September Clues Updated Version

[balantz]

Even better than the first edition. New stuff in every part, so watch them all.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FAFFDE39F342242C

[Bolo Boffin]

1. TV Fakery alert.

If you didn't already know September Clues was about denying an event seen by millions of people, don't waste your time.

[petgoat]

2. Seen by millions of people on TV does not equal seen by millions of people. nt

[seemslikeadream]

3. event seen by millions of people

on TV

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I think we could get a couple of million out of the New York area. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

5. I kind of doubt it, Bolo

Because NY is a city of many skyscrapers, what one can see in the sky on one block may not be able to be seen a few blocks over.

At least this was my experience during the years I worked there. The buildings effectively limit one's ability to see the sky (and what's in it) unhampered.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. How about the Jersey shore?

How many people in Brooklyn?

[Grateful for Hope]

7. It is still a stretch, bolo

given how fast the planes had to have been going. Even if one looked up at the noise of the planes, it would be difficult to actually see them.

Think about it.

I am not trying to knock your statement. I just highly doubt that millions of people actually saw the planes.

Peace.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. People in Brooklyn and along the Jersey shore wouldn't have to look "up."

They just needed to be looking out at the North Tower burning.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. I am going to respond to your post only, bolo

yes, I seriously doubt that there were 'millions' of eye-witnesses to the planes of 9/11.

And, if you can provide alternative evidence, please do so.

BTW, you made the initial claim. I would like to see you support it.

Thanks, bolo.

And, again, Peace.

[Grateful for Hope]

15. Hey bolo

Can you provide some evidence for your assertion?

[wildbilln864]

19. you think there was a million people on the Jersey shore looking up at that exact time!?

amazing! :eyes:

[vincent_vega_lives]

85. During the second airplane strike?

In NYC and NJ...YES.

[William Seger]

10. Are you seriously suggesting

...that if there were only a few tens of thousands of eyewitnesses, not millions, then it becomes rational to question if there was a plane?

[Grateful for Hope]

16. See reply #15 n/t

[William Seger]

17. What am I supposed to see in reply #15?

I don't see any answer to my question there.

[wildbilln864]

20. Do you have any pictures...

of the tens of thousands you assert eyewitnessed the event? Any proof at all?








I didn't think so! :eyes:

[William Seger]

22. I can prove that...

... a "very large number" of people say they saw a plane hit WTC2. I was just wondering how large that number would need to be, to convince Hope or petgoat that the "TV fakery" bus only stops at the nuthouse. Statistical sampling might get you a good guess at how many people saw it, but only if you accept the premise that a plane really did hit WTC2. If, instead, you think that a reasonable alternative theory is that the conspirators concocted a plan that required them to prepare dozens of fake videos and photos, convince the entire media in Manhattan and dozens of amateur photographers to distribute those, blow a plane-shaped hole in the side of WTC2, dispose of the real plane and its passengers, then just plant a "very large number" of liars to say they saw the plane... then there isn't any point in wasting time trying to come up with the precise "very large number." It can't be big enough.

[wildbilln864]

24. so in this thread we've been from millions to a very large number?

Oooooooooooookay!

[Bolo Boffin]

25. I haven't. I believe what I believe.

I find it very instructive that when faced with the choice of questioning TV Fakery and questioning whether a couple of million people out of the 18 million that live in the New York metropolitan area saw the second plane hit, most here chose to question me.

[William Seger]

26. Uh, no, we haven't

Unless you can actually prove that the live feeds were fake, then millions of people did see the plane hit WTC2, because they saw it on live TV, and they saw precisely the same thing that a "very large number" of eyewitnesses say they saw. This September Clueless video, and all the other like it, claim they can prove that the videos and photos are all fake, yet all they offer for evidence is "analyses" based on pure ignorance and stupidity, punctuated by apparently willful deceit. If that's good enough for you, I feel sorry for you, but you haven't proved anything, and you still need to explain the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence. Arguing over Boloboffin's "million people" statement doesn't relieve you of that responsibility; it just makes you look desperate to keep your delusions alive.

[mrarundale]

108. You couldn't see a plane in lower Manhattan from the Jersey Shore

(because there wasn't one), but even if there was, you would not be able to see it. Or even up in Brooklyn or Hoboken, NJ Go to google maps and do the street view facing lower manhattan from hoboken and you will see how far it is.

[Marksbrother]

109. You "could" on TV!

Granted, it was a CGI/cartoon plane that was inserted into a composite video, but there are plenty of True Believers here

who stand ready to insist that a cartoon is reality, therefore, what people saw on TV was real. And they'll also patiently

explain to you why "millions" of eyewitnesses who only saw an explosion actually "saw" a plane crash into the WTC. That is,

they saw a "plane" whenever they watched the controlled demolition on TV. Unfortunately, not a single authentic, unaltered

video exists which shows a real plane. All of the videos which show a plane were composite videos that had been doctored.

Which raises the question: "Doctor WHO?".

[Kalun D]

112. Plane Videos

""Unfortunately, not a single authentic, unaltered video exists which shows a real plane.""

So where are all the original unaltered videos that have since been altered?

I would estimate there was around 100 videos of the 2nd plane hit. What happened to all that original video? How come no one has ever seen something else hitting the buildings?

