Thats because what she saw was a missile not a small commuter plane. And a missile shape coming out of the other side of the building. Makes sense. No main airplane parts on streets. No available black boxes after 10 years. No planes.
eh lawson i see your supporting dr judy woods evidence of dustification...so youve come round to the real truth of directed energy being used on the towers...wonders will never cease
Research indicates that the videos were too out of focus to accurately gauge the deceleration, although Eric Salter comes very close to demonstrating about 8%.
In any event, you comments are abusive and they have been removed.
The best evidence against CGI is that during the so-called Nose-in, Nose-out shot the "nose" should have appeared about 1/4- to 1/3 of-a-second sooner, had it been a smoothly-moving graphic. This is something that anyone can measure..
I think this clowns states: 7:06 "An electronic Disturbance" Oh thats a good one. Yeah the interpretation is; They were slow in the Studio and it got passed them.
I am really starting to wonder if the Gov is not actually paying dis-info agents on talk radio and many of these types of vids. Money and the promise for fame could be pretty alluring.
Theres no question that every major news network "Witness" was propped, coached and briefed on what to say well in advance. Several people on the ground actually stated that they thought they had scene a MISSILE. The TRUTH movement is protecting its own VIDEOS for sale, [ie] Loose Change.
Here is a good quality copy of the so called "nose out shot". watch?v=7F_LoEsyDMQ&feature=related If you pause right at :05 on this clip, right when the "now" on the screen banner says "ow" you will see the plane in the picture. It looks like a spec from that far away. It seems that simonshack uses poor quality, grainy footage in his videos.
It is probably from the same source that I used, but I cannot find it from the link you've given.
There were two clips available at the time September Clues -- Busted! was made, and it may be that Shack used a shorter one, which did not go back far enough. But he still criticises those who will not join in and applaud his nose-out absurdities. Only those who are terminal believers still think that there were no planes in New York.
@alawson911 wrote: "Only those who are terminal believers still think that there were no planes in New York. Grainy brains, more like it."
Anthony dear, you might just as well have written: "Only those who reject my beliefs think that there were no planes in New York. Retards, more like it."
No matter what haughty euphemisms you spout ("terminal believers"/"grainy brains"), you appear capable only of vacuous fallacy ad hominem rants. Where's your research, Tony? Where's the beef?
For someone who, without any proof whatsoever, has virtually accused anyone who operated a video or stills camera, or participated in a television broadcast on the morning of September 11, 2001 of being complicit in the mass murder of almost 3,000 people, you really should learn the meaning of ad hominem.
'Grainy brains' has no clinical meaning; I was implying fuzzy thinking, which has to do with how brains are used. The very offensive word 'retard' I would never use.
You need some serious catching up with the latest findings, Anthony dear. Please enter my septemberclues.info site and read 2 relevant articles: "The Memorial Scams" and "Deconstructing 9/11". If you are a good student, do also take the time to read the 80-page PDF by my research colleague Hoi Polloi, titled "THE VICSIM REPORT". For starters, here's a quick intro to the remarkable problems with the alleged '3000' victims:
Nothing in this post addresses the issues under discussion. A discrepancy in the reported deaths has no relevance to whether or not the Towers collapsed, which they obviously did, nor to whether or not any of the 50 or so videos were faked.
You are clutching at straws, as you do in all your videos. You do not even mention or show videos shot from the opposite side of the Fox 5 slip, which proves that the graphic of a nose of a plane did NOT come out of the other side.
@alawson911 Huh? A "DISCREPANCY in the reported deaths"??? HAHAHA! Allow me a big, hearty laugh, Anthony dear. Your euphemisms and gatekeeping tactics are getting lamer and lamer by the day.You are predictably dodging the question of the fake victims of 9/11 - since it is emerging that there were no victims at all - and because this is the KEY issue to be guarded by you and your slimy superiors. I am expecting you to soon tell us that you have an uncle who died in the towers! :OD
@alawson911 Anthony, your appeal to ridicule (calling me "quite clearly delusional" - and urging me to "get some help") is as childish as it is pathetic. It is the crassest imaginable ad hominem attack and only goes to show the hollowness of your fatuous 'debunking' efforts. Now be a good boy and do a google search for "Why are 3000 9/11 victims missing from federal death registry" to learn about the issues at hand. Here's a quick overview to get you started: watch?v=HckSSIGt50Q
That was not an ad hominem attack, I was expressing genuine concern for the mental state of a fellow human being.
I can't tell you how a death registry works, but the visuals of people jumping out of windows and damaged sections of the Twin Towers cannot be wiped away by what may be clerical errors.
One of the people you have implied was a part of the cover-up, Station Chief Joseph Pfeiffer, lost his brother on 9/11, are you suggesting that FDNY invented that death?
@alawson911 How sweet of you to express "genuine concern" for me, Anthony dear.
FYI, just about every existing image/videoframe of "people jumping to their deaths" has been dissected - and been conclusively exposed as frauds. Just google FALLING MAN CLUESFORUM to find the comprehensive research on this matter. As for the firefighters, you must be genuinely dense to think - after all we now know - that the NYFD was invited to play any part in the demolition of the WTC complex.
Hey, Mr Lawson: Why don't you inform your viewers that Theresa Renaud (the woman calling in on the CBS Daily Show broadcast of 9/11) is actually the wife of Jack Renaud (the CBS Daily Show's producer)? Why do you withhold such crucial information? Do you have an agenda focused on protecting the news media perps? We all know that you used to work for the BBC. So spit it out now - did the media goons employ you to produce "September Clues Busted"? If so, they should fire you - immediately.
At a Sydney radio station, in the 50's, when news of an event came in, we looked for an off-duty employee living in the area, to see if we could get a first-hand account.
Theresa Renaud was called because her husband knew she had a very clear view of the WTC, He acted as any decent producer would.
You are clutching at straws, Mr Shack.
The news-media "perps" reside in your foolish imagination.
And another "fact" you've got wrong: I was never employed by the BBC.
I wonder if no-planers also think the Empire State Building bomber incident back in the 40's was film fakery? If not, they're in trouble because that event proves that a plane can and does go through a building.
You posted this 4 years ago, I wonder if your views are still the same. Personally speaking, eye witness testimony is to me, worthless.
Think of all the innocent Germans who were convicted and sentenced to death on the word of jews. Jews who would smirk and swear to tell the truth on the book revered by the detested goyim. I truly admire your work Alan, but as my life, and soon the life of this once lush planet becomes an irradiated ruin I shall whisper with my last breath...FUCKING JEWS !
Ndaa s1867 indefinte military detention of citizens inside america. The violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention act. Jewish bankers fund politicans into office. Politicans create laws to cover up zionist govt and bankers theft of americans.
Regarding the famous chopper5 “nose out shot”….Has anyone else noticed that in the wide shot right before and during the “miracle zoom” you can see the plane at a distance coming in right before it comes into frame again when it hit’s the tower? It’s there if you look CLOSELY at the high quality video on the myfoxny.com which remains unedited. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt this shot was NOT a crappy composite and there is no fakery involved. Just a freaking plane and a tower!
I've included this wide shot in the above video, from Counter 8:00, but the quality is not great. The plane can be seen, but only just. Can you give me a more accurate link than just myfoxny.com, where I was unable to find the better quality shot?
By the way, your channel is listed as "unavailable", did you know this?
@raffi7900 Me? Actually no. The first idiot is anyone who goes on national TV and claims no planes hit the towers as if it's an unquestionable fact that only morons question, and then he doesn’t even provide any factual evidence other than the cliché “knife through butter” reasoning. The second idiot is each and every single youtuber who support him and Simon Shaft. I don’t fit in any of these categories but I’m pretty sure you’re a candidate for #2!
"UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots.[586 mph] This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots [414mph], and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots [471mph]."
Those maximum velocities are those recommended by the manufacturer to avoid civil or criminal liability beyond them
Boeing designs for at least 140% overload and Mach 0.93 before the onset of mach transition flutter, which would be around 620 knots, 715 mph, or more than 1000 ft/sec at sea level
Every aeroengineer knows this. Perhaps we now know the reason for his retirement
Well said. It is very easy to read what Deets has stated; Google NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft
"The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target."
ChristopherMarlowe was hiding the most important information.
I would have posted the whole page if there was room. Check out how many characters are allowed in a response and then do the math before you accuse people of "hiding" things. This doesn't contradict me, but rather supports what I said.
NB: "In aerodynamics, the flight envelope or performance envelope of an aircraft refers to the capabilities of a design in terms of airspeed and load factor or altitude".- Wiki
Who do you think you are up against? Don't tell me that you did not deliberately miss out the most important point of the four made by Deets: "(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200." That's a mere 1.4% of the allotted 500 words.
