The news anchor is explaining that "key suspects" come to mind, Osama boogie man Bin Laden and "who knows what."  This host then has on air another firsthand witness, Eric Shawn, a FOX TV terror expert and war correspondent, with connections inside the FBI.

Eric Shawn: I was walking down Fifth Avenue, er, which is close to our studios and I heard a jet, perhaps a 737 or a small airbus, er, flying low, unusually low over Fifth Avenue, making a right. I am not going to er say, I don't know, I don't have any reports on what kind of plane hit the world trade centre. But people looked up and it made a right toward the, toward the building.  John, what we just saw though, was obviously if that would be was a second aircraft that hit the,er, the, er southern Tower of the World Trade Centre.  That obviously raises the spectre of an intentional terrorist attack, here, if that is indeed what we are looking at. Er, I don't know what the reports say, what type of plane hit the, the Tower, but I did see a er a jet airliner that was fairly low.

This is again peculiar.  Eric reports hearing a jet, although he doesn't say he saw it, and then he seems to hear it go right. He describes it as 'making a right,' as if it were an automobile which can make a turn in seconds.  Of course, the fact of a second airplane raised the 'spectre of an intentional terrorist attack' and Eric was certainly the right man to have on live as an eye-witness.  As he is giving his report, Fox is listing some of Eric's areas of involvement in covering stories, including the 93 WTC bombings (involving the FBI), the Waco siege, TWA flight 800, the Anthrax Treat, and lastly, but most importantly the "hunt for Bin Laden."   O, how clever and cunning.

Of course, almost 10 years after 9-11 the FBI still have not issued an arrest warrant for Bin Laden, as no direct evidence of his involvement has ever been produced.  (Other than videos of Bin Laden's confession later proven to have been faked by the media with a poor look alike!) But there was Eric Shawn conveniently witnessing the plane somehow, or at least seeing people look up and then summing up that there must be a terrorist attack going on.  Eric is a "specialist" probably from a Rockefeller think-tank, who happens to specialize in the "hunt for Bin Laden."   This is all so phoney and obviously pre-scripted and staged.

September Clues then features additional clips of witnesses of the fabled airplanes, including:

Stewart Nurick- a younger upcoming Jewish waiter/intern at CBS Early Show, who states: "I was literally, I was waiting a table, and I literally saw a, it seemed to me to be a small plane, I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it bounced off the building. Then I heard, a, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top, and then the smoke seemed to simmer down, and it just um, you know, a lot of smoke was coming out, and then, that's pretty much the extent of what I saw."

Stewart was 'literally' waiting on a table and then he 'literally saw' a plane.  Is Stewart seeing these things on paper or in real life?   Then he sees a 'small plane' which 'bounced off the building' and he seems not to see the gaping hole.   Stewart is mistaken in numerous elements of his report.  When one sees an airplane supposedly at fairly close view, why would it "seem to be a small plane?"

Don Dahler, ABC Reporter and War correspondent, on Good Morning America, reports:

I am about four or five blocks, just North of the World Trade Centre, and, er, about ten, I would say ten minutes ago, fifteen minutes ago, there was a loud sound, that, I can only describe it, it sound like a missile, not an airplane. Then there was a loud explosion and immediately lots of screaming out on the streets.  Er, And I don't want to er, cause any speculation, but that's the only way I could describe the sound. …

This eye-witness suggests the possibility of a missile attack, instead of an airplane attack.

Jim Friedl, an unidentified unknown individual, provides a key element to the creation of the disappearing airplane myth.  He is more definite in what he says and saw, especially how the plane "went directly inside the building."   Jim is featured on CNN on Good Day America and left unidentified:

It was pretty heavily banked, er, maybe 45 degrees, I mean, hard to tell.  It was kind of unremarkable because you do see planes fly through here.  It was just a large plane, like a 727, and, er, that's the only reason that I kept looking and it went directly right into the building.  I thought, you thought, it was going to keep following the river and keep on going, but it didn't.

The Host then questions: Now, after the plane struck the building, from your vantage point, it apparently went directly inside.

Jim responds immediately and with authority: That's correct.