All those eyewitnesses and none of them saw something else besides a plane hitting the building? All that video and none of it shows something else besides a plane hitting the building?

And going from your original premise that the videos are altered. Why couldn't someone alter a video to make it look like it had been altered?

I can see the gov controlling something like the Pentagon. But I can't see that happening with the 2nd tower, there were just too many people taking vid that day. It's just not physically possible to hide that much original video and re-release it all in an altered state.

I like you Marksbrother, we agree on a lot of 911 points. But I think you're a victim of the disinformants that are promoting the no-planes hoax. This is classic textbook disinfo. How do you know the vids you are looking at have not been altered to make them look like they've been altered?

911 was a very complex event, what would be the reasoning for making it more complex than necessary? Why would you substitute the WTC planes for cruise missiles? Wouldn't the fully fueled planes cause enough damage to make collapse believable? If there were cutter charges in the building why would you need more? If there were cruise missiles wouldn't they have done more damage?

Why substitute cruise missiles for planes? What do you do with the planes and passengers? Why go to the trouble to confiscate and modify a bunch of vids when just allowing what really happened visually to be shown would be easier and just as effective?

[Marksbrother]

113. If there are authentic videos showing a plane crash, where are they?

If there were indeed 100 videos of the "2nd plane hit", then why hasn't a single one ever been released which shows a real plane?

Have you ever seen one that shows a real plane?



Of course, the lack of authentic video isn't the only issue. If there were indeed "thousands" of eyewitnesses, why is it that

only a few of them aren't suspicious? Nearly all of them were either in the media or were government employees of one kind or

another. All of whom would be motivated to sing the Official version song. Just like in the JFK case where the military doctors

were motivated by threat of a court martial (all of them signed an oath containing that threat) and the fear of losing their

job and their pension.

[Kalun D]

114. Planes

""If there were indeed 100 videos of the "2nd plane hit", then why hasn't a single one ever been released which shows a real plane?""

All the ones I've seen show a real plane. You've shown some Simonshack videos that look like they've been altered to look like they've been altered.


""Have you ever seen one that shows a real plane?""

I've never seen one that doesn't show a real plane.


""If there were indeed "thousands" of eyewitnesses, why is it that only a few of them aren't suspicious? Nearly all of them were either in the media or were government employees of one kind or another.""

Those are only the eyewitnesses that are on TV. What about all the eyewitnesses on the ground? How come we haven't heard a majority saying they saw cruise missiles?

""Just like in the JFK case where the military doctors...""

That's in private. This is public. Magnitudes more difficult to manipulate what happened in public.

Once again I'll ask the questions you couldn't answer the first time.

What happened to the original videos that have since been altered?

If all the videos have been altered couldn't all these Simonshack videos have been altered to look like they were altered?

What is the purpose of substituting cruise missiles for the actual planes?

---------------------

and here's some more questions when you can't answer those for the 2nd time.

After some additional reading it seems there are about 45 videos that show the 2nd plane hitting.

So how come no one has seen one single video of a cruise missile EVER? What did the perps do? Did they wait until these private individuals posted their video showing cruise missiles in public and then immediately get the video deleted from where it was posted? How did they do that before others saw them and talked about them? How did they do that before others were able to copy these cruise missile vids and have them go viral? If they were cruise missiles, wouldn't most of the 45 videos showed them? Wouldn't that be something that would immediately go viral?

I studied 911 very closely the first year it happened, how come I never saw or heard about anything other than planes?

So then you have the plane shaped holes in the buildings. How was that dealt with? Did they confiscate all the pictures of the cruise missile hole, doctor and re-distribute them?

There's 2 types of people pushing no-planes. The technically ignorant and misinformed. And those who want to misinform us, the disinformants.

[Marksbrother]

115. Perhaps you're a budding True Believer.

Or else you're easily fooled by cartoons.

[Kalun D]

116. Thinner

the answers get thinner and thinner and thinner

until they become, non answers

[Kalun D]

117. Simonshill Video

I spent some time analyzing the 1st Simonshack video and all 6 of the first news videos on the internet archive site.

This vid is ludicrous beyond belief.

He starts by saying there is no evidence of 911 beyond video of the WTC getting hit. And then says this video evidence is "on tapes recorded by American families" and archived in video news archives. He then goes on to show ONLY videos shot by news crews.

He says early in the video "NO ONE mentions the planes" then less than 1 minute later in his vid a reporter says "another plane just hit"

He says a reporter at street level named Winston's mic picks up ambient sound but not the 2nd impact explosion. Yet if you watch all the 1st news vids on the archive you hear a reporter around the time of the 2nd impact that says she has to go inside because the emergency vehicle siren noise at street level is too loud for audio broadcast.

He points out that there's impact blackouts in 2 of the live videos, yet if you take notice some of these reports are from local affiliates which have broadcast antennas on the top of the WTC towers, they even say so in the vids. Could electrics not glitch with a huge impact? I know an antenna TV will glitch when a plane merely flys over.

He says the Fox affiliate live footage has been changed and the original is not archived. This is the only video that he can show any real discrepancies. And yet it doesn't come from the source that he first gives, the video archive site. In fact he doesn't mention where he got it.