You are one of those people who either doesn't know what they are writing about, or who are out to deliberately deceive, by omitting the most important factors. You couldn't even get it right about which company flew flight 175.
@alawson911 Why do you make such petty arguments. My first post used all but 17 characters. "This wasn't a standard 767-200" does not contradict what I wrote, so I had no motive to leave it out. I ran out of room. I would have printed the page or left a citation, but youtube won't allow either. I said at fl 175 couldn't go that fast, and (1) comes from deduction.
I have nothing to hide, and I don't need to rely on petty accusations.
Your arguments are all circular. You keep coming back to United Flight 175, when there is no evidence to suggest that it was that particular plane. Therefore, Deets's first point is the most important one he made, so leaving it out, in the context of what you did have to say about the speed, was wrong, as was the plane's designation:
"572 mph for AA 175 is IMPOSSIBLE."
Furthermore, Deets did not state that the speed was impossible for a standard 767.
Now you are being dishonest. You missed out the higher speed from the Deets quote, ending with a full stop, instead of a comma. "..., and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots."
Not only that: "Well beyond the maximum operating velocity..." does not mean well beyond an aircraft's speed capabilities.
The FAA lays down flight rules and regulations to ensure the safe operating of aircraft within its jurisdiction, but this does not mean that they can't go faster.
@alawson911 I'm being dishonest? On another video, you claim that the video longshot of the second strike shows the "airplane". That longhshot is out quite a distance HORIZONTALLY from the WTC. It is not VERTICAL, so any claim of "dive velocity" is irrelevant if you are being consistent.
I sourced my quote concerning the "flight envelope or performance envelope" to wikipedia; It "refers to the CAPABILITIES of a design in terms of airspeed and load factor or altitude".
@alawson911 How come this comment of yours, Mr Lawson, is listed in the "top comments" of your YT comment section? Featuring only 2 thumbs up? Why !!??
Here's - for instance - a comment (by 'elbuggo') to be found in this comment section. It has 17 thumbs up :
"SIMON SHACK for PRESIDENT 2012 or SOONER!"
There's another comment (of mine) which has 43 thumbs up. It starts with the words: "Not a single frame?" Do a search for it.
Is something rotten in the land of Youtube - hmmm?
You can't even tell the difference between a UA and an AA flight number. The plane that hit the South Tower was never identified; its speed was estimated by various entities from 510 to 586 mph. Only Boeing knows whether or not a standard 767 would fall apart at such speeds at sea level, and they are not telling. Deets did not rule out the possibility, and also conjectured that it may not have been a standard 767. So your attempt at wit falls very flat.
Boeing has never tested a 767 to those extremes so they don't know.
The plane that hit the south tower can be identified through various means. N612UA was the only UA 767 to disappear that day, and a UA 767 was filmed crashing into the south tower. Remains and personal effects of N612UA's crew and passengers were found at the scene. Debris from the plane was found and its engine identified as being the correct engine, almost entirely ruling out any modifications.
Another armchair Sherlock quoting myths as facts.
"Debris from the plane was found and its engine identified as being the correct engine..."
Oh, really! Who positively identified the engine, which was dumped in a landfill on Staten Island?
There's another one in a museum, somewhere, which the authorities say came from UA175, but saying something does not mean that it is true. No forensics work was ever carried out on the plane parts by the NTSB. Write of what you know!
"armchair Sherlock" - so what are you? lol Still believe in the controlled demolition romance lawson?
There are three serial threads on the pumpitout forum called "Church & Murray Engine Identified" parts 1-3. There you can find extremely detailed analysis of the engine found at the corner of Church & Murray. All carried out by more armchair Sherlocks (oh, and a boeing engine mechanic...).
The engine's destructive path from the south side of WTC2 is also fully mapped.
Oh right! What the NTSB did not do, the pumpitout forum pulled off, did it?
Did they quote serial numbers and compare them to the United Airlines maintenance records for that engine? That is what is required in order to match an engine to a particular plane, and it has never been done.
Please stick to the known facts, which is what I do and what the mythical Holmes did, as well.
Your stupidity isn't worth any more of my time, so this will be my last reply, to you.
And what the NTSB and NIST etc did not do, you managed to pull off eh? Nice logic Lawson, pleasure doing business with you again :) btw, fires weakened the steel, and then nothing was going to arrest the collapses. the truth haunts you, you should listen to it sometimes.
@alawson911 I don't know why you take such an argumentative and petty attitude towards people you don't know.
I don't believe that "only boeing" can tell how fast a 767 can go at sea level, and you admit that it may not have been fl 175, so my point is already made. I only said that fl 175 could not go that fast.
September Clues is the biggest bunch of disinfo bullshit I've ever seen in my life. "No planes" - LOL! No wonder people think 9/11 truthers are a bunch of nutjobs. This bastard Simon Schack was probably made to come up with this bullshit in order to give the truther movement a bad name and lead people the wrong way.
Thank you both for your incisive comments. September Clues and other no-planes videos and their supporters are so transparent in their ignorance of long-lens photography, motion parallax and other basic physical factors, such as the effect of velocity on the kinetic energy of a moving object, that it is hardly surprising that Fox, CNN, the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media are so universally believed by so many poorly educated people.
@alawson911 It makes perfect sense for an intelligence agency to make conspiracy videos of their own after such an obviously sketchy event like 9/11 because there is always going to be a sizable minority of people who don't believe the official version, but the agenda is to make them believe in something even dumber than the official version so that they don't get to the root of what really happened and who the perpetrators are.
I can't fault your statement, but I don't think that Simon Shack falls into any category with the word "intelligence" in it, so those agencies that were charged with putting out disinformation about 9/11 must have been really pleased to see "September Clues" gain so much popularity, even though it was almost certainly not one of their productions.
a company such as haliburton can afford to hire as many dis-info agents as it wants, not to mention exxon, the cia, the nsa, etc etc et al. any dis-information in re 9/11 is only clouding the issue as to whether or not it was an inside job and only serves the right wing neo con liars original purpose, to gain control of the oil in the middle east while trading american sons for it. if you really want to die for oil now is your chance, we are still in afghanisnam.
Mr. Lawson, thank you once again for the diligent investigations and producing the facts beyond reasonable doubt exposing the criminal evidence that has indeed convicted the liars behind the 'official story' which occurred on 11 September 2001. The populace enjoy fantastical fictitious lullabies to ease their dead brain matter. May the LORD God bless you Mr. Lawson in the work that you have successfully achieved for all to know and understand.
"there wil always be those who believe what they are told to believe because it means they don' have to think for themselves",.....uhh,....you would be one of "Those"? More likely a paid dtractor here again. Yawn,.....very boring absolute bullshit.
Give me one good reason why I should leave your total dismissal of the factual information this video imparts on these pages, and I will not delete your comment. Your last line is the clincher; you should be able to do better than to write an offensive expletive, without any explanation whatsoever.
@alawson911 Ok, how about this. Cherry picking is cherry picking. It is gross generalization. And you approach a subject and info with the stated objective of De buniking(whick is actually "Bunking) it whick makes you as biased as those you mention in your quote. You are an amusing example of a mentally or financially controlled mind defending his controllers reality in my view. Removing my comment which quoted you would be a good idea. It was picking cherries!
I have not generalised in this video, I have picked out what was clearly erroneous or false material in September Clues, and exposed it as being without any factual basis. One more chance:
What you've written above is more of the same drivel that you wrote in your first comment, so: Are you going to back up your statements with some facts or refutations and explain why you classed the video as you did? Never mind the cherries, use some well-thought out words.
@klepzo NO this DOES NOT promote that nonsense...this video debunks. I guess english is not your first language. Its ok brother....this video is designed to show you how dishonest no planers are. Specifically, Simon Shack
Things like this always impress me and keep me in the area of understanding. I wouldn't say shack's videos are complete bs, but this video has given me a new side to consider. The only way the truth will be found is to search all possibilities, and this video gives me reason to understand that we're still basicly at square 1, and too many ideas are within the realm of possibility. At the end of the day the most popular idea will win the hearts and minds, and we'll still never know what's true :/
The no plane theory is a diversion to try to ridicule and decridibilise the truth movement. You shouldn't pay to much attention to it, and you shouldn't even bother to make these videos about it. The best thing is to ignore it.
@The911watch I wish we could ignore it brother....but it poisons the pool of knowledge with nonsense. No Planers have done nothing but make us look like nuts....we HAVE TO debunk them and show how they manipulate the same people they are claiming to wake up.
On the otherhand, if people are fooled by Sept Clues...they are not exactly a credit to 911 researchers, ergo, theyre assistance is not needed. It depends on how you look at it I guess...