This is obviously scripted and peculiar, not possibly believable.  Was there really nothing remarkable about a large airplane banking so sharply in downtown New York.  And then, Jim describes it as just entering "directly right inside the building" as if there is nothing remarkable about that, but he is more concerned with his prior expectation, which  had been that it would just fly up the river.  Obviously, Jim was playing a role and planting the seed idea of the plane just popping handily into the building.  He was more authoritative and professional than poor old Mark who was freaking out.

Dick Oliver, a reporter from the street, is on line with NY Good Day and provides another angle on the day's events for Fox.

Jim, I don't know if we have confirmed it, if this was an aircraft, or, to be more specific some people said they thought they saw a missile. But I don't know how people could differentiate but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.

Yes, Dick is playing this exact role—to "leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack."   That is why Dick reports people saying it sounded like a missile, to leave open this possibility, just as the waiter, who was literally waiting, kept open the possibility of a small plane bouncing off the building.  It is fine for initial reports of an event to have such incongruities and such, which creates cognitive dissonance and uncertainty in the public's mind about what is happening.  The TV media can then present its final formative conclusions and people gloss over all the inconsistencies and absurdities of what they were actually being told along the way.  The conspiracy theorists can debate over whether it was an airplane or a missile, instead of layered images in TV video studios and a pool of scripted witnesses.  Yes, a passenger airplane flew directly right into the building and disappeared from view.  The formative conclusions of the media can resolve the dissonance in viewers, as when our terrorism expert pops up 15 seconds after the second fabled airplane to start planting the seeds or memes in the public's mind that they are under attack by Muslim extremists.  And Eric is an authority of course, an expert on "the hunt for Bin Laden."

In the next moment, Dick is immediately corrected by news anchor, Jim Ryan, who explains:

All, I must say that, er, we have an eyewitness who said it was a large plane, that crashed first, and, then, as we were watching the live picture here at the studio, we saw a plane crash into, crash into the other Tower of the World Trade Centre.  And again, let's, er, just to be sure, "There it is. The plane went right through the other tower of the World Trade Centre.

While Jim Ryan is saying this, CNN is replaying the original clip of the 'nose out shot,' but it is obscured by their banner so that you can't see anything to confirm an airplane.  Your news media can tell you what you are seeing without even showing it!

The next clip is of Jane Derenowski, an MSNBC producer, who claims to have seen the first plane, which she describes:

Well, it looked, it wasn't a Cesnna or anything like that. It was a larger plane, a mid-sized plane and we could hear it very low, and, er …  (trails off on September Clues)

Next, is Elliot Walker, an NBC News Producer, a term most appropriate—a news producer, and several others—as witnesses to one or both of the airplane crashes.

The September Clues series then provides a listing of those eye-witnesses who reported hearing and/or seeing one or more of the fabled airplane crashes and who told their tall tales live on TV.  These included:

Sean Murtagh – CNN Vice President of Finance

Mark Obenhaus, -- ABC Senior Producer

Owen Moogan—Fox Senior Producer

Sid Bedingfield—CNN Executive Vice President

Richard Davis—CNN Executive Vice President new Standards and Practices

Rose Arce—CNN Producer

Jeanne Yurman—CNN reporter

Winston Mitchell—ABC/CNN Producer

Eric Shawn—FOX TV Senior Correspondent

Jennifer Oberstein—Ritz-Carleton Hotels/NBC tour operator

Jane Derenowski—MSNBC Producer

Elliot Walker—NBC NEWS reporter

Theresa Renaud—wife of CBS producer Jack Renaud (the Early Show)

Mark D. Birnbach – FOX TV employee

Mike Walter – USA Today Reporter

Joel Sucherman—USA Today.com Editor

Steve Anderson—USA Today, dir. of communications

Jim Friedl (unidentified)

This is quite a listing of corporate media executives, producers and reporters.  The only exceptions are Jennifer Oberstein, who worked for a Hotel associated with NBC tours, and Jim Friedl, an unknown, a defining witness to the fabled airplane disappearing into the building.

Of course, the September Clues series is only presenting brief samples of material from media coverage and it is most certain that if we could access and analyze all the clips and tall tales of the day, we would likely find all kinds of additional anomalies.  Every witness seems fraudulent one way or another in what they are reporting, in their language and details.  Certainly, the 'fabled airplanes' were eye-witnessed live on-line that fateful day of 9-11 by quite a clan of primarily media insiders, news reporters and producers, some on the way up we might say.