And the final most incriminating point. He says there were only 5 live news shots of the 2nd plane's impact. So how does someone take 5 videos and remove the supposed "cruise missiles" and insert the passenger jets AND do it live? Either it's real live footage or it's computer generated long before the event. But that's not what he claims, he says this is live footage. He goes on to say there's a 17 second delay (unverified), but even that's not near enough time to edit out missiles and insert planes.

Very typical disinfo, very easily debunked "evidence". Intentionally made to be easily dis-proven by anyone. Then when it's associated with real truthers they can point fingers and say "look these guys are all crazy". The only problem is it's so bad it stands out, and any intelligent truther can see it from a mile away and point out that it's ludicrous and that it's disinfo.

[SDuderstadt]

110. ''no-planer'' alert!

n/t

[Marksbrother]

111. DUCK. You might get hit by a flying cartoon.

[William Seger]

9. Good grief

"Seen by millions of people on TV" does equal "seen by millions of people" unless the live feeds were fake, huh. Have you finally completely lost your mind, petgoat? Or do you just feel compelled to defend fellow "truthers," even if they're nuts?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

13. TV is not reality. It is a representation of reality.

I therefore distinguish between witnessing something on TV and witnessing it
in real life.

I do not know enough about the TV fakery theories to have an opinion on them,
and don't expect to have time to develop one soon.

[William Seger]

18. You don't have any opinion about TV fakery theories?

Good grief...

[reinvestigate911]

49. tv fakery, holograms, and space beams (DEWS) are all examples of disinformation

unfortunately, people still consider these "theories" to be legitimate research worthy of investigation. these disinfo campaigns have a simple purpose: A.) divide the truth movement and B.) bolster arguments by the pseudo-skeptical.

http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Who is behind these "disinformation" campaigns and what is your evidence for stating this? n/t

[reinvestigate911]

51. this is a very naive question, but i'll play....

... provided you actually read the links
http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

[Bolo Boffin]

52. I did look at your little link there.

Nice slick website. However they name a few names like Woods, Fetzer, etc. That's fine.

But they're just cranks, convinced that they are just as right as you think you are. And disinformation involves intentionality, as your slick little website there points out. Right now all I see is evidence that Woods et al. intend the Truth movement to follow their wacky ideas instead of the wacky ideas you have. But your website seems to indicate a darker intentionality, that Woods et al. are not just cranks, but they are intending to disrupt in order to keep the truth (i.e., your wacky ideas about 9/11) from being seen.

So who sent them to work their foul purpose and do you have any evidence of this?

That remains the question, and the answer isn't on that page. Try using your keyboard to elucidate. Thanks.

[reinvestigate911]

53. what difference does it make? it's still BS.

Do you only avoid stepping in shit if you know who left it behind? From reading your other posts around here, and the one above, I get the impression that you're not interested in anything related to "evidence" but merely posturing as some kind of virtual bully here at DU.

Color me unimpressed.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Skipping over the baseless attacks, I see you have no intention of providing the evidence I ask.

Because, of course, you have none. It is you posting mass quantities of bullshit here, and yet I'm the bad guy because I'm pointing it out?

Only those spreading bullshit need to smear and insult me.

And back to the point. Your proposition that the Truth Movement is being targeting by disinformation brigades to prevent the truth being known has no evidence to support it. All you have is the People's Front of Judea shouting "Disinformation" at the Judean People's Front. Neither of you need be taken seriously.

[reinvestigate911]

55. so you deny that there's any 9/11 disinformation?

keep going, i want hear more.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. As defined by you and that website, no. You haven't provided any evidence of that.

You have read that website, right?

[reinvestigate911]

60. logic is the best "evidence" i have to prove that there's disinformation.

how about you?

oh, that's right... you have no such mechanism to defend against 9/11 disinfo. you don't even believe it exists!
no wonder you retreat to the "safety" of the official narrative.

i don't blame you, sir... if i were as reality-challenged, i'd probably end up believing the lie, too...

[Bolo Boffin]

62. If you could build a logical argument demonstrating disinformation as defined at your website...

...you wouldn't have to keep attacking me in a desperate attempt to hide your rather large stack of fail.

[reinvestigate911]

64. it's not my website. and you can attribute my initial failure to provide an argument as result of...

my shock that you doubt that there's disinformation at all.

but here are several pieces of evidence which may be considered proof of deliberate, intentional disinformation campaigns regarding 9/11:
the 9/11 commission report failing to mention the complete, symmetrical, near free-fall collapse of building 7.
the 9/11 commission report failing to include testimony provided by sibel edmunds.
the 9/11 commission report failing to include testimony provided by colonel anthony schaffer on the able danger program.
failure of the bush administration to organize the 9/11 commission without massive pressure from the victim's families (it took over 400 days after the attack for the commission to be formed).
the systematic removal of evidence from the crime scene prior to being cataloged and analyzed by forensic specialists.
NIST's failure to test for thermate (or any other explosive residues), which is required by law in new york state after the complete collapse of a building.
NIST's failure to include first-response worker testimony in their report which included testimony of explosions and secondary explosions.
NIST's failure to mention molten steel in their report, which they have acknowledged elsewhere.
NIST's failure to perform material tests of any kind, including tests which could determine the cause of the molten steel (which NIST and FEMA both acknowledge existed).
the fact that NORAD provided three separate and conflicting time lines detailing their responses to the attacks.
the live hijack wargames scheduled for the morning of 9/11.
the fact that henry kissinger was initially appointed as the director of the 9/11 commission.
the fact that philip zelikow, the 9/11 commision director is a neocon with deep ties to the administration, especially to condoleeza rice and paul wolfowitz.

