FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:00 pm    Post subject: September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo Reply with quote

Much has been made of the September Clues series (henceforth referred to as September Clueless, for good reason) by the re-invented No Planery splinter fringe group claiming it as a prime demonstrator of their new meme of 'Media Fakery'.

The elements concentrated on here are to clarify two major and contentious points.

Where ‘the missing backdrop’ of NYC went
and:
why the shots of the WTC2 second strike show a plane in one view but not the other.


The 'Media Fakery’ case is that the two camera views shown above are ‘virtually identical’, with the plane ‘inserted’ and the background 'removed' in the right hand frame.

However, closer examination reveals that the shots are far from identical.

The very low resolution (VHS tape copy?) Chopper 4 shots used in the comparisons made by September Clueless are taken from a minimum altitude of approx 1400 ft, (1500 ft if the chopper pilot was staying within NYC overflight regulations) as can be seen by the camera looking slightly down onto the 1362 ft high roof of the North Tower with its TV mast, and overlooking the WTC to view the Upper New York Bay area to the south west of Manhattan.

The only known practical way to look over something is to be viewing from a yet higher altitude.



The WNBC shot by contrast, is taken from the roof of the Rockefeller Centre - 850 ft high max. and home of WNBC studios - and is obviously from a lower elevation looking slightly above the horizontal plane at the damaged area 1200 ft up the North Tower.



Compare with this postcard and extract from the same known location showing the Empire State Building in the foreground and the twin Towers in happier days.

Note the green lines marking the relative positions of the roof levels which will be indicated again later.

As with the zoomed-in shot of WNBC’s 911 view, it can be noted that the city backdrop has also disappeared in the close-up.



As the red outlined area in the next photo, taken with a wider angle clearly shows, there is no ‘missing background’ – only sky could be the visible background in the well known zoomed-in horizontal shot of the plane's approach.



In conclusion, there is no case let alone evidence for 'Media Fakery' editing out the background.
WNBC’s camera angle and its content are perfectly logical and consistent.

Note that in the night time postcard shots above, a very slight gap is visible between the buildings, indicating that we are seeing the north faces (which are actually oriented north east) almost perfectly head on to within less than 2 degrees as in the WNBC 911 shots. Note also the red and yellow lines indicating the same spatial relationship of the Towers' roof lines.



The Chopper 4 shot is oriented differently, from both an altitude of approx plus 500 ft higher and also further to the east (by approx. 6 degrees relative to the Towers), as a comparative measurement of the visible sides of the Towers show.



As it is morning, the brightly lit faces of the Towers are to the east. In the Chopper 4 shot we can see 12 pixels of the East face, as compared to 2 pixels in the WNBC shot.
The angles of view are thus shown to be completely different in all three dimensions.



As the follow-on lo-resolution monochrome section from Chopper 4 that September Clueless 3 also shows, the plane’s approach from the south west can (just) be detected 10 seconds prior to impact due to the increased contrast in the black and white image.

Being small and round – like a ball – when viewed from head on (a B767 has a fuselage diameter of 15.5 ft) and seen from an initial distance 1.4 miles (calculated from the speed) travelling at approx 500 mph, it’s difficult to see the airliner against the dark land background and it gets completely lost over water before disappearing behind the Towers just after it passes Ellis Island, wholly due to the lo-resolution image source used.

The NBC shot on the other hand, being further west and from a lower altitude and with a lightened background provided by the sky, is able to capture the last seconds of the planes approach prior to impact from much closer in.

Illogically, September Clueless then superimposes the plane’s flight path from the hi-level Chopper 4 shot onto the WNBC lo-level shot, and then blithely advises that as two views of the Towers are ‘identical twins’ the difference in perceived flight paths proving some hypothetical missile actually hit the South Tower and the airliner image was ‘inserted’ by ‘Media Fakery’ afterwards.



Compounding its grossly misleading case, September Clueless then shows a much higher definition version of the Chopper 4 video from the WNBC archive (note the greater level of detail now visible on the North Tower TV mast) which does - would you believe it - in fact show the approaching plane, if blurred and in a not very photogenic fashion.

