Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "september Clues"

[CB_Brooklyn]

Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" reveals the truth about 9/11.

See September Clues in the following five 10-minute segments:
(more to be made)


http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4DE41...lues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F00F...lues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73928...lues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266A85...lues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68FD7C73F...lues-part5.aspx

[Nyte]

Not you again-_-

[whitesand]

anyone able to download or record those videos and put them on a tracker or something else? I have the bad feeling that those videos will either disapere or magicly get edited or something in the near future and that videodownloader.net doesnt work on that site:(

[FighterFromAfar]

Reposting my review of September Clues:

The point of this documentary seems to be to support the theory, proposed by one David Shayler, that no planes were involved in the attack on the WTC, but that missiles were. The general impression I get after watching this video is that there's something fishy here, but the documentary makers never conclusively demonstrate that it was a missile that hit the WTC. It's as though the documentary attempts to impress the viewer with the first clip, the "fade to black", "nose in/nose out", etc. and then ride the rest of the "evidence", such as different brightness/colors at different angles, on the coattails of that first clip.

Then let's look at the "missile path" clips, from 20:00, to 23:00, and specifically the side-by-side of the two clips at 21:28. The docu attempts to assert that these clips could not have been taken from different vantage points. However, a simple comparison will show that the clip on the left is taken from a vantage point above and to the left of the clip on the right, which would cause the path of the plane to appear more diagonal across the screen. Even looking at the clip on the right-hand side, you can still see the plane coming in from an angle, not directly from the side. "Is your intelligence insulted yet?" Yes, but insulted by this documentary.

And then useless-yet-interesting information about planted eyewitness accounts and complicity in the coverup at all the news networks as well as details about the Pentagon strike. As if we didn't already know all of this.

A shoddy piece of journalism at best, that raises some questions, but fails to answer them conclusively.


Here's a torrent of the video: http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.ht...6bb9e0621730702

[stanteau]

Quote:Reposting my review of September Clues:

The point of this documentary seems to be to support the theory, proposed by one David Shayler, that no planes were involved in the attack on the WTC, but that missiles were. The general impression I get after watching this video is that there's something fishy here, but the documentary makers never conclusively demonstrate that it was a missile that hit the WTC. It's as though the documentary attempts to impress the viewer with the first clip, the "fade to black", "nose in/nose out", etc. and then ride the rest of the "evidence", such as different brightness/colors at different angles, on the coattails of that first clip.

Then let's look at the "missile path" clips, from 20:00, to 23:00, and specifically the side-by-side of the two clips at 21:28. The docu attempts to assert that these clips could not have been taken from different vantage points. However, a simple comparison will show that the clip on the left is taken from a vantage point above and to the left of the clip on the right, which would cause the path of the plane to appear more diagonal across the screen. Even looking at the clip on the right-hand side, you can still see the plane coming in from an angle, not directly from the side. "Is your intelligence insulted yet?" Yes, but insulted by this documentary.

And then useless-yet-interesting information about planted eyewitness accounts and complicity in the coverup at all the news networks as well as details about the Pentagon strike. As if we didn't already know all of this.

A shoddy piece of journalism at best, that raises some questions, but fails to answer them conclusively.


Here's a torrent of the video: http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.ht...6bb9e0621730702

I see what you mean completely but this is how a movement gets started, the first amateur 9/11 docs were awful (point in case Loose Change 1 that opened with the pod footage and even Road to Tyranny seems horribly outdated in what it presents as important) but like you said, this makes it extremely clear that SOMETHING is going on with these subjects (no-planes, cloaked stealth vehicles, missile theories, etc.)

I suggest watching 9/11 Octopus it's a much better presented, better researched, more in depth movie on the same subject that doesn't provide all the answers, but raises much more substantial questions and provides a LOT more evidence for some of the nuttier aspects of the spectrum.

[standvast]

I just watched semptember clues and think most of the information is complete bullshit,
motivated by people who prefer the most implausible explanation,
and rest most their assumptions on real crappy quality video.

I watched the plane impact shot sequence in the dave von kleist video again,
i watched it from that source, from LC , and the shot from TV,
it's a plane allright, it has wings, it has a nose and engines which you can see impacting,
to claim i would have to seriously consider that the perpetrators detonated bombs to mimic
the effect of a plane impact and it's momentum i consider a waste of time.