there are many, many more blatant examples of disinformation regarding 9/11... those are simply starters.

now, regarding the no-plane bullshit: anyone promoting these pseudo-theories is either an unwitting dupe (lacking in high school level critical thinking abilities) or they are agents of disinformation. you want evidence of this disinformation? i can't provide the memo or the paystubs, sorry. but how about plane parts crushing pedestrians? of course you could argue that the plane parts were "pre-planted" in the building to be ejected at detonation of the "plane-shaped" charges, but that does not account for all of the verifiable witness testimony: witnesses who actually saw and heard planes. let's also not forget the 45 pieces of video produced (both amateur and professional alike), all of which would have had to have been created and distributed by the so-called "perps" without being suspected of foul play by the media or local government in new york (both state and municipal).

and it should go without saying that on the face of it, the no-planes "theory" is simply implausible in planning and execution because of the reasons cited above, and the arguments presented here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

so one would have to ask: if it's so easy to disprove this "theory", why is it still being promoted?

no-planes is nothing but an attempt to smear legitimate research and anyone who has taken a real look at the truth movement (and can employ simple logic) can figure this out. it's clearly meant to distract and misdirect the newly initiated... that in itself is fairly evident (or we really wouldn't be having this conversation).

there is an extremely small number of supporters of this "theory"... yet, in contrast, there are millions of people calling for a new investigation and several thousand at minimum who have looked at the state of the art of the truth movement and have reviewed the legitimate, forensic evidence... the only "forensic evidence" the no-planers have is claims of "tv fakery".

and finally, let's not forget the personal attacks and attempts to smear doctor jones and his research. that's probably the most clear evidence of disinformation of all. his research can be reproduced and verified.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. When you understand why you reject their wacky theories, you will understand why I reject yours.

my shock that you doubt that there's disinformation at all.

Let's be clear. I didn't say I don't think disinformation exists ever, that there are no campaigns of disinformation at all. I'm just saying what is your evidence that it's happening here. And, sorry, the no-planers and the nukes at Ground Zero advocates don't provide this evidence.

but here are several pieces of evidence which may be considered proof of deliberate, intentional disinformation campaigns regarding 9/11:
the 9/11 commission report failing to mention the complete, symmetrical, near free-fall collapse of building 7.

That's not true, so it's no wonder they didn't mention it.

the 9/11 commission report failing to include testimony provided by sibel edmunds.

Her name is Sibel Edmonds. Her testimony had nothing to do with 9/11.

the 9/11 commission report failing to include testimony provided by colonel anthony schaffer on the able danger program.

Schaffer did not testify before the 9/11 Commission. Beyond that, the story of Able Danger is not fully known. However, if there is a disinformation campaign here, it was directed not at the Truth Movement, but the 9/11 Commission, right? Now is the 9/11 Commission part of the Truth Movement or is it not? Down below, you seem to think it's not.

failure of the bush administration to organize the 9/11 commission without massive pressure from the victim's families (it took over 400 days after the attack for the commission to be formed).

However, there were still massive and immediate investigations from the FBI, the CIA, and other organizations to find out what happened. Indeed, the commission used information from these investigations to conduct their own investigations. So despite footdragging by the Bush Administration in forming this commission, investigations were going on. That's hardly the work of a disinformation campaign.

the systematic removal of evidence from the crime scene prior to being cataloged and analyzed by forensic specialists.

This really is one of the silliest objections ever devised by the Truth Movement. You honestly think they should have just let the Pile sit there, smoking, while someone cataloged each single piece and item that they pulled from the ruin?

It boggles the mind. Their speed at removing debris from the pile was not due to any disinformation campaign. Get real. They were looking for survivors. And all of the material taken from the Pile was gone over at the landfills once they arrived.

http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html

There is no evidence of disinformation campaigns here.

NIST's failure to test for thermate (or any other explosive residues), which is required by law in new york state after the complete collapse of a building.

No explosive scenario made sense in the existing data. No plausible mechanism by which thermite could be used to demolish the buildings has ever, EVER been put forward by anyone. NIST followed the data and determined why the buildings fell down. They never needed to bring explosives into it.

And on that last claim, you're going to have to cite the relevant law. I think you will find that's when the cause of the building's demise is unknown, and done by a particular agency. The events of 9/11 ruled out the necessity of such tests.

NIST's failure to include first-response worker testimony in their report which included testimony of explosions and secondary explosions.

Explosions do not equal explosive devices. The logical symbol for "does not equal" is !=, among others. Get used to seeing it.

There were no explosives capable of cutting the columns detected in the seismographs recording the collapses. They would have been there if they had occurred. No explosive devices were used to help the towers collapse.