We are gravely advised - because Simon 'socialservice' Shack says so - that the ‘pencilled in ball’ we now see is an 'obvious fake' added afterwards.



Back in reality, the approach closely matches the official flight path as plotted by NIST in the diagram below, with the final curve at landfall as it crosses South Cove obscured by the Towers.



There is some mystery as to why Shack has used the lo-definition version of Chopper 4’s shots in his comparisons; whether it was used to mimic the image quality seen by the average TV viewer or to increase the brightness flaring of the sunlit faces of the Towers to make them seem more similar or to be otherwise deliberately obtuse and/or deceptive is unclear.

It may be that Simon Shack/Social Service is indeed the ‘Father Dougal’ of film making and really hasn’t got a clue about perspective, or it may be he is maliciously misleading those who have little in the way of functioning critical faculties and a tendency to believe whatever they see challenging ‘da official story’ as being gospel.

The subject of 911 – what happened and how it happened - is so serious and goes to the very top and heart of the world’s current power structure that I find I’m unable to easily accept the ‘idiot amateur’ explanation, particularly in view of the manner in which the absolute undiluted bullsh!t September Clueless unquestionably is, has been enthusiastically promoted from some quarters.

Make no mistake, No Plane Theory with its equally feeble minded cousins ‘Media Fakery’ and ‘Exotic Weapons’ are at the centre of the divisions tearing away at what can be termed ‘the 911 truth movement’ (no capitals). Every single 911 group from the Scholars on down to the various websites have seen nothing but division as a result of NPT and its offshoots.

And the biggest joke is that NPT adds nothing but a further layer of incredulity – yet claiming to be the very core! - whilst pretending it is presenting ‘conclusive evidence’.

To answer Simon Shack’s embedded question, yes by now I do feel my intelligence is being insulted.
And the insulting is being done by your pernicious, false and bogus little internet ‘films’.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Indubitably
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chek,

Firstly, congratulations on putting together an article that tries to reconcile two different televised broadcasts of the very same event.

Whether you’ve managed in the above post to get to the crucial issue (the flight path of the supposed ‘plane’ that supposedly hit the South Tower WTC on 9/11/2001) is of course THE great question. But let me try to play my part - so that the neutral reader can compare two rival views. I will answer you point by point before I summarise this matter for neutral readers.

I will quote your post to do this. And I will reply very soon.

Sincerely
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*sigh* NPT pwned again

Being as you've bothered yourself to produce this guide to the bleedin obvious Chek, its the least I can do to honour your efforts by spreading this around a little

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what you mean 2 helicopters cannot share the same airspace and film the exact same angle at the exact same moment??????

wow you learn something new everyday! and there i was believing the angles were identical in every way.

ah well, maybe i need to rethink about 'the angles are identical' claims that i was told about and believed without even thinking about it for myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eogz
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice post Chek, must have taken you a good while to get all you're info together. thanks for that.

Hope it is not all in vain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eogz wrote:
Nice post Chek, must have taken you a good while to get all you're info together. thanks for that.

agreed - an excellent analysis of one of the many deliberate deceptions in "September Clues".

it's really ironic that this series of films is allegedly about deception and fakery in the media, but is so full of deception and fakery itself.

what's also ironic is the way that the NPT crowd - who reckon that only they are capable of truly understanding what really happened on 9/11 - are so easily taken in by such obvious bs.

eogz wrote:
Hope it is not all in vain.

sadly, it will probably be in vain - because what invariably happens when the latest bogus claim by the NPTers is shown to be bogus, is that they just carry on repeating it....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
*sigh* NPT pwned again

Being as you've bothered yourself to produce this guide to the bleedin obvious Chek, its the least I can do to honour your efforts by spreading this around a little


If you do John, and you need a less ..er... confrontational title,
'A Rough Guide to the Bleedin' Obvious' would be very acceptable.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eogz wrote:
Nice post Chek, must have taken you a good while to get all your info together. thanks for that.