The eye-witness testimony to the quantum airplanes, which are large, midsized, small and like a missile and entering directly into the building, while bouncing off it, and all such non-sense, simply cannot stand as credible documentation for a fabled airplane.  It is much more likely that it is all contrived, intentionally deceptive so as to create conflicting stories, but then to arrive at the official account to be illustrated over and over again with the best bits of the video image pools.  The witnesses are simply not credible in their descriptions, their speech and stories. Of course, the media's attitude is likely that all the uncertainties will simply be forgotten and left for the conspiracy theorists, who can argue over missiles, airplanes or what type of craft it was.

17 Seconds

Part E of the September Clues series (which begins at 41.45 seconds into the 1.31 hours) is entitled 17 Seconds and it features an analysis of strange bleeps and sound markers on different network sound tracts, which suggest co-ordinated timing between studios.  There are several instances of this.

The 17 seconds refers to the time between the official 9/11 commission time of the second explosion established at 9:03:11 and the seismic data which recorded the explosion at 9:02:54.  The film editor suggests that the TV airing time was thus delayed by 17 seconds compared with the real events—a 'safeguard buffer' between the actual events and the TV airing.

All five networks had synchronized audio clues which occurred 17 seconds before the moment of the explosion in the South Tower.

The first of these shown occurs during the ABC coverage with guest Dan Dahler online.  It occurs just as Dahler is saying "we're seeing," which is 17 seconds before the visible explosion in the South Tower.  Don is 'on scene' and describing the fire and smoke from the first explosion in the North Tower.  One wonders why there is no background noise from Don's phone or evidence of the explosion in the South Tower.  After the explosion, the TV host states, "That looks like a second plane," which the audience has just seen on the video.  However, Dan Dahler actually states, "I did not see a plane go in, that just exploded."   Of course, Dan did not likely know what was unfolding and naively described his actual ongoing perception of the scene.  He was there and he did not see an airplane, but only an explosion.  The staff at the ABC network were able to see an airplane however, along with the viewing audience.

The film editor then compares the ABC video of the 17 seconds before the explosion with the FOX TV footage.  Fox has a 'audio surge' which matches the ABC's Twin Beep in synch, duration and spacing.  He then compares ABC & CBS, which are sharing at times, offset camera feeds, and the CBC audio surge again matches the ABC twin beep in synch, duration and spacing.  However, the video streams are off about 3.6 seconds.   Next, the ABC coverage is compared with CNN, where again the images and cues are offset by 2.5 seconds, but both again have audio clues at the beginning and end of a 17 second timeframe.   In this case, there are synchronized 'snap sounds' at the ends of these clips.  NBC then has 'a glitch' at the beginning of the 17 seconds, which glitch is caused by sloppy video editing.  ABC and NBC then have identical 'slam' sounds at the end of the seventeen second period.

To explain these peculiar observations and the coincidental sound surges or sound markers at the beginning and ends of these clips, the film editor asks if indeed ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN AND NBC were all five linked up.   Or, of course, these could be multiple coincidences for the coincident theorists, but it suggests something far more sinister.  The film editor asks, "Was the 9/11 TV coverage run from a single Command Center? "  Certainly, given the complexity of the hoax perpetrated on 9-11, this was likely so.

Part E of September Clues then notes that the reason given for the BLACK OUT of all the local TV stations was because the antennae were on the World Trade Centre.   This knocked all local live TV coverage off the air.   The editor concludes: "No airplanes were highjacked on 9/11, ONLY AIRWAYS."

September Clues then plays a "curious audio incident on Fox TV."  While the show is ongoing, a side communication is clearly heard.  A man's voice asks, "Grade 9, Chopper 5, anyone on?"   Chopper 5 refers to the Fox News Helicopter 5.  The Grade E-9 is a US Navy ranking of a "Master-Chief Petty Officer."   This segment ends with the editor's comment: "Let's leave it at that."

Part E next illustrates the multicoloured backgrounds and videos broadcast on TV that day in New York, which was a bright sunny day.  The corporate media TV images differed in tones as the white balance and colour settings were so varied.   High-end equipment can maintain the natural colours of scenes, however not on that fateful day.  Instead, the scenes range from yellowed, to grey, purple, and blue hazes.  The TV networks had different colours despite having similar vantage points.  Five different networks, five or more different colours.

