I forgot.

How dare you guys poke fun of this agonizing tragedy?

I'd do this earlier, but since someone else posted serious stuff already, I feel comfortable to do so, as well.

Everyone should (perhaps, must) watch this 90 minute documentary called 'September Clues', which approaches to the subject like no other documentary does. This one basically focuses on the inconsistencies between the broadcasts aired by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN on 9/11.




The videos above posted by Innately are the same dude's work (or at least, based on his work), too. So, make sure to watch them, as well.

Yes, in a moment of unadulterated videographical synchronicity, all footage credited to dozens of "amateur" cameramen (who have all since been proven not to exist, to be affiliated with the military or to work for the media conglomerate) and all footage taken by the 5 major news networks all have precise, syncopated zoom timing whilst otherwise possessing a completely different set of shots.  You can't even say that the major networks' feed were all from the exact same source since they match up with 100% perfection despite their otherwise distinctively different meanderings.  Some of the shots are from absolutely impossible vantage points, provably so.

The point wasn't that a person would be too much of an idiot in such a situation that they wouldn't know how to zoom, it was that the amount of perfection in all of the footage was way too far-fetched and unrealistic.  It's simply an added bonus that the people to whom the videos were credited have all been shown to be either fraudulent or collusive identities. 

What reasonably intelligent human being would give any further credibility to the rest of the story given such damning evidence?  The research done at cluesforum.info has stood the test of logic, evidentiary scrutiny and time. 

Sure, maybe there were planes on 9/11, but let's use Occam's Razor in a very basic way, here:

A.)  Proven, scientific fact that 747's cannot fly at that speed and at that altitude without being torn to shreds by the stresses of said altitude's atmospheric density.  Witnesses and news anchors don't say anything about planes at first, and then some woman (who is, I think, the wife of some ABC exec or some shit?)  who also said nothing about planes, just up and says "omg, another plane" while watching all the way from Chelsea?  Bitch forgot her lines, that's all.  Many of the people who were interviewed on-ground didn't say anything to indicate that a massive commercial airliner had been heard before either of the impacts---I assure you, if a 747 is flying at that altitude over your city, you're going to hear it, and it's going to be loud as fuck. 

B.)  There were indeed planes, but we made sure all of the evidence of this fact looked as inconsistent and computer-generated as possible. 

[TMA]InnatelyGestaltist wrote on 09/12/12 at 18:46:35:





Haha well if the filmmakers don't exist then i can hardly defend them. But i stand by my point that it's not difficult for even an amateur to hold a still shot and zoom in on telegraphed action (such as a loud airplane in the sky or bitches fighting).

I live near a military airfield so i know how loud airplanes can get. There is no way that 747 could fly that low without causing a massive ruckus that could be heard for at least 15 seconds prior to impact. So i agree with you that it's extremely odd that there aren't many witness reports of hearing the plane.

My counter to that would be that living in NYC would leave your subconsciousness prone to ignore motor sounds and other chatter. Still i'm stretching really hard to make that conclusion. I'm listening to Iron Maiden at 20 db. Which is way louder then city clatter from where i'm sitting, and i just heard the distinct sounds of a 747 headed to DFW Airport.

As far as the stability of the plane goes. That is a really tough one to argue. Mainly because 747's are massively complex machines and every little spot of maintenance done to the plane makes an entire world of difference in it's strength.

I'll play the skeptic and say the plane held together due to sheer defiance of odds. It happens often enough with automobiles and people skydiving with faulty parachutes dropping full speed into marshes and surviving.

joe twisted wrote on 09/13/12 at 01:16:59:


I would like to know what openly showing that the footage aired by five TV channels are not consistent has to do with conspiracy theories. That would mean only one of them is genuine, at most. September Clues hasn't been debunked still, to this day. And sorry, you calling it conspiracy won't be enough to debunk it, either. (Also, you should give it a shot for yourself, not to understand how we feel - if you can stop being a bigot, that is)

You see, that's the problem with mankind. Some times, you shove the truth down their throat, but they will still insist on believing what they want to believe; thanks to their prejudice, ego, ignorance and so on.

THERE WERE PLANES BECAUSE TV SAID SO AND THAT'S IT YOU CONSPIRACY NUTS!! I KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!! I AM TOO BUSY TO WATCH A 60 MINUTE VIDEO BECAUSE I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN WORKING ON CURING AIDS! I'M NOT OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO WATCH IT, EITHER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW/TELL WHAT I WANNA SEE/HEAR.


joe twisted wrote on 09/13/12 at 01:16:59:


Simply put, there's no way to exactly know how the buildings collapsed, as there isn't one single genuine recording of the events; be it professional or amateur recordings (except one, if I don't remember wrong which belongs to two brothers but it got manipulated by a company or something).

I personally believe it shouldn't really matter what caused the collapse of the buildings. Planes, missiles, explosives etc. or whatever the Hell it was. Shouldn't our focus be on why and how there would be fabricated footage aired by TV channels which were ready to be aired on the morning of 9/11? (Yes, I'm implying the animations were prepared beforehand, which means 9/11 was a beforehand planned thing by whoever. I think I am going crazy with all these conspiracy theories. omg.)