NIST's failure to mention molten steel in their report, which they have acknowledged elsewhere.

Molten steel where? When they did "acknowledge" it, they pointed out that molten whatever under the pile could have nothing to do with how the buildings fell, and their explanation doesn't rely on that molten discharge from the South Tower, a corner that housed a UPS room full of huge lead batteries.

NIST's failure to perform material tests of any kind, including tests which could determine the cause of the molten steel (which NIST and FEMA both acknowledge existed).

They most certainly did. Perhaps you should read the NIST reports instead of relying on charlatans and quacks for what it says.

the fact that NORAD provided three separate and conflicting time lines detailing their responses to the attacks.

Yes, and again this was to the 9/11 Commission and others. Are they part of the Truth Movement? Make uppa your mind.

the live hijack wargames scheduled for the morning of 9/11.

How exactly is this evidence of a disinformation campaign? And the wargames didn't involve hijacking, IIRC.

the fact that henry kissinger was initially appointed as the director of the 9/11 commission.

Again, footdragging and scandalous appointments by Bush doesn't necessarily mean the fix is in. I found Kissinger an extraordinarily bad choice, and he withdrew when he found out the families were going to cause him some serious trouble. Good on them.

the fact that philip zelikow, the 9/11 commision director is a neocon with deep ties to the administration, especially to condoleeza rice and paul wolfowitz.

Zelikow was also one of the most qualified people to have conducted the investigation. Shedon's The Commission makes that clear. And there are plenty of examples of Zelikow fighting to get information out, of where his fighting was the only thing that got this information out. So flawed in some areas? Certainly he was. But you know things about 9/11 only because Zelikow fought to get it out. Some disinformationalist.

there are many, many more blatant examples of disinformation regarding 9/11... those are simply starters.

Well, then, I declare your point a failure. Unless you want to include the 9/11 Commission in the Truth Movement, you haven't provided a single instance of a docufied disinformation campaign against the Truth Movement. What a long list of fail.

now, regarding the no-plane bullshit: anyone promoting these pseudo-theories is either an unwitting dupe (lacking in high school level critical thinking abilities) or they are agents of disinformation. you want evidence of this disinformation? i can't provide the memo or the paystubs, sorry. but how about plane parts crushing pedestrians? of course you could argue that the plane parts were "pre-planted" in the building to be ejected at detonation of the "plane-shaped" charges, but that does not account for all of the verifiable witness testimony: witnesses who actually saw and heard planes. let's also not forget the 45 pieces of video produced (both amateur and professional alike), all of which would have had to have been created and distributed by the so-called "perps" without being suspected of foul play by the media or local government in new york (both state and municipal).

and it should go without saying that on the face of it, the no-planes "theory" is simply implausible in planning and execution because of the reasons cited above, and the arguments presented here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter...

so one would have to ask: if it's so easy to disprove this "theory", why is it still being promoted?

Because these people think it's right? Gee, you left that possibility out of your little false dicotomy there. Dupes or agents, but either way, someone's pulling their strings. Amazing.

Look, you've provided a lot of good information here showing that these people are wrong, but your leap to disinformation is without foundation. I'm not disagreeing with you that they are wrong. I know that. I'm glad you know that. But their being wrong isn't evidence of their being dupes or agents. They could just be stupid. Did you ever think of that?

No, you need demons to fight. :eyes:

no-planes is nothing but an attempt to smear legitimate research and anyone who has taken a real look at the truth movement (and can employ simple logic) can figure this out. it's clearly meant to distract and misdirect the newly initiated... that in itself is fairly evident (or we really wouldn't be having this conversation).

there is an extremely small number of supporters of this "theory"... yet, in contrast, there are millions of people calling for a new investigation and several thousand at minimum who have looked at the state of the art of the truth movement and have reviewed the legitimate, forensic evidence... the only "forensic evidence" the no-planers have is claims of "tv fakery".

I think you're going to need proof of the "millions of people," too. And again, it's not that these people think they're right and they're talking to the "newly initiated" -- wow, newly initiated, that's kind of a scary way to put it -- so that they can get to them before you can with your crazy, out there theories? Is that at all a possibility?

and finally, let's not forget the personal attacks and attempts to smear doctor jones and his research. that's probably the most clear evidence of disinformation of all. his research can be reproduced and verified.

Wow. Steven Jones reproduced and verified? I'm not sure I agree with your scientific lab notes. You should learn a little bit more about Dr. Jones and his "research."

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Steven+Jones

[reinvestigate911]

56. sorry, i forgot to laugh at the fact that you were asking for evidence of disinformation.

haha!

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Well, that's just me. Asking for verifiable evidence of someone's claims.

Laugh away.

[reinvestigate911]

59. oh sorry, i didn't realize that you were seriously asking for evidence of disinformation.

what kind of evidence is it that you might be looking for? an NSA memo? a confession?

the fact that you are unable to discern between obvious bunk and forensic evidence that challenges the official narrative of 9/11 does little to support your so-called skeptical demeanor.

a google query regarding "9/11 disinformation" points to plenty of worthwhile links... want me to read them to you?
i find it remarkable that you would doubt that 9/11 disinformation exists. do you seriously accept the official 9/11 narrative in its entirety?