The ABC "international shot" of the second fabled airplane, shown to international audiences, clearly presents phoney images.  Firstly, the edge of the Tower about to be impacted is artificial and unnatural looking, with a partial visible edge extending along the length of the building.  The airplane image is somewhat distinct in shape, showing basic structures, but it is a most unnatural solid dark object with no markings or differentiations.  It is really quite a ridiculous image of an artificial airplane.  Further, it is on a blue and grey hazy background with no resolution of the city or skyline behind.  When this image of the airplane meets the artificial edge of the Tower, on particular frames there is still a slight line of light between the Tower and the airplane, even though the plane is supposed to simply be going into the Tower.  At one point, the nose of the plane is cut off when it meets these edges.  This is an obvious fake.  The airplane image and the Tower images are somehow on different portions of the screen or on different layers.  This is a ridiculously phoney image of a fabled airplane.   Another version of the same shot has a dark border along the edge of the towers, perhaps to obscure the details noted above.  However, this other version of the international shot has the airplane causing pixel bleed on the Tower as it is supposedly passing behind.  These are not even good fakes.

Of course, why would there be any need for any fakery if there were indeed real airplanes.  Also, if we have an image of a fake airplane hitting the South Tower, we do not see any other evidence of a real airplane on that video, or a missile.  How anyone could believe that the ABC international shot is not phoney is beyond me.  Of course, most people don't care for evidences anymore, as they simply parrot what they are told on their favourite TV's.   An international audience of 200 million views were shown this ABC international shot through EuroNews.  The film editor notes, "Overall however, most shots betray unmistakable signs of tampering."  Of course, none of this would have been necessary if there had been a legitimate airplane.  Further, some of the unusual effects of the masked edges may have been used to obscure the explosions going off within the building, or according to the film editor, to mask a possible missile.  One way or another, the images are clearly doctored with unusual features needing to be accounted for.

The film editor then illustrates one of his own productions of a bat-mobile, with Bat Man and Robin passing behind the Tower, just as the plane was shown to do in the corporate media footage.  He actually does a better job than the former, with no pixel bleed.

Part E ends on the note, Turn it Off, referring of course to your own favourite TV.  The images of both the planes and the Towers are doctored in multiple ways.

Forged Out—The Amateur Videos

Part F of the September Clues series then examines additional 'amateur videos' and provides some information about the people who submitted these to the authorities.  The film editor suggests that the 'live shots' were likely not to be replayed too frequently, all 15 seconds worth, but afterwards, the media released other versions of their own shots in addition to a rash of amateur videos which emerged after the event.  These provided the most dramatic views of "the airplane crash."  However, these show all kinds of media manipulation and anomalies.

The first EVAN FAIRBANKS shot is taken from below the South Tower, framed with the upper profile of a passer-by in the foreground, who looks up towards the Tower in the clip just after the explosion.  The airplane is more naturally coloured, light and grey and fairly distinct.  The airplane slides ever so nicely into the building without any seeming resistance or evidence of breaking apart.  This clip produced a dramatic "shock and awe" TV experience.

The film editor then begins to examine the possibility of there having been a missile and how it might have been edited out and a plane inserted.  However, personally, although I do not consider the 'missile possibility' completely disproved, I consider it highly unlikely and unnecessary.  What is simplest is simply to have explosions and create the varied airplane images over recordings of the actual explosions from different angles.   Anyway, the editor suggests this first clip could have been created in a four step process: 1. Tower shot with real missile strike is filmed from a suitable location; 2. foreground street scenery is composed; 3. Tower shot is inserted with a reacting man to add some 'life' to the scene.  September Clues  shows the layered edges existing between the foreground and the Tower background, wherein the hues and lighting effects betray tampering; and 4. the superposition of an airplane image over the supposed missile.   It is then shown how the plane enters the building so smoothly with no deceleration on impact.

The producer of this video was amateur Evan Fairbanks of KSK Studios, whose vita describes his talents as "Creative programming solutions for television, interactive and multimedia;" certainly, a lucky man to have on the spot.