Why would you want blatant disinformation to be ignored or go uncontested?
That doesn't make sense, particularly when you've just stated that it ridicules and (I think you meant) discredits the truth movement.
That is the kind of attitude that Fox, CNN the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media relies on to ensure that the public stays as uninformed as their controllers want them to be. Disinformation must be opposed and exposed.
@alawson911 because by constantly debating about this ridiculous theory, it gives credit to it. You're keeping this disinformation alive by talking about it.
I understand what you are saying, and I might even agree with you, but to me this whole no plane thing is so ridiculous it isn't worth putting energy into. At least you've clearly debunked it.
Anyways, I still have huge respect for what you are doing and I love all your vids, so keep doing them. I've forwarded many of them
Your arguments are still rather circular. This video was uploaded 4 years ago, and, apart from James Fetzer -- someone who is very media visible -- I only answer some of the comments that trickle in, from time to time, and I can't see that not sticking to my guns can be such a bad thing; silence can be an admission of capitulation. The theory is largely dead in the water, in any event. But thank you for your comments about my other videos, that is still good to hear.
@alawson911 I also appreciate the work you've done. I always look forward to seeing more of it. You seem to be one of only a few outspoken people on youtube who do this
so i wonder haw dose a fiber glass front go through steel and concrete in tact my be they should start making bullets out of the material if its that toff you fail on this 1 dude
@raffi7900 It doesn't go through in tact, it's clearly not the nose cone that ejects from the other side but rather debris build up and/or other parts of the plane... I'm starting to wonder if any 'no-planers' commenting here have even bothered to watch the video?! the 'Micro-Precision Match' from the blurry pixelated images is laughable! If people can't understand the concept of discrediting good theories with stupid ones & disinformation then we have no hope.
@dirtydetox well if you investigate something you look at everything possible and see who and y and what has happened and clearly media involvement the attack , there were people on the ground saying that it didnt even sound like a plain but a missile so now we got more shit to look at now dont we .
@TheNonConformative They are only part of the answer. If the Mossad was only involved then the US Government would not have spent 10 years trying to cover it all up.
@alstoq Of course US institutions/culprits/rogue elements play a role here. But the executioners of the attack itself (guiding planes into building) was done by Israelis. Check out the information of "israel did 911- all the proof in the world". Former president of Italy (Cossiga), BBC middle east expert Alan Hart, and many other well-established people say: ISRAEL DID IT.
The way to beat the power structure (aka NWO) is to point out Israel´s role in all of it. 911 is the key.
@TheNonConformative The end game is a World Government and a one world religion. There are many arms, Bilderberg group, CFR, Cecil Rhodes trust, Freemasonry, Skull and Bones group, Theosophical society, Round Table groups, Elite bankers, etc.... The respective secret service agencies (CIA, MI5, Mossad, Russian secret service) and muslim groups (Al Qaieda, Muslim Brotherhood) have been co-opted and are being used by powerful groups to centralise power and make money.
That is almost as bad as claiming there were no planes.
There are indicators that point to Israel or Israeli operatives being involved in 9/11.
But there is, as yet, no solid proof, and certainly not "all the proof in the world". That is the kind of statement that makes the 9/11 truth movement look idiotic.
What we have is more than enough anomalies in the official story to demand a new inquiry, which would, one hopes, lead to the culprits..
@alawson911 Well the "All the proof..." part is not my chosen title, but you find the information that way via google. There is so much circumvential evidence pointing at Israel, its breathtakingly mindboggling.Of course rogue US elements/institutions had their hands in it aswell.
Everyone knows something is fishy, next logical step is "who did it". And at that point, Israel appears to be more than guilty.
I know what you mean and how you feel, but I am not a great fan of lynch-mob justice. If it is accepted as the norm, then any law enforcement agency can simply state: "We know he's guilty, so we're locking him up." That is what has happened to so many people who are incarcerated in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It is a slippery slope that no one should be encouraged to go near. No search for the true culprits has been instigated. That is the problem.
The more I study this and use common sense the more I realise that not only is the no-plane theory is the most delusional nonsensical theory out there, but those who promote it are some of the biggest arrogant idiots that society has the misfortune of putting up with. If the 9/11 Truth movement never accomplishes any good it won’t be for a lack of evidence - it will be 100% for the abundance of bone heads who promote no-plane tomfoolery
One question for the no-planers: If the conspirators faked over 50 videos of the planes hitting the towers, why would they not also so the same for the Pentagon and Shanksville? There where literally dozens of surveillance cameras all over the Pentagon so why wouldn’t they fake multiple videos of a plane hitting so they could put the debate to rest instead of only releasing ONE video that doesn’t even show a plane!?
@mikebeange If they faked a video of the first plane hitting the first tower they also could have done the same thing for the Shanksville plane and also say it was just a crazy coincidence. But they didn't fake planes for NY so of course they wouldn't for the other two targest, duh!
@mikebeange If they faked a video of the first plane hitting the first tower they also could have done the same thing for the Shanksville plane and also say it was just a crazy coincidence. But since they didn't fake planes for NY they wouldn't do it for the other two targets either, duh!
@mikebeange They will answer: "That was all a part of the plan; vary the media fakery in New York and Washington attacks, so as to confuse the public."
The real answer is that the Pentagon could not possibly have been breached by a Boeing 757, in the same way that the walls of the Towers were.
The fact that the planes disappeared inside the Towers meant that some people would accept that those videos were faked, but no video trickery could leave graphic debris on the Pentagon lawn.
Strangely enough, I don't think so. I think he really believes that he has solved a massive mystery, but he's used his energies in the wrong way. The planes were real, and if Shack had tried to find out more about them, he may have done some good.
It is a bird, flying quite close to the camera. The closer an object is, that is moving across a field of vision, the faster it will appear to be moving.
Maybe it's my eyes, this morning, but I can't see what you are referring to, but it should not be surprising if a news or police helicopter had been captured on video.
Debunk - FAIL. I was hoping you would have changed my mind about Simon's research, but you didn't. No one "wants" to believe September Clues, it's horrific, and not all of us can just believe what we want to believe, we believe what is really there right in our faces.
A typical generalization. But can you give me one instance where Simon Shack has proved that the planes were not real? That's the hard part. He may have convinced you that the planes COULD have been graphics, but he has not demonstrated that they were. Just one instance of proof, is all that is required, and I have never come across it.
@alawson911 - one instance... the identical shots of the towers sync'd up showing several different flight paths of those "planes." The original live shot "orb" being replaced by a blatant different object is another example.
You will have to do better than that. Which video are you referring to, and the counter? The "orb", of course, is the result of a very bad video copy. Watch my video South Tower Anomalies Busted! (Google for the link) which shows that shot in higher definition as well as the two apparently different flight paths you mention, which is due to the fact that the cameras were at different heights. In one you can see land behind the Towers, in the other, only sky.
I’ve been analyzing 9/11 footage for years and although I’ve seen lots of interesting things I have never seen anything to convince me that this footage was faked as September Clues suggests . If you’re going to come to some absurd conclusion like tv fakery based on grainy compressed you tube footage than you are a BAD researcher, not mention incredibly stupid. And the old “plane into the tower like a knife through butter” rationalization proves just how stupid you are.
Well said, but it will take more than that to convince the True Believers; the disciples of Saint Simon Shack. Then again, just think about how many Americans are convinced that war with Iran is necessary to protect their Homeland, because Fox and CNN will not put forward any alternative views. We live in a world where some people will believe anything that they see on the telly. Whatever happened to common sense? Israel's the nation with the nukes, so let's attack Iran.
Having said that about believers, I actually have had several no-planers tell me that my videos had caused them to change their minds and face the fact that the planes that were seen by hundreds of people, videoed and photographed in New York were real. A minor triumph, perhaps, although I often wonder if my time might have been better spent. But the moving finger has writ, and moved on, so there's nothing to be done about it.
I see you have finally found in 'mikebeange' a supporter on par with your level of intellect and eloquence. However, I think you two should make your mind up about what you are going to call me from now on. What's it gonna be, guys?... Is it "Saint Simon Shack" or "Simon Shit"?
Good Heavens - I never thought you clowns would ever reach such heights of childishness.
We are living in an age of deception. I don't agree with everything in SImon's video, but the whole psy-ops idea is plausible in this age of technology we live in today.
"We are living in an age of deception" of that there is no doubt, but tell me: which parts of Shack's video(s) DO you agree with? He fails to present one solid, provable fact to back up his beliefs. He has not proved that the "fade to black" was studio generated because of an overshooting graphic, nor that the Naudet video nor any of the South Tower videos were faked.