Why would it be more plausible to pretend all the footage by amateurs and news broadcasts is fake,
than to assume it where 2 actual planes followed by a sequence of explosives ?

I seriously don't see how this docu helps , all it does is make a logical theory less
logical by saying the impacts of the plane where sequenced explosions, the plane was a hologram,
or not there at all but edited into all the footage... :rolleyes:

I'm done with this no-planer sheit.

[stanteau]

Quote:Why would it be more plausible to pretend all the footage by amateurs and news broadcasts is fake,
than to assume it where 2 actual planes followed by a sequence of explosives ?

I'm not here to debate the facts but what is everyones problem with conversations being held about weird things on a conspiracy board? You can quote William Cooper mentioning off-handedly that the elite sent a nuclear bomb to Saturn to make a fake sun, but this is off-limits?

Same goes for the whole "why would they do that?" WHY WOULD THEY DO ANY OF THIS! Cause they can! Why's don't factor into these types of conversations, first 9/11 was for money, than power, than war, than Israeli motives, now it doesn't even matter why, it matters that they did it! And if they used no planes, than they used no planes.

And as for "why should we even talk about this, it only complicates things for the uninitiated" thing, conspiracy research is a very useless and arbitrary thing to 90% of the general public and I often times am faced with the "what's all this knowledge gonna do for you?" type insults and they're very right, it is an agonizingly slow process of waking up the masses, but for those of us who are knee deep, studied everything Alex Jones had to offer, who have breezed through books like Rule By Secrecy, Behold a Pale Horse, Death in the Air, etc. we have passed 90% of the public, and I'm not going to stand still and wait for people to find out there were bombs in the towers.

I know that. You know that. Anyone who would frequent a message board like this knows that.

So what should we do? Just keep hashing around that one subject? Or is the "blame it on the Jews" bandwagon the new hip thing? For forever the mafia killed Kennedy, than it was Johnson, than the S&B connections were the big thing, what would of happened if we were still saying it was the Mafia or the Russians 40 years later?

Sometimes shit looks weird. You don't see this shit, some people do, may we please discuss something with the freedom that should be presented by all human-loving, anti-NWO, freedom-loving conspiracy theorists?

[standvast]

Quote:I'm not here to debate the facts but what is everyones problem with conversations being held about weird things on a conspiracy board? You can quote William Cooper mentioning off-handedly that the elite sent a nuclear bomb to Saturn to make a fake sun, but this is off-limits?

imho , You should debate the "facts' as you view them, it is what made us
all [or most] so convinced of bombs in the buildings ;dissecting footage and debating.

Quote:Same goes for the whole "why would they do that?" WHY WOULD THEY DO ANY OF THIS! Cause they can!

Personally i find that i silly explanation, "because they can" and prefer to discern
by logic what the most plausible version of events was, and the reasons behind it.

Quote:why should we even talk about this, it only complicates things for the uninitiated" thing

Why should we even talk about this ?
I don't think i should, as i think it is a waste of time and yes, it
does complicate things beyond belief ; to say that there where no planes nor holograms
only leaves more and more unanswered questions,... with no logical working answers offered for the questions.

1]scenario 1 ; i tell someone planes hit the towers , and explosives used to bring them down.

2]scenario 2 ; i tell someone there where no planes, not holograms either. just explosions,
that took the shape of non-existant planes that didn't hit the towers, perhaps
there was a stealth plane involved or a large set of birds, .. then the tower was brought down by explosives.

No thanks, i'll stick to trying to explain scenario 1 , just "beacuase they can" doesn't mean
it's logical to go for the most far-fetched theory full of holes and non-arguments.

Quote:Sometimes shit looks weird. You don't see this shit, some people do, may we please discuss something with the freedom that should be presented by all human-loving, anti-NWO, freedom-loving conspiracy theorists?

Quote:So what should we do? Just keep hashing around that one subject? Or is the "blame it on the Jews" bandwagon the new hip thing?