The second amateur video is credited to Luc Courchesne, a Canadian 3D artist.  This is another dramatic video from right underneath the airplane and the image of the plane is quite distinct, although its wings appear to be at impossible angles.  By the time this plane hits the building, it is almost completely upside down and then one of its wings disappears from view even before there is yet a hole in the Tower.  Then it seems to have a quarter wing section as it slips inside.  The left wing then disappears inside, but still no hole and no wing!  Mr Luc Courchesne happens to be the inventor of the "Panoscope 3E", a virtual reality program.  Somehow, Mr Courchesne's program must allow for such quantum tunnelling effects, whereby an airplane wing can disappear into a building without obstruction.  This is all quite clever but again quite ridiculous.

The next "Hezarkhani shot" has another dramatic shot of the fabled airplane, again with a fairly distinct airplane image, although its left wing also disappears before impact.  Frames of this picture also show synchronized explosions occurring above and below the right wing as the plane enters into the building.   In fact, there is evidence of multiple charges synched with the strike on both Towers.

The series then reviews additional 'amateur videos' and the 'alleged authors.'  The first was filmed by Clifton Cloud of Scharff Weisberg' audio-video services;  then by Scott Myers, a video/software engineer for ABC TV-US Navy; Naka Nathaniel, of the New York Times, a multimedia journalist;  Devin Clark, a motion graphics animator at MTV/Comedy Central;  Sean Adair, of Adair Film & Video Productions, a "consultant in the arcane arts of digital media and visual effects;"  Kelly Guenther, a Pulitzer-winning NYT photojournalist;  Robert Clark, a photographer for National Geographic;  Jennifer Spell, a director/producer at SPELLBOUND pictures;  Gulnara Samoilova, Associated Press photo retoucher, shown with Mayor Guiliani; and Thomas Nilsson, photojournalist for Norweigian populist tabloid "Yerdens Gang,"   All of these shots, each of which is shown, are credited to professionals in the photo/video/newsmedia industry!  All contributed to the image pool to be drawn upon by the TV and printed media sources.

Dr. K. Kahleel, in his article Brainwashed: Proof of No Airplanes on 9-11, provides interesting notes on some of these 'men on the street' who were the sources for some of the so-called amateur videos.  Dr. K. notes:

When videographer and Israeli diamond dealer and Zionist mole Michael Hezakhani was asked how he could have possibly created a plane video and where and when he took it, he said, "Call my lawyer."

When videographer Scott Freeman was asked repeatedly about the nature of his video, he said, essentially, "I don't want to talk about it anymore."

When the pro-Zionist documentary film maker, Scott Meyers, who makes videos which demonize Muslims, was asked about his incriminating video, he responded, "A guy gave it to me, can't remember his name."

When videographer Evan Fairbanks was asked about the nature of his supposed video, he said it looked "surreal," like a fame made in Hollywood."

What more can one say.  The corporate media and Hollywood do indeed have all kinds of resources to perpetrate exactly the public deception of such 'fabled airplanes.'

Part F then examines three different shots all variations of a "common matrix," by three different authors: Wolfgang Staehle, Robert Clark and Tina Cart.  These three shots are from the same perspective, but in each case, the first provides the widest angle view, then the second, and third, but all from the same perspective but framed differently!

The film editor then includes these comments on screen:  All alleged authors of the "AMATEUR" shots would be suitable scapegoats in the event that any of those forgeries were exposed.  All could credibly be blamed for having sought fame or fortune – and the case would be closed.  In fairness, there was one exception to the rule. His name is PAVEL HLAYA, a construction worker from Czechoslovakia."  A clip then shows Pavel on an ABC news show on September 11, 2003.  He is introduced as an individual who happened to film both airplanes striking the Towers on that day, although he had not realized it for over six months.  The first shot was a distant view of an object in the sky before the first strike and the second of his shots was from close under the Towers.  However, as it happens, in this strange universe, his 2nd shot is a re-edit of the Hezarkhani shot, although with different foreground buildings!  Again, the Towers have the same unusual frame edges on them.