Beliefs are not facts, and innuendo does not count. Shack has not proved that there were no planes in New York.
No kidding... alawson911, your theories are the worst kind. Your explaination for debunking September Clues is ridiculous. Hmmm.. aluminum planes into steel building like hot knife through butter. Gimme a break!
Look at the references material in the video notes, above. The expression "...hot knife through butter" is absurd, considering the kinetic energy to be expended by a 160 (or so) ton mass moving at a velocity of about 850 feet per second. On the other hand, you may prefer to remain ignorant of the physics about such things, but you are young yet, and may realise your errors of understanding in future.
Educating oneself, or remaining ignorant, is always a matter of personal choice.
Two planes hit the World Trade Center... then one hit the Pentagon, and another crashed in Pennsylvania. All piloted by terrorists !
Yeah, I know crazy,huh ?
Sorry "truthers"... the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Shit happened... deal with it.
Or maybe the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet that ricocheted off of JFK's head and was kept aloft by HAARP for 38 years ! Spooky !
thanks for answering so quickly, sooooo what though? Nano-Thermite, uhhh, Free-fall? uhhhh never has a high-rise "exploded" into its own footprint in less than 10 seconds,, WTC7 again..into its footprint... uhhh no physicists, architects, realists, basic human knowledge beleives this 9/11 commision BS, get with the program dude, September Clues may not be perfect, but at least he's in it for the truth. 13 million into 9/11 investigation, 130 million into Clinton's BJ.
Now you are moving the goalposts. The collapses of the towers and WTC7 have nothing to do with whether or not the planes were real planes. September Clues is a stupid diversion; Shack has proven nothing, and his disregard for the truth, in favour of unprovable suggestions and innuendo has misled a lot of people, including you. The planes were real, as proved by the debris they left; the holes in the towers; the impact shaking of the South Tower and the videos. You've been fooled.
ooooo, he edited one audio... and if all 'amateur' videos were not amateurs at all, explain that...all worked in media/video/3D imaging. explain it, all eyewitnesses questioned all work for one of the furious five ABC,CNN, Fox etc., explain that.
You do write a lot of rubbish. Shack not only edited an eyewitness sound track, he faded out one element of what was supposed to be a "pixel-perfect match" and misled viewers about a "fade to black". His accusations amount to nothing but innuendo; he does not make a single point that supports his claims that all of the videos were faked, and nor have you. Your claims about the video's being made by people working in the media do not need explaining because they are untrue.
1: You are still stuck at the 2007 SC version, Anthony dear. In the 2008 version, I elongated the Live CBS segment with Theresa Renaud - including that sentence of hers you believe is so important.
2: At the time of the 2007 SC version, I only had a low-res version of the Nose-Out shot. The high-res version I found later only helped confirm the case: watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
3. The fade-to-blacks are to be found in the OFFICIAL TV ARCHIVES, Tony!
1: What you edited out was highly relevant to your innuendo. I am not a fool, Mr. Shack, people in tall buildings can see and hear events at greater distances than those in short ones. You know that edit was not to save time, and early lies have a habit of remaining in people's minds.
2: Forget video quality, the same event was captured without "fades to black" from the eastern side of the WTC by several cameras; the shape rapidly dispersed. Explain that.
@alawson911 Could you "please" show any video evidence of the huge hole in the asphalt on Murray Street that would have been caused as a result of an engine dropping out of the sky from 700ft up and how did it end up where it did,without knocking down any of the surrounding scaffolding,or did it just roll there as many others claim,thank you.
What is your point? Are you suggesting that because no one took a photograph showing a dent or a hole in the road where a 3-ton engine core hit it, having already damaged a building on the way down, that this means that the engine did not come from the South Tower?
Have you overlooked the fact that photographers and video makers might have been otherwise engaged, while the world, almost literally, was falling around everyone's ears, and people were jumping to their deaths?
@alawson911 ...Are you suggesting that there is NO video evidence showing a hole in the ground as a result of an engine falling out of the sky from 700ft because the photographers and video makers might have been otherwise engaged ?,Doing what....filming the landing gear & engine on Murray Street.
please let me know your address and i'll send you a two-piece jigsaw that may well keep you occupied until christmas.
Just google "September 11 Television Archive", Tony darling. If those archives are not official enough for you - I cannot help you. Perhaps you believe I manufactured those 3000+ hours of TV broadcasts myself? I really wonder why I even waste my time responding to you, Tony. You recently admitted that you had not watched September Clues v. 2008 at all (only part of the 2007 version) - and now you are telling me you have never looked up the 9/11 TV archives?? What a clown you are.
You are always resorting to insults. Because you cannot successfully attack my logic, you feel a need to attack me.
The word "official" has a very particular meaning. Google it. You used it in your earlier post, but dropped it in your most recent one. Oh yes, I have looked through hundred of 9/11videos, sourced from many Internet sites, but I have never found one with the appellation "Official" attached to it.
You really should learn to stop moving the goal posts during arguments.
"You are always resorting to insults. Because you cannot successfully attack my logic, you feel a need to attack me."
Attack you? Me? Attacking you? How funny... Didn't you make this very "September Clues Busted" precisely to attack me? Insults? You are the one and only person I know on this planet who keeps trying to insult me - and discredit my research. You're not very good at it. But I actually enjoy it all & I wish you'll live forever, Tony - you are such a puny lark...
Research! You don't even take into account the videos taken from the other side.
Did you know that if the plane's image had been a graphic, in the clip you go on about so much, the "nose" should have emerged about a 1/4 second earlier than it does? You say it was a moving graphic and that is why the shot was "faded to black". But the body of evidence shows that it was extruded dust which quickly lost its barrel-like shape as it dispersed, which explains the apparent time lag.
"Research!" (??) Anthony dear, for you to ask me "to research 9/11" (more exhaustively or comprehensively, I take it?) is breathtakingly hilarious. I invite you to get familiar with my website (septemberclues.info) and my forum (cluesforum.info) where I - along with dozens of international researchers - have analyzed/dissected for the last 4 years just about every single available image/photo/video released by the media in relation to 9/11. Have you done likewise?
And not one of you has come up with proof that any of the videos were faked. You are a charlatan who insists that what he thinks MIGHT have happened is an accurate portrayal of what ACTUALLY happened. Even if your "fade" to black were a fade, you cannot supply one piece of evidence that indicates that it was done to cover up a graphic-overlay mistake. Why would anyone waste their time looking for more holes in your claims, when they are all so obviously unsustainable?
@simonshack Nobody needs to discredit your reasearch because your theories are crap, your video it shit to begin with, and you don't know jack about video production. I watched your video all the way through and laughed at the lunacy behind it and the lack of it proving anything. The impossibility behind animated planes live on tv timed with building detonations and every single fire fighter, cop, and news anchor all being paid off secret agents is outright stupidity
@simonshack Your famous "nose-out" shot has already been debunked. If the mask of the towers drifted to allow the nose of the plane to come out the other end, guess what also would have happened? It would have drifted on the opposite side as well, meaning, that the plane would have gone in FRONT of the building for a split second before going into it and then coming out the other end! You can’t have it on one side only. It doesn’t work like that in your imaginary world of tv fakery
"It would have drifted on the opposite side as well, meaning, that the plane would have gone in FRONT of the building for a split second before going into it and then coming out the other end!"
That is precisely what can be observed, dear Mikebeange:
@simonshack Actually no, that’s not what can be seen. The airplane is a dark colour and as soon as it hit’s the grey building it disappears. If the nose went in front of the building you would see a dark nose in front of the building! But it’s not dark, because it’s not there! A dark nose does not blend in with a grey building. What you're seeing is the result of highly compressed footage that was poorly shot to begin with.
@simonshack The nose out is also NOT a micro precision match as you claim it is. It’s not even close. The nose out can also be seen in other shots from the opposite side of the building where it becomes obvious that it’s nothing more than part of the explosion
@simonshack And btw, if Fox is trying so hard to hide some dubious secret by taking this video off the internet as you claim than why is it still online at the following WNYW link in it's original unedited form?
@simonshack You dare say my friends son ISNT DEAD??!! Come to NY and try that bs here. You would never. All you are, is a nutjob, looking to make money off the backs of the dead. Your distraction side show has been debunked over and over again...and your assertions NO ONE DIED is sick and disrespectfull.
What you and your scumbag friend Ace Baker did to the truth movement is unforgivable. This is not a joke for you to make a buck on....but scum like you are sociopaths who cant understand that
@FreedumbFighter28 Would you find it disrespectful to mention your friend's son's name? If I had some friend who died in a terror attack I would most certainly mention his/her name as often as possible - in order to honor my friend's memory. Will you?
I've been several times in New York and plan to return - money permitting.