[reinvestigate911]

61. try these mr. pseudo-skeptical

9/11: The Great Nose In -- Nose Out Hoax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

Planes Hit the Twin Towers - No Planes Theory Counter Evidence:
http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html

[Bolo Boffin]

63. What I am asking for is evidence that proves your claim

This is your claim, as I understand it: Disinformation is being done intentionally to disrupt the truth movement so that its truths will not be seen.

Fine. Now produce your evidence, because so far all you've demonstrated is that there are people who believe things about 9/11 that are too crazy for you. And you've also evidence of clashes that people have had over these differing claims.

But none of that is evidence of an organized disinformation campaign against the Truth Movement. Hell, you can't even name what shadowy organization is coordinating all of these attacks.

Tell me, are you familiar with the term unfalsifiability? Because right now you are soaking in it.

[reinvestigate911]

65. unfalsifiability? you mean like the opposite of the official narrative?

"tv fakery" can be disproven.
the fact that it continues to be promoted is proof that those promoting it are either stupid or working to promote disinformation.
so what's your point?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Well, like a rotten molar, you're starting to show signs of giving.

"those promoting it are either stupid or working to promote disinformation"

Stupid is what I've been saying. Disinformation is what you have been saying exclusively and confidently until now.

But now, you're allowing that we may be dealing with stupid people. Fine. But stupid people lack the intentionality that your website, the one to which you link and to which you handwave me, requires of a disinformation campaign. In fact, that slick little website says that there's lot of misinformation (you see? I did read it) out there, and misinformation is what the stupid people are spreading.

So it's either dis or mis now, right? Now I see plenty of misinformation out there, and I'm happy to include your silly little theories in that lot. But disinformation is another thing entirely, using your standards, and I'm going to need some proof that the Judean People's Front is a part of the Roman Empire trying to sandbag your People's Front of Judea.

Or my point, which is this claim of disinformation being just one more sign of your propensity to spread misinformation, remains valid. Because if you believe that there's organized campaigns of misinformation fouling up the Truth movement, but you can produce no evidence of it, then you are operating in the realm of unfalsifiability. Since you didn't get to that position using evidence, evidence can't argue you out of your position. In fact, you don't care whether or not there's evidence to support your claim or not. You believe it, that settles it.

And that is hardly a rational belief.

[reinvestigate911]

67. ask yourself who would collude to spread misinformation... there's your judean people's front

and if you want "proof" of the "misinformation conspiracy" then might i suggest that you go watch "september clues"?

incidentally, it says more about YOU that you split semantic hairs (and sit on your pseudo-skeptic ass demanding "proof" of disinformation campaigns) than what you think of 9/11 truth.

that said, is it true that you accept only the official theory of 9/11/2001, and none other?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. I'm not asking myself anything. It's your claim. You support it.

See, that's how it works. You make a claim, you support it. You don't call on me to imagine your proof up for you. That's not rational.

Yes, I see your long goalpost shifting post up there. When I have some time, I'll get to it. But the short answer is -- none of those are disinformation. It's not focusing on the 9/11 Truth Movement, as far as I can tell. Unless you think that actions taken to frustrate the 9/11 Commission means that the Commission was a part of the Truth Movement. Then you might have a point.

A word of caution: if you continue to attack me personally, you will not be long for this forum. I suggest you cease and desist.

[hoi_polloi]

79. "tv fakery doesn't exist and wasn't used on 9/11" = example of disinfo n/t

[jberryhill]

81. ...and YouTube is... ummm.... /nt

[SDuderstadt]

31. So, if millions of people watch the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20th....

you're arguing that millions of people did not see it? Unfuckingbelievable, PG.

Tell me something. If you're suggesting that the TV coverage was somehow faked, please explained how the perpetrators could control people who saw the event live and then compared it to what was on TV. Are you suggesting that none of them would come forward and reveal what they know? Oh, wait...I forgot. They've probably all been either "silenced" or "bought off". How silly of me.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

71. No you should definitely waste your time

and watch this it brings up a lot of interesting questions. Don't believe boloboffin cause you know he saw it happen on TV.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. If you're into wasting time, why not build a family tree at Facebook?

I am not a personal eyewitness of these events, but there are hundreds of thousands of them.

[seemslikeadream]

12. How did ya'll like those Chinese fireworks

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=axydL1aIUDWg&refer=asia



Fake Fireworks, Lip-Syncher Used in Olympic Opening Ceremony

By Dune Lawrence and Li Yanping

Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The broadcast of the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony used computer-generated fireworks, including a fake shake to simulate helicopter filming, because of the city's hazy skies, Chinese officials said.

General Electric Co.'s NBC, which spent $894 million for broadcast rights, used some of the fake footage, MSNBC reported on its Web site. About 2.3 billion television viewers watched the Aug. 8 opening ceremony, said MindShare, a unit of WPP Plc.

``People feel like they eat a great meal and later on you tell them there was a fly in it,'' Xiao Qiang, director of the China Internet Project and an adjunct professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Minutes before the ceremony, directors replaced a 7-year- old singer with an older girl considered prettier, musical director Chen Qigang told Beijing Radio on Aug. 10.