Are those the alternatives you have for your hip theory? :rolleyes:

Discuss it all you want, convince people of it,. i won't stop you.
From my personal vantage point; i'm done with no planer sheit.

peace'

[stanteau]

Quote:

Quote:I'm not here to debate the facts but what is everyones problem with conversations being held about weird things on a conspiracy board? You can quote William Cooper mentioning off-handedly that the elite sent a nuclear bomb to Saturn to make a fake sun, but this is off-limits?

imho , You should debate the "facts' as you view them, it is what made us
all [or most] so convinced of bombs in the buildings ;dissecting footage and debating.

Quote:Same goes for the whole "why would they do that?" WHY WOULD THEY DO ANY OF THIS! Cause they can!

Personally i find that i silly explanation, "because they can" and prefer to discern
by logic what the most plausible version of events was, and the reasons behind it.

Quote:why should we even talk about this, it only complicates things for the uninitiated" thing

Why should we even talk about this ?
I don't think i should, as i think it is a waste of time and yes, it
does complicate things beyond belief ; to say that there where no planes nor holograms
only leaves more and more unanswered questions,... with no logical working answers offered for the questions.

1]scenario 1 ; i tell someone planes hit the towers , and explosives used to bring them down.

2]scenario 2 ; i tell someone there where no planes, not holograms either. just explosions,
that took the shape of non-existant planes that didn't hit the towers, perhaps
there was a stealth plane involved or a large set of birds, .. then the tower was brought down by explosives.

No thanks, i'll stick to trying to explain scenario 1 , just "beacuase they can" doesn't mean
it's logical to go for the most far-fetched theory full of holes and non-arguments.

Quote:Sometimes shit looks weird. You don't see this shit, some people do, may we please discuss something with the freedom that should be presented by all human-loving, anti-NWO, freedom-loving conspiracy theorists?

Quote:So what should we do? Just keep hashing around that one subject? Or is the "blame it on the Jews" bandwagon the new hip thing?

Are those the alternatives you have for your hip theory? :rolleyes:

Discuss it all you want, convince people of it,. i won't stop you.
From my personal vantage point; i'm done with no planer sheit.

peace'

Good job missing the point.

Noone here is advocating just telling people there weren't planes, we are DISSECTING the FACTS and trying to DISCERN an OPINION based on it all. Some people see the nose-out glitch as a fact that proves there weren't planes, what's wrong with simply discussing this? That's all I'm arguing, the right to discuss this subject.

[stanteau]

Here's a video clip supposedly showing how hackers inserted video of a nuclear mushroom cloud into a Czech TV stations morning "scenery" programming.

If this is real, and simple "hackers" can do this, what can the Pentagon do?

[TeslaandLyne]

I have seen the bright flash of light as a plane nears contact with north and south tower.

Did not see this link, but since the last one I've seen (I'll look for the video) the flash gets
bigger and bigger. It was an extreme zoom in.

9/11: North Tower Plane Impact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpjHNywhqNU

Some see a missile flash (not possible for an airliner), electrostatic flash (possible for any plane) or
beam weapon ( this is not that evident) .

DNA evidence says there were passengers.
Or a lot of cover going on.

If not airliners then remote satellite control and Airline complicity.
Or death wish pilots.

The planes in any case were a roost to avoid costly building upgrades and cover
the demolition.
9/11: Rare Building 7 clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=621VLvOJ-vw
FOX40 News At 10 - 9/11 inside job & controlled demolition (students and school mention)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSdkk5IxkHc
9/11 - WTC - CNN Footage after collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qj-3lHwI7U
9/11 - Steel Structures Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnSSz8AXNYQ
WTC - NBC Footage (South Tower)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7jbW8u8IN4

[MC David]

"DNA evidence says there were passengers. "

Do you have a source for this? I haven't heard about it.

[CB_Brooklyn]

New Segment Availalble

Part 6

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E733A247...lues-part6.aspx

[stanteau]

Quote:New Segment Availalble

Part 6

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E733A247...lues-part6.aspx

I disagree with the nose-out part towards the end but the first 6 minutes or so are good shit

[ToddTraf]

Quote:Here's a video clip supposedly showing how hackers inserted video of a nuclear mushroom cloud into a Czech TV stations morning "scenery" programming.

If this is real, and simple "hackers" can do this, what can the Pentagon do?

This was awesome. Does anyone know how many people were tuned in to this broadcast? Even if its projected viewers or whatnot. I'm waiting for the day I see some whooping cranes nuked at the end of the TV show Sunday Morning.