You're welcome eogz.
Like they say, 'it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it'.
Wink

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gruts wrote:
agreed - an excellent analysis of one of the many deliberate deceptions in "September Clues".
it's really ironic that this series of films is allegedly about deception and fakery in the media, but is so full of deception and fakery itself.


Bullseye. And as you point out, there are many, many more examples.

gruts wrote:
what's also ironic is the way that the NPT crowd - who reckon that only they are capable of truly understanding what really happened on 9/11 - are so easily taken in by such obvious bs.


Talk about not seeing the elephant in the room...

gruts wrote:
sadly, it will probably be in vain - because what invariably happens when the latest bogus claim by the NPTers is shown to be bogus, is that they just carry on repeating it....


Yep, that's the usual MO, and par for the course.

I sort of knew really that they wouldn't, but I had hoped the Andrew Johnsons and the Killtowns and all the other promoters would have had the guts to address the blatant dishonesty of what they have so eagerly promoted.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
my left bollock
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is complete GIBBERISH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

my left bollock wrote:
This is complete GIBBERISH


Yes Prole, we know you can't actually understand the argument

Lets try it this way, shall we?

NPT is a LIE

The people you trust are LIARS

They have been LYING to YOU

Its not to late to give them the FINGER

And stop being enslaved to a FRAUD

Do you remember, back in the day,when you could be a 9/11 Truth Campaigner without having to be in the thrall of decievers and fraudsters?

Like SOCIAL SERVICES, WEBFAIRY, FRED and KILLTOWN?

Oh, and that self aggrandising Chunt SEIGAL

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

my left bollock wrote:
This is complete GIBBERISH


No, this is but one small aspect of the gibberish being exposed.

September Clueless has many, many more.

Why not bring your all-time favourite, top-of-the-pile examples of 'meeja fakery' to the attention of the boys and girls here at 911UK, and I'm sure that between us we can show how you've been greatly rock'n'roll swindled.

If you dare...

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indubitably wrote:
Chek,

Firstly, congratulations on putting together an article that tries to reconcile two different televised broadcasts of the very same event.

Whether you’ve managed in the above post to get to the crucial issue (the flight path of the supposed ‘plane’ that supposedly hit the South Tower WTC on 9/11/2001) is of course THE great question. But let me try to play my part - so that the neutral reader can compare two rival views. I will answer you point by point before I summarise this matter for neutral readers.

I will quote your post to do this. And I will reply very soon.

Sincerely


I hope you don't mean you'll first have to check and confer with someone who has at least partial functions in working order.

I do hope Andrew is available at such short notice.

Come back soon.
Oh, wait a minute, that's right, you've left.
Several times now.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

further reading:

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gruts wrote:
further reading:

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf


Cheers gruts, some interesting stuff in there, such as the conversion from NTFS (30fps) to PAL (25fps) involving dropping every sixth frame.

Which reminds me of Arse Baker's stop-start flightpath and still/moving smoke theories, as the reverse of the process would also be true, i.e. inserting a duplicate image every sixth frame.

It's no wonder the chimps get confused so easily by those actively looking to con them.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still no reply from the NPT cheerleaders to this thread when I reproduced it elsewhere, so for good measure I stuck Gruts recent post at the bottom of it

gruts wrote:
Indubitably wrote:
I have examined the broadcast footage that is used by 'September Clues' and can confirm it IS a faithful copy of the broadcast footage.