``The reason was for the nation's interest,'' Chen said in the interview. ``The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression.''


Oh and CNN got caught fakin' it today :) :)

[wildbilln864]

21. Great post!

Smacked em down again, I see. :patriot:

[William Seger]

23. Yeah

I especially like the way that, even though they took a year preparing that video, it was spotted as a fake almost immediately.

[balantz]

27. Kick n/t

[Redstone]

28. If all those people would put all the time they waste on this "9/11 Truth" crap into more

productive activities (like, maybe volunteering to work for their local soup kitchen), they might actually make a difference.

Redstone

[wildbilln864]

32. yes the truth is so....

yesterday! Who needs that. Lies are so much more comforting, right. :shrug:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[balantz]

29. Watch September Clues n/t

[balantz]

30. Kicking this up for those who haven't seen these. n/t

[balantz]

33. Clearer version.

The following link has a much better quality of September Clues.

1st half) http://blip.tv/file/1272900/

2nd half) http://blip.tv/file/1273564

Please watch in full screen.

[LARED]

34. There should be a rule on DU that when

someone creates a post advocating a no plane CT they should include a clear warning in the subject line.

A simple "NO-PLANE WARNING" or "FOR MENTALLY IMPAIRED ONLY" would save countless bits of bandwidth and peoples time.

[balantz]

35. I'm wondering

why would you want to promote a "rule" at DU that would warn people from looking into an avenue of 911 research?

[LARED]

36. No planes "research" is equivalent to

researching the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Or researching the tooth fairy.

If one wants to "research" those things, it's fine by me, but it would be courteous to warn people about what they are clicking on.

[balantz]

37. It's too late to edit now.

I guess they'll see it's 911 TV Fakery research when they click.

[balantz]

38. Kick

[victordrazen]

39. CBS Pres. Warned about use of false images on tv

such as "airplane crashes" - I kid you not. This was in 2000, before 9-11. I guess the side FOR false images won - lol. Here is a youtube link, (which is a little irritating, I don't trust most of the "tv fakery" people , although I think the plane footage is obviously fake.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW50GGNsgcA

[victordrazen]

40. "The FBI just came here and said a 3rd plane is what did it.."

according to the firemen on the Naudet vid. Wouldn't the firemen KNOW that it was a plane? Why would the FBI have to tell them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QufXM2qh6xk

(Disregard the guy who posted it, I'm not vouching for or against him).

[spooked911]

41. The series is a real mixed bag-- my ratings:

Part A-- solid, good work. An "A".

Part B-- many suspect, or poorly documented, conclusions-- needs to work on analysis of perspective, visibility of wings at certain angles. Mike Walter interview a semi-waste of time, flight 93 analysis almost worthless. A "C-".

Part C-- again, many suspect conclusions-- needs to work on analysis of shadows, video anomalies, perspective, sound versus location, but some decent work as well. A "C".

Part D-- good compilation and an interesting finding, but too much time spent overall on this, IMO. A "B".

Part E-- the timing thing is interesting, but too much time spent on something not completely convincing; the color issue is good. A "B".

Part F-- pretty good on the background of the different videographers, not convinced that the Hlava shot is a simple edit of the Hezarkhani shot. A "B".

Part G-- a mish-mash of stuff, mostly decent. A "B".

Part H-- Simon really gets iffy when dealing with perspective-- just not convincing. The last minute is good, but the first 9 minutes-- diffuse, a waste of time. A "D".

Overall, many good points made this series, but far too many glib suspect conclusions that cast doubt on the "good stuff". The good stuff could easily be condensed into something taking half the time-- and should be!

[balantz]

42. Kicking so more people can see these. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Yes, indeed, this amount of FAIL needs to be viewed by as many as possible.

"Caution: this could be you denying what millions witnessed with their own eyes!"

[victordrazen]

44. I can't believe people still think planes hit the towers

and even more ridiculous, the Pentagon or Shanksville. It's like religion, a bunch of impossible events that become myth.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Tell the Red Queen howdy for me. n/t

[balantz]

46. The religion of the official story.

More bullshit like the lone gunman myth.

[SDuderstadt]

47. The "lone gunman myth" isn't such a myth when you examine it closely...

for example, if you look at photos from the day of the JFK assassination, you'll see that Connally was seated to the left of JFJ and several inches lower in a jumpseat. Connally testified that he has turned to the right in his seat after the first shot that missed the limo completely, because he thought the shot had been fired from over his right shoulder. If you look at te frame showing this and note JFK and Connally's relative positions, any bullet that struck JFK where it did had no place else to go except to hit Connaly precisely where it did. Yet this silly myth of a "magic bullet" persists, except to those who prefer logic and reason.

[NowHearThis]

77. The magic bullet theory was debunked more than 40 years ago

Here's a good, detailed refutation by a well-respected assassination researcher:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

[SDuderstadt]

78. I see...

so, you don't think we have better science capabilities now than we did 40 years ago?? Sorry, bud, the science proves the SBT.

[NowHearThis]

80. In your mind, maybe.

WHAT science "proves the SBT?"

[SDuderstadt]

82. Well, trajectory analysis for one...

not that I'd expect you to understand that.