As for me 'making a buck' on this, please know that the entire body of my longstanding research is freely available online for anyone to view and read.
@simonshack Youve already said his name enough and I will not give you the pleasure of using it here. YOU PROMOTE DISINFORMATION SIMON
The camera on Rockefeller Center and the Helicopter shot, ARE NOT the same shot. ANY serious 911 researcher KNOWS THAT. PEOPLE DIED!! Anyone who smelled the hole, or watched as family members NEVER returned home KNOWS THAT. I already know what kind of a scumbag you really are. So, you can save the nice guy act for some other dupe you meet along the way
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How do you explain Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to planning 911 in an Al Jazeera interview back in 2002?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
@ctcole77 ummm, there's 4 questions in your babbling there... and ALL of them can be answered quite easily by anyone, u don't have to be a so-called "truther"... look at the big picture, or look up the word "Reichtag" (that's how Hitler started his war btw). They didn't investigate 9/11... they cleaned up their tracks as fast as they could so they could play the patriotic card putting only around 10-13 million into investigation/legal processes... compared to Clinton's 130million dollar BJ.
@eric1love Um, acually NO they don't all work for the news. There where lots of eye witnesses that where average people off of the street who where going to work. But if you believe everything Simon Shit tells you than you wouldn't know any better.
To call me "Simon Shit" is rather childish of you, is it not? In any case, this is not about 'believing anything that I might tell you. Everyone is entirely free to make his/her own mind up - by personally verifying each and every one of my analyses and conclusions (as summarized at my website - septemberclues.info)
This video shows the Proof it was fake.. At 3:00 judging from the speed and angle of the plane coming in from the top of the screen, it should of hit at about 8 seconds after it came into view, but right when its suppose to hit, there's a cut to a different shot, but count 8 secs in the next shot and then that's when the explosion happens.. 8 + 8= 16 Time on video 3:16 = Explosion. Pre-edited video..
I doubt that even Chuck Yeager could have estimated "from the speed and angle of the plane" that from the moment it appeared until impact would have been 8 seconds. Can you tell us how you developed this remarkable skill?
With such a hazy image, getting any accurate information about the plane's size, relative to the buildings, would be extremely difficult, even knowing the object-to-camera distance and the focal length of the taking lens.
@alawson911 wow your good, but I didn't post this video PUPPETS DID.. And since your so good, you tell me how they "Pulled" Building 7 when it was on fire.. That meas that while the building was still on fire they had men go in with explosives risking their own lives??? the only way Building 7 fell was because explosives were already in the building...OH wait the Fire brought the building down..Right??? But I thought it was Pulled??? I'm confused cause that's what Larry Silverstein said..
You appear to be one of those people who thinks that anyone who accepts that the planes were real, also accepts the entire official story. If you look at my video notes you will see that I do not think that way. Also, watch my first 9/11 video: WTC7 -- This is an Orange, and you may decide that your sarcasm is unwarranted.
Of course WTC7 had to have been rigged long before 9/11, so were the Towers, but that does not make Simon Shack's September Nonsense acceptable in any way.
@alawson911 .. No I'm one of those people who understand whats going on around the world and how Zionist are fuking everything up for humanity..you might be right that there were no planes, but i don't think many people are going to swallow that one.. The official story is so much better to work with because there way more holes that are easier for people who don't know the truth to see. I'm a pretty good editor and I can tell that maybe your "No plane" idea can be true.. No hard feelings :)
"... you might be right that there were no planes..."
Of course there were planes in New York, that is what my video is all about: debunking September Clues which claims that there were NO planes in New York.
You call yourself "a pretty good editor" but you can't follow the storyline of a video. I suggest that you do some serious thinking before making an even a bigger fool of yourself.
Thats because what she saw was a missile not a small commuter plane. And a missile shape coming out of the other side of the building. Makes sense. No main airplane parts on streets. No available black boxes after 10 years. No planes.
TheAuralAffinity 1 week ago 6
eh lawson i see your supporting dr judy woods evidence of dustification...so youve come round to the real truth of directed energy being used on the towers...wonders will never cease
masonfreeparty 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@masonfreeparty
By the same token I see that you are wearing a top hat covered with roses.
alawson911 2 weeks ago
paid liar...
CONFIRMED...
2Xyousee 3 weeks ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@2Xyousee
What you have to say, without any evidence to back you up confirms that you are a believer, rather than a thinker. Do you know the difference?
alawson911 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@2Xyousee
Wrong.
Research indicates that the videos were too out of focus to accurately gauge the deceleration, although Eric Salter comes very close to demonstrating about 8%.
In any event, you comments are abusive and they have been removed.
The best evidence against CGI is that during the so-called Nose-in, Nose-out shot the "nose" should have appeared about 1/4- to 1/3 of-a-second sooner, had it been a smoothly-moving graphic. This is something that anyone can measure..
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@2Xyousee
Prove it, or I will remove your insult about being blind or doing a "lowlife job."
alawson911 3 weeks ago
watch?v=9mc6GljP8WM&feature=related Here is an even better high quality "nose out" shot. You can see the plane actually flying in the wide shot
jawsflounderace 4 weeks ago
@jawsflounderace
Good find. Thank you.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
I think this clowns states: 7:06 "An electronic Disturbance" Oh thats a good one. Yeah the interpretation is; They were slow in the Studio and it got passed them.
nongratis1 1 month ago
I am really starting to wonder if the Gov is not actually paying dis-info agents on talk radio and many of these types of vids. Money and the promise for fame could be pretty alluring.
Theres no question that every major news network "Witness" was propped, coached and briefed on what to say well in advance. Several people on the ground actually stated that they thought they had scene a MISSILE. The TRUTH movement is protecting its own VIDEOS for sale, [ie] Loose Change.
nongratis1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is a good quality copy of the so called "nose out shot". watch?v=7F_LoEsyDMQ&feature=related If you pause right at :05 on this clip, right when the "now" on the screen banner says "ow" you will see the plane in the picture. It looks like a spec from that far away. It seems that simonshack uses poor quality, grainy footage in his videos.
jawsflounderace 1 month ago
@jawsflounderace
It is probably from the same source that I used, but I cannot find it from the link you've given.
There were two clips available at the time September Clues -- Busted! was made, and it may be that Shack used a shorter one, which did not go back far enough. But he still criticises those who will not join in and applaud his nose-out absurdities. Only those who are terminal believers still think that there were no planes in New York.
Grainy brains, more like it.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 wrote: "Only those who are terminal believers still think that there were no planes in New York. Grainy brains, more like it."
Anthony dear, you might just as well have written: "Only those who reject my beliefs think that there were no planes in New York. Retards, more like it."
No matter what haughty euphemisms you spout ("terminal believers"/"grainy brains"), you appear capable only of vacuous fallacy ad hominem rants. Where's your research, Tony? Where's the beef?
simonshack 3 weeks ago 16
@simonshack
For someone who, without any proof whatsoever, has virtually accused anyone who operated a video or stills camera, or participated in a television broadcast on the morning of September 11, 2001 of being complicit in the mass murder of almost 3,000 people, you really should learn the meaning of ad hominem.
'Grainy brains' has no clinical meaning; I was implying fuzzy thinking, which has to do with how brains are used. The very offensive word 'retard' I would never use.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911
You need some serious catching up with the latest findings, Anthony dear. Please enter my septemberclues.info site and read 2 relevant articles: "The Memorial Scams" and "Deconstructing 9/11". If you are a good student, do also take the time to read the 80-page PDF by my research colleague Hoi Polloi, titled "THE VICSIM REPORT". For starters, here's a quick intro to the remarkable problems with the alleged '3000' victims:
WHERE ARE THE 9/11 VICTIMS? watch?v=vjlkF9DlImI
simonshack 3 weeks ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@simonshack
Nothing in this post addresses the issues under discussion. A discrepancy in the reported deaths has no relevance to whether or not the Towers collapsed, which they obviously did, nor to whether or not any of the 50 or so videos were faked.
You are clutching at straws, as you do in all your videos. You do not even mention or show videos shot from the opposite side of the Fox 5 slip, which proves that the graphic of a nose of a plane did NOT come out of the other side.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 Huh? A "DISCREPANCY in the reported deaths"??? HAHAHA! Allow me a big, hearty laugh, Anthony dear. Your euphemisms and gatekeeping tactics are getting lamer and lamer by the day.You are predictably dodging the question of the fake victims of 9/11 - since it is emerging that there were no victims at all - and because this is the KEY issue to be guarded by you and your slimy superiors. I am expecting you to soon tell us that you have an uncle who died in the towers! :OD
simonshack 3 weeks ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@simonshack wrote: "You are predictably dodging the question of the fake victims of 9/11 - since it is emerging that there were no victims at all..."