OK let's take a look at one short segment of "september clues" and see if what you're saying is true - or, alternatively - if your powers of observation are not very good and/or you're lying.

incidentally - this post is mainly a summary of a previous attempt to discuss the subject with sidlittle, zoomer and mason free party - but they ran off to play happy families on killtown's NPT sockpuppet forum when they couldn't answer my questions.

part 1 of "september clues" starts off with some rather dubious analysis of a few seconds of CNN footage shown on 9/11 and is followed by a similar attempt to demonstrate media deception by CBS.

the unedited CBS clip from the internet archive is here (the part shown in "SC" starts about 1:40 into the clip)....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdkyk1up4ZA

....so it's interesting to compare the carefully edited segment that is shown in "SC" with what was actually shown on tv.

in "SC" - over an extremely grainy clip - we hear the CBS anchor talking to Theresa Renaud about the first plane crash, just before the second plane hits. she gives her location very precisely - in Chelsea at 8th & 16th - but what you don't know if you haven't seen the unedited footage is that what Ms Renauld actually says about her location is this:

"I am in Chelsea....at 8th and 16th....we are the tallest building in the area and my window faces south so it looks directly onto the world trade centre and I would say, you know, appoximately 10 minutes ago...."

in "SC", the words I've highlighted in bold have been edited out of the footage.

so, mr "indubitably" - did you somehow fail to notice this very obvious discrepancy while confirming that the footage in "SC" is a faithful copy of the broadcast footage?

and I wonder why those words were edited out? Rolling Eyes

"SC" then makes the unsubstantiated and somewhat ridiculous claim that she couldn't have heard the noise of the first impact from Chelsea, and also tries to make a big deal of the fact that she didn't actually see the first strike - although there's nothing remotely strange about this - because nobody except the perps was expecting the first plane, so it's hardly surprising that she heard it first and then went to look out of her window to see what had caused the sound that she'd heard.

then the second plane comes in while she's talking (and keep in mind the fact that "SC" doesn't want you to know - ie she's looking through her window in the tallest building in the area that faces south so it looks directly onto the world trade centre) - and she says "oh there's another one - another plane just hit"....

"SC" tries to make a really big deal out of this by pointing out that "no planes have been mentioned up to this point" during their edited clip. But again, this is a somewhat ridiculous point, given that CBS had been discussing nothing else but the first plane crash during the previous 10 minutes. The fact that a plane had hit the north tower is displayed prominently on the screen while the anchor and witness are talking and is presumably the reason why Ms Renauld was contacted by the station in the first place.

"SC" then makes the completely false claim that she couldn't have seen the plane hit the wtc from her location in chelsea. and it's done in a very sneaky way (that doesn't prove the point at all) - by showing a panoramic view of manhattan and panning slowly across from the wtc to chelsea and then claiming that she must have had superhuman vision to see it from so far away.

of course there's actually no reason why she couldn't have clearly seen the twin towers from Chelsea (less than 3 miles away from the wtc) - these were huge buildings visible from any number of vantage points throughout manhattan (and far beyond). so I wonder why the maker of "SC" didn't just show a view of what she would have seen if she'd looked towards the wtc from her specified location (at 8th and 16th, through a south facing window in a high rise building) on this beautiful september day? could it be because it would have included a clear view of the towers?

the following image of what she would have seen from her window was provided by "stilldiggin" (who is an NPT believer)....



....and it confirms that Ms Renauld did in fact have a good view of the towers from her window. if she was looking through her window she would have been able to see the second plane approach, based on this image (and common sense - if you've ever been to that area of NYC prior to 9/11).

as an aside - stilldiggin and others have used this interview (particularly her statement that the plane hit "right in the middle of the building") as "proof" that Ms Renauld is in fact just reading from a pre-arranged script on behalf of the perps, by saying that she would need x-ray vision to see an impact on the south side of the tower from a location to the north.

but while she obviously couldn't have seen the actual collision on the opposite side of the tower - if she was looking through her window and saw a plane arriving at high speed which disappeared behind the towers and then there was a huge explosion - I reckon it's entirely reasonable for her to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that the explosion was caused by the impact of the plane. Rolling Eyes

and based on stilldiggin's image, the huge fireballs caused by the impact could have looked like they were half way up the building from where she was looking (hence her "right in the middle" comment).

however, as well as removing the crucial segment of the dialogue, the maker of "SC" also edited out the second plane, which is visible in the unedited footage.