The editor then provides a quotation from the site www.mediacen.navy:mil/vi/comcam.htm. "Totally imagery control of any terrain is a primary sector of modern warfare."   Of course, most common folk could not imagine anything so monstrous and deceptive.   But the editor points out that "Fake broadcasting for war propaganda has several historical precedents.  Its purpose is to generate popular support for waging mean and unpalatable wars."  Of course, there were many reasons why the targets for 9-11 were as selected.  Not only was this a false flag terrorist event to whip up the frenzy and patriotic fervour of the public, but it was also to get rid of those monstrous buildings.  Previous applications for controlled demolitions of the Two Towers had been rejected and the city was demanding the removal of the asbestos from the buildings, a massive and expensive project.  9-11 events were also staged to destroy evidences at the at the Navel Accounting unit in the Pentagon and as held in Building 7 by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and CIA, on Wall Street crimes and racketeering.  There were diverse and multiple reasons why 9-11 unfolded as it did and how the media shaped the minds of the sleeping public as to the course of events.  Few people realize that the corporate media play active roles in staging, scripting and covering over the crimes of their masters.

Hoax for Export

Part G of September Clues begins at 1:01 and is ten minutes in length.  It includes varied subject matter and clips under the rubric of hoax for export.

The film editor opens section G with the comment:" We have seen how missiles were most likely used on 9/11" and that this raises two questions.  I would like to comment here again, that I do not agree with this suggestion and it is not established by the September Clues video and media analysis.  Certainly, there is more of a possibility of a missile than there was of an airplane, but neither are required if you have some video technicians, supportive actors and actresses, and planted charges.

Anyway, the first question is: What happened to the 4 airplanes and their passengers?  In fact, according to the Federal Aviation Association, Flight 93, which supposedly was downed in a hole in Shanksville, and Flight 175, which supposedly hit the South Tower, were only deregistered on September 28th of 2005.

Of course, we have reviewed over a dozen of the varied videos of something, a quantum airplane exploring different flight paths, colours, shapes and sounds, simultaneously, and then hitting the South Tower.  And now, we find out that this fabled airplane was not decommissioned until four years latter.  Further, it turns out that no airport logs exist for the other 2 airplanes, Flight 11 which was supposed to have flown into the North Tower to disappear inside, so nice and cozy;  and Flight 77 which was the flight to 'fold back it wings' before disappearing into the hole at the Pentagon.  These flights are not even recorded in the airport logs of the day!  This is a somewhat remarkable fact.  The film then questions, what happened to their passengers, but if none of the planes were high jacked, then something else must have been done or arrangements made.

The film doesn't explore this issue but moves on to ask:  Didn't people see a large plane from street level?  The answer provided is that "SOME DID (a small minority" and a web address at www.checktheevidence.com  (911/NYT9-11AccountsAnalysis).   There is some video evidence of fly-by jets in the area and several witnesses reported a missile.

The international shot shown most around the world originated from the Live ABC  broadcast.  This is a ridiculously phoney shot of an airplane and it has the anomalies along the edges of the Towers—the mask edges, as they are called.   This forgery came in varied versions and on one, there was a pitch black band running the full length of the Tower, which is most unnatural.  When the airplane image hits this band, you see pixel bleed caused by the airplane image on the edge of the Tower.  Quite absurd.  This black mask edge version was actually shown in Japan on the day of 9-11.

September Clues then critically examines the Naudet brothers' videos.  These two French Canadian videographers, Jules and Gedeon, managed to capture both impacts of the fabled airplanes.  In fact, it is the only video of the first impact, other than the very distant image which turned up years later on Pavel's camera.   Their most famous shot of the first airplane is shown briefly but without much discussion.  A number of features of this video are somewhat peculiar.  Firstly, the fireman walking across the scene looks up towards the sky as if hearing something, but then he simply looks back down again.  Of course, in a real life emergency situation, such a dramatic airplane spotting in downtown New York is bound to engage an observer's attention.  Secondly, it is very odd how the film maker is able to zoom in on the plane and follow it into the Tower, as though he knew all along what its path was supposed to be. Of course, the airplane in this video is also of very poor quality and it also enters swiftly into the building with no obvious obstruction or break up.

The Naudet brothers' video of the second impact caught only an instant of a dark shape moving towards the South Tower on the opposite side of the building from their vantage point.  This is a very disjointed clip as the camera dances around before and after the impact.  Further, there are 3 unexplained cuts in the footage of the dramatic moments.  By comparing their video with other sequences of the event, the film editor is able to determine that almost 30 frames are deleted.  Further, their video shows the north face of the South Tower as completely white, on the shaded side of the building, as it is seen in other clips.  This is clearly a fraud.