I am unable to respond to a person who is, quite clearly, delusional.
Please, Mr Shack, for your own sake and that of your family, get some help.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 Anthony, your appeal to ridicule (calling me "quite clearly delusional" - and urging me to "get some help") is as childish as it is pathetic. It is the crassest imaginable ad hominem attack and only goes to show the hollowness of your fatuous 'debunking' efforts. Now be a good boy and do a google search for "Why are 3000 9/11 victims missing from federal death registry" to learn about the issues at hand. Here's a quick overview to get you started: watch?v=HckSSIGt50Q
simonshack 3 weeks ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@simonshack
That was not an ad hominem attack, I was expressing genuine concern for the mental state of a fellow human being.
I can't tell you how a death registry works, but the visuals of people jumping out of windows and damaged sections of the Twin Towers cannot be wiped away by what may be clerical errors.
One of the people you have implied was a part of the cover-up, Station Chief Joseph Pfeiffer, lost his brother on 9/11, are you suggesting that FDNY invented that death?
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 How sweet of you to express "genuine concern" for me, Anthony dear.
FYI, just about every existing image/videoframe of "people jumping to their deaths" has been dissected - and been conclusively exposed as frauds. Just google FALLING MAN CLUESFORUM to find the comprehensive research on this matter. As for the firefighters, you must be genuinely dense to think - after all we now know - that the NYFD was invited to play any part in the demolition of the WTC complex.
simonshack 3 weeks ago 14
Comment removed
jawsflounderace 1 month ago
Hey, Mr Lawson: Why don't you inform your viewers that Theresa Renaud (the woman calling in on the CBS Daily Show broadcast of 9/11) is actually the wife of Jack Renaud (the CBS Daily Show's producer)? Why do you withhold such crucial information? Do you have an agenda focused on protecting the news media perps? We all know that you used to work for the BBC. So spit it out now - did the media goons employ you to produce "September Clues Busted"? If so, they should fire you - immediately.
simonshack 1 month ago 32
@simonshack
At a Sydney radio station, in the 50's, when news of an event came in, we looked for an off-duty employee living in the area, to see if we could get a first-hand account.
Theresa Renaud was called because her husband knew she had a very clear view of the WTC, He acted as any decent producer would.
You are clutching at straws, Mr Shack.
The news-media "perps" reside in your foolish imagination.
And another "fact" you've got wrong: I was never employed by the BBC.
alawson911 1 month ago
I wonder if no-planers also think the Empire State Building bomber incident back in the 40's was film fakery? If not, they're in trouble because that event proves that a plane can and does go through a building.
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange
They only think what they want to think. Actually, they "believe" things, which is not the same as thinking about them.
alawson911 1 month ago
Sorry I called you Alan ,,Anthony ...Its late, and im ill.
charliemctruth 1 month ago
You posted this 4 years ago, I wonder if your views are still the same. Personally speaking, eye witness testimony is to me, worthless.
Think of all the innocent Germans who were convicted and sentenced to death on the word of jews. Jews who would smirk and swear to tell the truth on the book revered by the detested goyim. I truly admire your work Alan, but as my life, and soon the life of this once lush planet becomes an irradiated ruin I shall whisper with my last breath...FUCKING JEWS !
charliemctruth 1 month ago
Ndaa s1867 indefinte military detention of citizens inside america. The violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention act. Jewish bankers fund politicans into office. Politicans create laws to cover up zionist govt and bankers theft of americans.
crazysb235 1 month ago
Regarding the famous chopper5 “nose out shot”….Has anyone else noticed that in the wide shot right before and during the “miracle zoom” you can see the plane at a distance coming in right before it comes into frame again when it hit’s the tower? It’s there if you look CLOSELY at the high quality video on the myfoxny.com which remains unedited. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt this shot was NOT a crappy composite and there is no fakery involved. Just a freaking plane and a tower!
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange
I've included this wide shot in the above video, from Counter 8:00, but the quality is not great. The plane can be seen, but only just. Can you give me a more accurate link than just myfoxny.com, where I was unable to find the better quality shot?
By the way, your channel is listed as "unavailable", did you know this?
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 I sent the link to your inbox!
mikebeange 1 month ago
and check this video /7Q8tA2iqaXo and this is a phd
raffi7900 1 month ago
@raffi7900 Just because someone has a phd does not mean they always know what they are talking about. Morgan Reynolds is an idiot.
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange well his not hear to argue the fact that his an idiot but as far as i can see you are the idiot .
raffi7900 1 month ago
@raffi7900 Me? Actually no. The first idiot is anyone who goes on national TV and claims no planes hit the towers as if it's an unquestionable fact that only morons question, and then he doesn’t even provide any factual evidence other than the cliché “knife through butter” reasoning. The second idiot is each and every single youtuber who support him and Simon Shaft. I don’t fit in any of these categories but I’m pretty sure you’re a candidate for #2!
mikebeange 1 month ago
572 mph for AA 175 is IMPOSSIBLE.
Listen to Dwayne Deets, Ret'd NASA engineer:
"UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots.[586 mph] This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots [414mph], and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots [471mph]."
Now is that an apple or an orange?
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe "572 mph for AA 175 is IMPOSSIBLE" isn't true at all
Those maximum velocities are those recommended by the manufacturer to avoid civil or criminal liability beyond them
Boeing designs for at least 140% overload and Mach 0.93 before the onset of mach transition flutter, which would be around 620 knots, 715 mph, or more than 1000 ft/sec at sea level
Every aeroengineer knows this. Perhaps we now know the reason for his retirement
beachcomber2008 1 month ago
@beachcomber2008
Well said. It is very easy to read what Deets has stated; Google NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft
"The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target."
ChristopherMarlowe was hiding the most important information.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 What did I "hide"?
I would have posted the whole page if there was room. Check out how many characters are allowed in a response and then do the math before you accuse people of "hiding" things. This doesn't contradict me, but rather supports what I said.
NB: "In aerodynamics, the flight envelope or performance envelope of an aircraft refers to the capabilities of a design in terms of airspeed and load factor or altitude".- Wiki
"well BEYOND its flight envelope"
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Who do you think you are up against? Don't tell me that you did not deliberately miss out the most important point of the four made by Deets: "(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200." That's a mere 1.4% of the allotted 500 words.
You are one of those people who either doesn't know what they are writing about, or who are out to deliberately deceive, by omitting the most important factors. You couldn't even get it right about which company flew flight 175.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Why do you make such petty arguments. My first post used all but 17 characters. "This wasn't a standard 767-200" does not contradict what I wrote, so I had no motive to leave it out. I ran out of room. I would have printed the page or left a citation, but youtube won't allow either. I said at fl 175 couldn't go that fast, and (1) comes from deduction.
I have nothing to hide, and I don't need to rely on petty accusations.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Your arguments are all circular. You keep coming back to United Flight 175, when there is no evidence to suggest that it was that particular plane. Therefore, Deets's first point is the most important one he made, so leaving it out, in the context of what you did have to say about the speed, was wrong, as was the plane's designation:
"572 mph for AA 175 is IMPOSSIBLE."
Furthermore, Deets did not state that the speed was impossible for a standard 767.
alawson911 1 month ago 2
@alawson911 MY arguments are circular? Let's be clear:
CM: 572 for 175 was impossible.
AL: CM left out Deets comments b/c CM was HIDING them.
CM: they don't contradict what I wrote, and that I had no room to post them.
AL: CM should have written: "(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200."
CM: (1) comes by deduction
I stand by Deets' quote: "This [510 knots] is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots."
It was not taken out of context. It supports my original claim.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
@ChristopherMarlowe
Now you are being dishonest. You missed out the higher speed from the Deets quote, ending with a full stop, instead of a comma. "..., and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots."
Not only that: "Well beyond the maximum operating velocity..." does not mean well beyond an aircraft's speed capabilities.
The FAA lays down flight rules and regulations to ensure the safe operating of aircraft within its jurisdiction, but this does not mean that they can't go faster.
alawson911 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911 I'm being dishonest? On another video, you claim that the video longshot of the second strike shows the "airplane". That longhshot is out quite a distance HORIZONTALLY from the WTC. It is not VERTICAL, so any claim of "dive velocity" is irrelevant if you are being consistent.
I sourced my quote concerning the "flight envelope or performance envelope" to wikipedia; It "refers to the CAPABILITIES of a design in terms of airspeed and load factor or altitude".
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911 How come this comment of yours, Mr Lawson, is listed in the "top comments" of your YT comment section? Featuring only 2 thumbs up? Why !!??