[NowHearThis]

83. Is that the best you've got? An insult instead of substance.

The KFC Brigade doesn't disappoint. You want chicken, they've got it.

[SDuderstadt]

84. How did I insult you, dude...

you asked for science and I gave it to you. The problem with your goofy claim is, thanks to the Zapruder film, we know exactly where Connally was relative to JFK when the shot hit JFK in the back. Not only does Connally's entrance wound line up perfectly with JFK's exit wound, Connally's entrance wound shows the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally (which we'd expect after it traversed JFK) and, if you trace a trajectory from Connally entrance and exit wounds through JFK's entrance and exit wounds, they line up perfectly with the sniper's lair in the TSBD.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. Do you believe in UFO's? n/t

[Theobald]

102. You're from New York and you actually believe

that no planes hit the towers? What small little whole have you stuck your head into? Get out, talk to people, spout your spurious nonsense and see how well it is recieved.

[anigbrowl]

119. Yes, it was so obviously aliens in spaceships.

[balantz]

70. Kick

[balantz]

74. Kick

[balantz]

75. Also new work by Shack on WTC bldg. 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg&feature=channel_page

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. New levels of obsessive-compulsive paranoia. (n/t)

[balantz]

76. Kick

[balantz]

86. Kick

[balantz]

87. All of Simon Shack's work can be discussed with him at the following link.

Shack goes by "socialservice" at the following website and I'm sure he will be more than happy to have sincere seekers discuss his September Clues and his other 9/11 studies there: http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?act=idx

[Marksbrother]

88. Thanks. These are very interesting and thought-provoking

Everyone has recommendations about what they wish others would read or see, but viewing September Clues should be mandatory for everyone here who wants to gain a greater understanding of what happened on 9/11. If you've felt or wondered if the stories
put out by the MSM are less than adequate, go to youtube and see these videos. That way, you'll be much more informed the next
time you get into a discussion about 9/11 and you'll be better equipped to identify other, similar events whenever they occur.

[balantz]

89. Yes, mandatory viewing for those who really want to know more about the truth of 9/11.

Here are links to Simon Shack's works on 9/11:

September Clues:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FAFFDE39F342242C

9-11 Amateur:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A409DEB6561EDC95

His additional 9-11 research; Nosed-Out, Foxed-Out, Chopped-Out & etc.: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=02330024F0FA4A22

[William Seger]

91. LMAO

You left out his brilliant "moving bridge" analysis.

[balantz]

92. Not left out. It's included in the new edition of S. Clues as just one example

of the digital composites used in the media show of 9/11. The media show was a cover for the real events of destruction as they were carried out.

[William Seger]

93. "just one example"

... of how Simon Shack is a leading contender for the "truth movement's" biggest joke. When even Ace Baker can debunk your nonsense, that's a "September clue."

[Marksbrother]

94. Just another typical evasion and insult

Your inability to disprove the use of composite videos is very telling. Your fallback of evasion and insult pales by comparison.

[SDuderstadt]

95. MB...it's YOUR claim....YOU have the burden of proof,,,

Where is your evidence of "composite videos"?

[William Seger]

96. "inability to disprove the use of composite videos" ?

Simon Shack is the one who claims he's going to prove something about the use of composite videos, so demonstrating that his "proof" is idiotic is sufficient, and even Shack's fellow "no-planers" have already done that. The "moving bridge" is "just one example" of Shack's inability to visualize in three dimensions, which is exactly the same reason that he can't figure out why the path of UA175 looks different from different angles. When a rational person is confronted with a visual effect that he doesn't understand, I would expect him to take a little time to see if he can figure out what confused him, and these are all cases where the reason can be found and understood with just a little effort. But being an irrational person, Shack "concludes" that it must be because the videos are fake. But that's not the end of it; he then spends uncounted hours making YouTruth videos to spread the bullshit around. Such behavior well deserves insulting, and if you fall for it, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

[balantz]

97. The late, great "suicide stunt" Ace Baker? Is he still with us? n/t

[William Seger]

101. Beats me...

... but the idiocy of the "moving bridge" is inherent in the laughable "analysis" itself -- not in any way dependent on the many people who immediately spotted what was idiotic about it. Since that's the only time I can remember that Ace got something right, I was just giving him a little credit for not being quite as stupid as Shack.

[balantz]

103. For those who may be interested here is a link to thus far the last page

in a long discussion about "the bridge" with socialservice (Simon Shack):

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5612&st=435

[William Seger]

104. Oh, right, "it's about the size AND lateral position of the Verrazzano bridge"

Yeah, well, a guy who doesn't understand simple perspective is hardly likely to understand camera focal length and its effect on apparent relative size. Problem is, lots of people do.

[Why Syzygy]

106. Another case of lying eyes.

People believe OTC rather than their own eyes :eyes:

[balantz]

98. One has to wonder why some OCTers show such vehemence to TV fakery?

Simply check out Shack's work for yourself, don't let others tell you that it's not worth your time.

[William Seger]

99. Pretty simple, really

Bullshit never did anyone any good.

[balantz]

100. That statement definately speaks for itself. n/t

[William Seger]

105. You're welcome. Anything else I can help you with? (n/t)

[balantz]

107. Nope n/t

[balantz]

118. Kick