if you watch the unedited clip above, you'll see the edge of the plane in the bottom right hand corner of the screen as it approaches and disappears behind the towers prior to the impact (it's visible between 2:52 and 2:53). but if you watch the equivalent section of the edited clip shown in part 1 of "SC" you'll see that it has been removed.

so, mr "indubitably" - while confirming that the footage in "SC" is a faithful copy of the broadcast footage, did you fail to notice this as well?

and I wonder why the plane was edited out? Rolling Eyes

another thing to note is that a few seconds later in the interview (not shown in "SC") Theresa Renaud says that she thinks the plane definitely looked like a small plane and not a commercial jet. so if it's true that this interview was pre-arranged and scripted by the perps - then why would she contradict the idea that it was a 767?

in summary - this short segment of "SC" consists entirely of bogus claims and shows just how easy it is to take a small, carefully edited segment of broadcast footage and use it to deceive the viewer - something that "SC" is repeatedly guilty of.

isn't it amazing how a film that's apparently about deception and fakery in the media on 9/11 is so full of deception and fakery itself? how can you defend such a video, that is clearly guilty of the very thing it's allegedly trying to expose? and how can a video that lies to you so blatantly really be about truth?

Simon Shack (aka Social Service) says that:

"I, the lone author of September Clues, have not doctored any part of the broadcasts shown on TV. Please refrain from writing the most absurd thing you could ever write. Yes, that I would "doctor" those horrid TV videos is indeed out of the realm of possibility. I've done this research out of a sincere wish to diffuse my findings - with a good deal of personal sacrifice."

he's a liar and a fraud.

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still, to this day, can't watch the footage of the tower strikes without getting a shiver down my spine... I was awake in time to watch the 2nd strike live, and saw a shot of the plane coming in with just enough time to think "Oh s**t" before the broadcasters started talking about the explosion.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Indubitably
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does it matter that the high floors of this very address, 111 8th Avenue in New York, were being used as a television studio on that very day of 9/11/2001 ?

This IS the location though from which this supposed 'plane' eyewitness Ms Renaut was calling that live television station, right ?

Today this same address just happens to be the largest telecommunications centre in all of New York (one of the biggest in the world, in fact) and has several floors used by major media corporations such as Google and major television production companies. It had previously been home to the NY Port Authority.

Ms. Renaud is NOT a reliable witness as must now be very plain.

Furthermore, the skyline from 111 8th Avenue facing south (as Ms Renaud says) is remarkably like that which appears behind both CNN's televised broadcasts of the notorious Tower 7 collapse and also that from the BBC's Jane Standley.

Just coincidence, right ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indubitably wrote:
Does it matter that the high floors of this same address, 111 8th Avenue in New York, were being used as a television studio on that very day of 9/11/2001 ?

This IS the location though from which this supposed 'plane' witness Ms Renaut was calling that live television station, right ?


Yep, to show host Brian Gumble(?) who was at 59 and 5th.

Indubitably wrote:
Today this same address just happens to be the largest telecommunications centre in all of New York (one of the biggest in the world, in fact) and has several floors used by major media corporations such as Google and major television production companies. It had previously been home to the NY Port Authority.


Yep, this one:

"The property, the third largest building in New York City, is fast becoming one of the most important high-tech facilities in the world resting atop one of the main fiber optic arteries in New York City the Hudson Street Ninth Avenue "fiber highway." 111 Eighth Avenue houses sophisticated high tech telecommunications centers for major global telecommunications networks, including the busiest switching stations in the world. With a tenant list including BT Americas, Google, MCI, Sprint, Level 3, Qwest, NTT, XO Communications, Doubleclick, Cable & Wireless, it is widely acknowledged as New York City's most important carrier hotel.

http://www.111eighth.com/index.htm

A tall building with a southward view and company employees who witnessed the strikes

Indubitably wrote:
Ms. Renaud is NOT a reliable witness.


She sounded pretty compos mentis and clear about what she saw to me.
Mind you, Brian's sense of direction sounded worse than yours.