These video fabrications were the very core of the 9/11 TV hoax.  The corporate news media has proactively supported this global scam bred in rogue power circles.  Beyond the clear evidence of video doctoring, a close scrutiny of the 9/11 TV archives reveals a consistent pattern of FOREKNOWLEDGE and SCRIPTED NEWSCASTS.

Part E then looks as some of the foreign footage which suggests such foreknowledge and scripted newscasts.  The first on BBC world has a newscaster lecturing Great Britain on the physics of the buildings collapse, claiming wrongly that the exterior walls of this building supported its weight, instead of interior columns.  The airplane crashes were thus able to weaken the buildings enough to cause their collapse.

Next is the most famous video of the BBC Live broadcast where the collapse of Building 7 is being reported, while the building itself is still visible and standing in the background.  Of course, Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and no steel framed building in the history of humanity had ever previously fallen in under 6 seconds into its own footprint, due to 'fires' in this case.  Reporter Jane Standley is describing the collapse of the building even before it has occurred—of course, because she was scripted as were all the fine actors and actresses in this tragic-comedy.  In fact, this was 20 minutes before its collapse—a feat for which of course, BBC has never had to account.  This is similar to how other reporters describe the second Tower as collapsing before it showed any evidence of such.  The Tower is described as in a state "of near collapse," before anything like this is visible.  Another reporter describes the Second Tower as "almost collapsing there" while it is still standing perfectly erect.

The film script reminds us that "we live in an Orwellian world."

Part H (1:11) begins with a collage of 9/11 shots with all the discoloured backdrops and artificial scenes put to music.  It then shows varied shots of the Towers against different backdrops, but where the backdrops seem to move with respect to the building.  Obviously, different kinds of image layering have being used.  Such is evident in varied shots, where parts of the surrounds are whitened out, while others maintain some realistic details.  It is as if the scenes were composed with different foregrounds and backgrounds being added as layers in the final results.

They then demonstrate how even the collapse sequences appear to have been tampered with.   The editor notes: "The variety of the video trickery was designed to bewilder any comparative analysis of it."  This certainly applies to some of what were supposed to have been helicopter shots, which show numerous kinds of anomalies, suggesting even the use of digitally simulated buildings.  All quite a hodgepodge to be sure.

The Epilogue

Finally, the Epilogue, addresses five major questions.  The first concerns the eyewitnesses on the streets of Manhattan.  As it happens, the vast majority of witnesses did not report a large passenger plane.  September Clues then plays a sampling of such witnesses claiming to have seen the plane—all seemingly quite contrived and questionable, and then clips where the witnesses claimed to see a missile.

The second question asks: "What if someone had snapped a clear picture of a missile hitting the WTC?"  It is then noted that "all New York cell-phones blacked out on 9/11."  The official cause given was network overload.  No digital pictures then.  Secondly, as reported on Italian TV, police officer Michael Pappas recounted that during his call on duty within the first hours of 9/11, they entered a store which had developed films with people's names on in alphabetical order.  A sign they viewed, read "Pick up at September 11 at 10:00 AM."  The New York Police had been collecting people's film rolls in the early hours of the attack!  How clever of them.

The third frequently asked question concerns what caused those wide airplane shaped holes in the Towers?   The answer is suggested by varied videos which show synchronized explosions within the Towers.  This is evident in the clip of the first strike and in a number of clips of the second.

The forth frequently asked question, concerns where are the airplanes?   The video shows then parts of planes, supposedly, held at the Smithsonian Institute or as scattered on the street—but nothing substantive from any of the four sites.

Lastly, what about the families of the passengers?  Apparently 3 of the 4 flights were bound for the LAX, Los Angeles airport, but "It is a FACT that grieving families and friend never showed up at the LAX."  This could have included the friends and family of 221 passengers.  A reporter on scene at the LAX reports that such survivors were "beginning to trickle in," just at this moment, but none are evident within the newscast.  The announcer then notes that LAX was being evacuated and shut down except for emergency services.  Of course, there was no need to accommodate grieving families and friends.

posted by u2r2h at 4:47 AM