Here's - for instance - a comment (by 'elbuggo') to be found in this comment section. It has 17 thumbs up :
"SIMON SHACK for PRESIDENT 2012 or SOONER!"
There's another comment (of mine) which has 43 thumbs up. It starts with the words: "Not a single frame?" Do a search for it.
Is something rotten in the land of Youtube - hmmm?
simonshack 1 month ago 3
@ChristopherMarlowe
You can't even tell the difference between a UA and an AA flight number. The plane that hit the South Tower was never identified; its speed was estimated by various entities from 510 to 586 mph. Only Boeing knows whether or not a standard 767 would fall apart at such speeds at sea level, and they are not telling. Deets did not rule out the possibility, and also conjectured that it may not have been a standard 767. So your attempt at wit falls very flat.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Boeing has never tested a 767 to those extremes so they don't know.
The plane that hit the south tower can be identified through various means. N612UA was the only UA 767 to disappear that day, and a UA 767 was filmed crashing into the south tower. Remains and personal effects of N612UA's crew and passengers were found at the scene. Debris from the plane was found and its engine identified as being the correct engine, almost entirely ruling out any modifications.
brokenstyx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brokenstyx wrote:
"Debris from the plane was found and its engine identified as being the correct engine, almost entirely ruling out any modifications."
Brokenstyx... You must be joking, yes?
Please google "The ridiculous PLANE PARTS evidence".
simonshack 1 month ago
@simonshack
hehehehehehehehehe
ok simon, i shall instruct people to google any analyses of your lies and they shall see who is ridiculous
brokenstyx 1 month ago
@brokenstyx
Another armchair Sherlock quoting myths as facts.
"Debris from the plane was found and its engine identified as being the correct engine..."
Oh, really! Who positively identified the engine, which was dumped in a landfill on Staten Island?
There's another one in a museum, somewhere, which the authorities say came from UA175, but saying something does not mean that it is true. No forensics work was ever carried out on the plane parts by the NTSB. Write of what you know!
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
"armchair Sherlock" - so what are you? lol Still believe in the controlled demolition romance lawson?
There are three serial threads on the pumpitout forum called "Church & Murray Engine Identified" parts 1-3. There you can find extremely detailed analysis of the engine found at the corner of Church & Murray. All carried out by more armchair Sherlocks (oh, and a boeing engine mechanic...).
The engine's destructive path from the south side of WTC2 is also fully mapped.
brokenstyx 1 month ago
@brokenstyx
Oh right! What the NTSB did not do, the pumpitout forum pulled off, did it?
Did they quote serial numbers and compare them to the United Airlines maintenance records for that engine? That is what is required in order to match an engine to a particular plane, and it has never been done.
Please stick to the known facts, which is what I do and what the mythical Holmes did, as well.
Your stupidity isn't worth any more of my time, so this will be my last reply, to you.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
And what the NTSB and NIST etc did not do, you managed to pull off eh? Nice logic Lawson, pleasure doing business with you again :) btw, fires weakened the steel, and then nothing was going to arrest the collapses. the truth haunts you, you should listen to it sometimes.
brokenstyx 1 month ago
@alawson911
"Please stick to the known facts"
Facts ignored by lawson include: all evidence pointing to terrorists.
The bias opinions of alawson get about as much recogniton as they deserve. But congrats on figuring out simonshack! He's quite the catch.
brokenstyx 1 month ago
@alawson911 I don't know why you take such an argumentative and petty attitude towards people you don't know.
I don't believe that "only boeing" can tell how fast a 767 can go at sea level, and you admit that it may not have been fl 175, so my point is already made. I only said that fl 175 could not go that fast.
ChristopherMarlowe 1 month ago
good work!...ridiculous conspiracy over actual conspiracy is busted quite well.
archhangell 1 month ago
September Clues is the biggest bunch of disinfo bullshit I've ever seen in my life. "No planes" - LOL! No wonder people think 9/11 truthers are a bunch of nutjobs. This bastard Simon Schack was probably made to come up with this bullshit in order to give the truther movement a bad name and lead people the wrong way.
st1ckycheese 1 month ago
@st1ckycheese, @vengencefrom1979
Thank you both for your incisive comments. September Clues and other no-planes videos and their supporters are so transparent in their ignorance of long-lens photography, motion parallax and other basic physical factors, such as the effect of velocity on the kinetic energy of a moving object, that it is hardly surprising that Fox, CNN, the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media are so universally believed by so many poorly educated people.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 It makes perfect sense for an intelligence agency to make conspiracy videos of their own after such an obviously sketchy event like 9/11 because there is always going to be a sizable minority of people who don't believe the official version, but the agenda is to make them believe in something even dumber than the official version so that they don't get to the root of what really happened and who the perpetrators are.
st1ckycheese 1 month ago
@st1ckycheese
I can't fault your statement, but I don't think that Simon Shack falls into any category with the word "intelligence" in it, so those agencies that were charged with putting out disinformation about 9/11 must have been really pleased to see "September Clues" gain so much popularity, even though it was almost certainly not one of their productions.
alawson911 1 month ago
Misdirection Concentrate on the falling of building 7 for some real truth
norm741 1 month ago
a company such as haliburton can afford to hire as many dis-info agents as it wants, not to mention exxon, the cia, the nsa, etc etc et al. any dis-information in re 9/11 is only clouding the issue as to whether or not it was an inside job and only serves the right wing neo con liars original purpose, to gain control of the oil in the middle east while trading american sons for it. if you really want to die for oil now is your chance, we are still in afghanisnam.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
Mr. Lawson, thank you once again for the diligent investigations and producing the facts beyond reasonable doubt exposing the criminal evidence that has indeed convicted the liars behind the 'official story' which occurred on 11 September 2001. The populace enjoy fantastical fictitious lullabies to ease their dead brain matter. May the LORD God bless you Mr. Lawson in the work that you have successfully achieved for all to know and understand.
discernerify 1 month ago
"there wil always be those who believe what they are told to believe because it means they don' have to think for themselves",.....uhh,....you would be one of "Those"? More likely a paid dtractor here again. Yawn,.....very boring absolute bullshit.
MAN2011ism 1 month ago
@MAN2011ism
Give me one good reason why I should leave your total dismissal of the factual information this video imparts on these pages, and I will not delete your comment. Your last line is the clincher; you should be able to do better than to write an offensive expletive, without any explanation whatsoever.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Ok, how about this. Cherry picking is cherry picking. It is gross generalization. And you approach a subject and info with the stated objective of De buniking(whick is actually "Bunking) it whick makes you as biased as those you mention in your quote. You are an amusing example of a mentally or financially controlled mind defending his controllers reality in my view. Removing my comment which quoted you would be a good idea. It was picking cherries!
MAN2011ism 1 month ago
@MAN2011ism
I have not generalised in this video, I have picked out what was clearly erroneous or false material in September Clues, and exposed it as being without any factual basis. One more chance:
What you've written above is more of the same drivel that you wrote in your first comment, so: Are you going to back up your statements with some facts or refutations and explain why you classed the video as you did? Never mind the cherries, use some well-thought out words.
alawson911 1 month ago
No plane theory = Disinfo from complete MORONS
sandman130 1 month ago
@sandman130
Right on!
alawson911 1 month ago
@sandman130 Agreed. This comment needs to stay at the top of the thread!
mikebeange 1 month ago
@sandman130
Absolutely! I'm confused, does this video promote no-planes hit the towers?
klepzo 1 month ago
@sandman130
Right! Second post, the first was taken away.
I'm confused, does this video promote no-planes hit the towers BS?
PS. I'm a truther who firmly believe that the whole 911 event was a inside job, but I'm also sure that real planes hit both towers.
klepzo 1 month ago
@klepzo NO this DOES NOT promote that nonsense...this video debunks. I guess english is not your first language. Its ok brother....this video is designed to show you how dishonest no planers are. Specifically, Simon Shack
FreedumbFighter28 1 month ago
Things like this always impress me and keep me in the area of understanding. I wouldn't say shack's videos are complete bs, but this video has given me a new side to consider. The only way the truth will be found is to search all possibilities, and this video gives me reason to understand that we're still basicly at square 1, and too many ideas are within the realm of possibility. At the end of the day the most popular idea will win the hearts and minds, and we'll still never know what's true :/
VIIxKnives 1 month ago
The no plane theory is a diversion to try to ridicule and decridibilise the truth movement. You shouldn't pay to much attention to it, and you shouldn't even bother to make these videos about it. The best thing is to ignore it.
The911watch 1 month ago
@The911watch I wish we could ignore it brother....but it poisons the pool of knowledge with nonsense. No Planers have done nothing but make us look like nuts....we HAVE TO debunk them and show how they manipulate the same people they are claiming to wake up.