Indubitably wrote:
Furthermore, the skyline from 111 8th Avenue is remarkably like that which appears behind both CNN's broadcasts of the notorious Tower 7 collapse and also that from the BBC's Jane Standley.


Er...yeah. It's called 'looking at downtown Manhattan'.
Lotsa big buildings in what some call the worlds most unmistakeable skyline.

Indubitably wrote:
Coincidence, right ?


Of course, what else would you call all these people being in NYC on the very same day as the signature event of the 21st century.
Fate?

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Indubitably
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is of course that the actual whereabouts of the alleged plane 'eyewitness', Ms. Renaut, are not given. Who ever heard of an eyewitness whose precise location remains shrouded in mystery ? Yet It's the sort of thing that is a typical feature on 9/11/2001. amongst supposed 'eyewitnesses' to planes. Ms Renaut is talking from her office. Which office ? No answer. What floor ? No answer ? Is this the quality of 'plane witness' evidence ? Yes, as usual.

So, once again, a clear link to image manufacturers. The wife of a television producer, supposedly calling a television station live from a building housing a huge television studio !!!

And, as to the broadcasts of Aaron Brown of CNN and Jane Standley of the BBC on WTC 7 - a short analysis of both 'live' broadcasts they gave 'LIVE' show the background (the city skyline) to be added to their true location. In the case of Aaron Brown the skyline irregularities are ridiculously many. The 'bouncy castle' effects of entire districts of the New York skyline are blatant examples of fakery. Watch it !

Thus, Aarron Brown and Jane Standley (both posturing as broadcasting live to the world from a location near 111 8th Avenue in Chelsea) were, before the collapse of WTC 7 standing in a telecommunications centre somewhere else. Wonder where THAT was ?

Is Jane Standley of the BBC accountable for her coverage ? How about the BBC themselves ? Well, Standley ain't talking and the BBC, having for 6 years 'lost' much of their film on that day and don't want to talk about it.

This is the sort of attitude these broadcasters have to '9/11 truth'. It's a disgrace.

Where WAS Jane Standley ????? Where WAS Ms Renaut ?? Where WAS Aaron Brown ?

Fakery, manipulation, and downright lies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indubitably wrote:
The problem is of course that the actual whereabouts of the alleged 'eyewitness', Ms. Renaut, are not given. Who ever heard of an eyewitness whose location remains shrouded in mystery ? Yet t's the sort of thing that happens over and over on 9/11/2001 amongst 'eyewitnesses' to planes. Ms Renaut is claimed to be talking from her office. Which office ? No answer.


When, in the history of the world, has a TV show phone-in ever specified what exact room they are in? What they can see and report is the important thing. South facing and with a clear view of the action is all we needed to know. Does Room 34B add anything of significance? Of course not.

Indubitably wrote:
So, once again, a clear link to image manufacturers. The wife of a television producer, supposedly calling a television station from a television studio !!!


From an office closer to the events of interest and with a direct view is the relevant thing here.

Indubitably wrote:
And, as to the broadcasts of Aaron Brown of CNN and Jane Standley on WTC 7 - a short analysis of both 'live' broadcasts show the background (the city skyline) to be added to their true location. In the case of Aaron Brown the irregularities are ridiculously many. The 'bouncy castle' effects of entire districts of the New York skyline are blatant examples of fakery.


No it doesn't. Someone has told you, a person with all the technical understanding of a brick from what I can tell about you so far, that story and you 'believe' it.

Your toytown idea of media fakery is itself fake.
That isn't how the media misleads, despite what Webfairy's and Fred's dishonest and febrile sci-fi imaginings may lead you to all too readily believe.

The issue of where Jane S got the pre-collapse warning from is a separate and interesting story in itself.

Indubitably wrote:
Thus, Aarron Brown and Jane Standley (both posturing as broadcasting from a location near 111 8th Avenue in Chelsea were, in fact, broadcasting minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 from a telecommunications centre somewhere else. Wonder where THAT was.


Somewhere equipped with state of the art communications technology and available satellite links maybe? Although I'd guess that every South facing room with a window was at a premium, with probably every international media outlet looking to get their local reporter's mug in the shot of the day.

Where else should they be broadcasting from - the local leisure centre?
Did you imagine they were reporting from their insurance broker's office or something and now feel betrayed that they might have been using professional facilities?
Oh my God! Whatever next?

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Indubitably
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, the testimony of Ms Renault cannot be compared to that of a normal caller. She was related to a media executive and was reporting from a film studio building on an event which is very much open to debate and discussion. 6 years later we want to know from exactly WHERE she was making that call. Isn't that a reasonable request in view of the fact that she originally called about the FIRST 'plane', right ? Can we, 6 years later, establish her precise whereabouts. Otherwise we are entitled to disqualify her. A witness who does not give her exact location for an eyewitness event is a nonsense.

Secondly, (as can easily be shown) the locations of Aaron Brown of CNN and Jane Standley of BBC have NEVER been divulged despite 6 whole years having passed since that tragic day. Here too are further examples of reporters NOT giving us their exact location.

Can anyone tell us why the penthouse on WTC 7 bounces up and down in CNN's 'live' broadcast by Aaron Brown ? Or why entire streets of buildings behave like 'bouncy castles' ?

Can anyone tell us from which studio Jane Standley made her infamous broacast to BBC News in London.

NO ANSWERS - THE NORMAL LIES AND EVASION.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indubitably wrote:
Well, the testimony of Ms Renault cannot be compared to that of a normal caller. She was related to a media executive and was reporting from a film studio building on an event which is very much open to debate and discussion. 6 years later we want to know from exactly WHERE she was making that call. Isn't that a reasonable request in view of the fact that she originally called about the FIRST 'plane', right ? Can we, 6 years later, establish her precise whereabouts. Otherwise we are entitled to disqualify her. A witness who does not give her exact location for an eyewitness event is a nonsense.

Secondly, (as can easily be shown) the locations of Aaron Brown of CNN and Jane Standley of BBC have NEVER been divulged despite 6 whole years having passed since that tragic day. Here too are further examples of reporters NOT giving us their exact location.

Can anyone tell us why the penthouse on WTC 7 bounces up and down in CNN's 'live' broadcast by Aaron Brown ? Or why entire streets of buildings behave like 'bouncy castles' ?

Can anyone tell us from which studio Jane Standley made her infamous broacast to BBC News in London.

NO ANSWERS - THE NORMAL LIES AND EVASION.


The only lies and evasions going on here are your frantic and futile handwaving attempts that fool nobody to distract attention from your inability to provide any examples of the 'media fakery' that your cult likes to imagine is a proved case, when all you have are badly concocted and poorly faked attempts after the event to illustrate it.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indubitably wrote:
NO ANSWERS - THE NORMAL LIES AND EVASION.

thanks for providing us with such a precise summary of your contribution to the forum to date. you do keep shooting yourself in the foot don't you?

come back when you can answer some of the questions you've repeatedly ducked and can actually prove something....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

September clues= debunked load of cobblers
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White wrote:
September clues= debunked load of cobblers


I'm not sure what the difference is, clinically, between being in denial or being too thick to absorb the information, but mr indubitably is still claiming September Clueless as a fine example of media fakery even today.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11854

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
my left bollock
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What hit the Twin Towers Chek?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

my left bollock wrote:
What hit the Twin Towers Chek?


Help out your friend mr indubitably to answer why your community promotes lies, as exposed on these threads:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11695

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664

then we may get to your new topic.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
my left bollock
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What hit the Twin Towers Chek?

For someone who so violently opposes NPT you must know

So spill the beans, we can't wait to hear your pearls of wisdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

my left bollock wrote:
What hit the Twin Towers Chek?

For someone who so violently opposes NPT you must know

So spill the beans, we can't wait to hear your pearls of wisdom


Help out your friend mr indubitably to answer why your community promotes lies, as exposed on this thread then we may get to a new topic.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group