On the otherhand, if people are fooled by Sept Clues...they are not exactly a credit to 911 researchers, ergo, theyre assistance is not needed. It depends on how you look at it I guess...
FreedumbFighter28 1 month ago
@The911watch
Why would you want blatant disinformation to be ignored or go uncontested?
That doesn't make sense, particularly when you've just stated that it ridicules and (I think you meant) discredits the truth movement.
That is the kind of attitude that Fox, CNN the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media relies on to ensure that the public stays as uninformed as their controllers want them to be. Disinformation must be opposed and exposed.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 because by constantly debating about this ridiculous theory, it gives credit to it. You're keeping this disinformation alive by talking about it.
I understand what you are saying, and I might even agree with you, but to me this whole no plane thing is so ridiculous it isn't worth putting energy into. At least you've clearly debunked it.
Anyways, I still have huge respect for what you are doing and I love all your vids, so keep doing them. I've forwarded many of them
The911watch 1 month ago
@The911watch
Your arguments are still rather circular. This video was uploaded 4 years ago, and, apart from James Fetzer -- someone who is very media visible -- I only answer some of the comments that trickle in, from time to time, and I can't see that not sticking to my guns can be such a bad thing; silence can be an admission of capitulation. The theory is largely dead in the water, in any event. But thank you for your comments about my other videos, that is still good to hear.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 I also appreciate the work you've done. I always look forward to seeing more of it. You seem to be one of only a few outspoken people on youtube who do this
mikebeange 1 month ago
so i wonder haw dose a fiber glass front go through steel and concrete in tact my be they should start making bullets out of the material if its that toff you fail on this 1 dude
raffi7900 1 month ago
@raffi7900 It doesn't go through in tact, it's clearly not the nose cone that ejects from the other side but rather debris build up and/or other parts of the plane... I'm starting to wonder if any 'no-planers' commenting here have even bothered to watch the video?! the 'Micro-Precision Match' from the blurry pixelated images is laughable! If people can't understand the concept of discrediting good theories with stupid ones & disinformation then we have no hope.
dirtydetox 1 month ago
@dirtydetox well if you investigate something you look at everything possible and see who and y and what has happened and clearly media involvement the attack , there were people on the ground saying that it didnt even sound like a plain but a missile so now we got more shit to look at now dont we .
raffi7900 1 month ago
STOP THAT NOPLANE -NONSENSE!!!!!!
Google: "ISRAEL DID 911- ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD".
No need to discuss sidequests. Go for the bullseye folks.
Search for :" The 5 dancing israelis".
TheNonConformative 1 month ago
@TheNonConformative They are only part of the answer. If the Mossad was only involved then the US Government would not have spent 10 years trying to cover it all up.
alstoq 1 month ago
@alstoq Of course US institutions/culprits/rogue elements play a role here. But the executioners of the attack itself (guiding planes into building) was done by Israelis. Check out the information of "israel did 911- all the proof in the world". Former president of Italy (Cossiga), BBC middle east expert Alan Hart, and many other well-established people say: ISRAEL DID IT.
The way to beat the power structure (aka NWO) is to point out Israel´s role in all of it. 911 is the key.
TheNonConformative 1 month ago
@TheNonConformative The end game is a World Government and a one world religion. There are many arms, Bilderberg group, CFR, Cecil Rhodes trust, Freemasonry, Skull and Bones group, Theosophical society, Round Table groups, Elite bankers, etc.... The respective secret service agencies (CIA, MI5, Mossad, Russian secret service) and muslim groups (Al Qaieda, Muslim Brotherhood) have been co-opted and are being used by powerful groups to centralise power and make money.
alstoq 1 month ago
@TheNonConformative they own the media and the politicians so y wouldn't they be trying to cover it all up , this is the only way to cover it up
raffi7900 1 month ago
@TheNonConformative
That is almost as bad as claiming there were no planes.
There are indicators that point to Israel or Israeli operatives being involved in 9/11.
But there is, as yet, no solid proof, and certainly not "all the proof in the world". That is the kind of statement that makes the 9/11 truth movement look idiotic.
What we have is more than enough anomalies in the official story to demand a new inquiry, which would, one hopes, lead to the culprits..
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Well the "All the proof..." part is not my chosen title, but you find the information that way via google. There is so much circumvential evidence pointing at Israel, its breathtakingly mindboggling.Of course rogue US elements/institutions had their hands in it aswell.
Everyone knows something is fishy, next logical step is "who did it". And at that point, Israel appears to be more than guilty.
TheNonConformative 1 month ago
@TheNonConformative
I know what you mean and how you feel, but I am not a great fan of lynch-mob justice. If it is accepted as the norm, then any law enforcement agency can simply state: "We know he's guilty, so we're locking him up." That is what has happened to so many people who are incarcerated in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It is a slippery slope that no one should be encouraged to go near. No search for the true culprits has been instigated. That is the problem.
alawson911 1 month ago
The more I study this and use common sense the more I realise that not only is the no-plane theory is the most delusional nonsensical theory out there, but those who promote it are some of the biggest arrogant idiots that society has the misfortune of putting up with. If the 9/11 Truth movement never accomplishes any good it won’t be for a lack of evidence - it will be 100% for the abundance of bone heads who promote no-plane tomfoolery
mikebeange 1 month ago
One question for the no-planers: If the conspirators faked over 50 videos of the planes hitting the towers, why would they not also so the same for the Pentagon and Shanksville? There where literally dozens of surveillance cameras all over the Pentagon so why wouldn’t they fake multiple videos of a plane hitting so they could put the debate to rest instead of only releasing ONE video that doesn’t even show a plane!?
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange If they faked a video of the first plane hitting the first tower they also could have done the same thing for the Shanksville plane and also say it was just a crazy coincidence. But they didn't fake planes for NY so of course they wouldn't for the other two targest, duh!
mikebeange 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikebeange If they faked a video of the first plane hitting the first tower they also could have done the same thing for the Shanksville plane and also say it was just a crazy coincidence. But since they didn't fake planes for NY they wouldn't do it for the other two targets either, duh!
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange They will answer: "That was all a part of the plan; vary the media fakery in New York and Washington attacks, so as to confuse the public."
The real answer is that the Pentagon could not possibly have been breached by a Boeing 757, in the same way that the walls of the Towers were.
The fact that the planes disappeared inside the Towers meant that some people would accept that those videos were faked, but no video trickery could leave graphic debris on the Pentagon lawn.
alawson911 1 month ago
Simon Shack is a part of the system
tahboobi 1 month ago
@tahboobi
Strangely enough, I don't think so. I think he really believes that he has solved a massive mystery, but he's used his energies in the wrong way. The planes were real, and if Shack had tried to find out more about them, he may have done some good.
alawson911 1 month ago
What goes flying by (too the far left) after the second plane hit at 9:33?
wwe107 1 month ago
@wwe107
It is a bird, flying quite close to the camera. The closer an object is, that is moving across a field of vision, the faster it will appear to be moving.
alawson911 1 month ago
Is that a helicopter at 3:01 above the towers?
wwe107 1 month ago
@wwe107
Maybe it's my eyes, this morning, but I can't see what you are referring to, but it should not be surprising if a news or police helicopter had been captured on video.
alawson911 1 month ago
Debunk - FAIL. I was hoping you would have changed my mind about Simon's research, but you didn't. No one "wants" to believe September Clues, it's horrific, and not all of us can just believe what we want to believe, we believe what is really there right in our faces.
JibbyJedi 1 month ago
@JibbyJedi
A typical generalization. But can you give me one instance where Simon Shack has proved that the planes were not real? That's the hard part. He may have convinced you that the planes COULD have been graphics, but he has not demonstrated that they were. Just one instance of proof, is all that is required, and I have never come across it.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 - one instance... the identical shots of the towers sync'd up showing several different flight paths of those "planes." The original live shot "orb" being replaced by a blatant different object is another example.
JibbyJedi 1 month ago
@JibbyJedi
You will have to do better than that. Which video are you referring to, and the counter? The "orb", of course, is the result of a very bad video copy. Watch my video South Tower Anomalies Busted! (Google for the link) which shows that shot in higher definition as well as the two apparently different flight paths you mention, which is due to the fact that the cameras were at different heights. In one you can see land behind the Towers, in the other, only sky.
alawson911 1 month ago
I’ve been analyzing 9/11 footage for years and although I’ve seen lots of interesting things I have never seen anything to convince me that this footage was faked as September Clues suggests . If you’re going to come to some absurd conclusion like tv fakery based on grainy compressed you tube footage than you are a BAD researcher, not mention incredibly stupid. And the old “plane into the tower like a knife through butter” rationalization proves just how stupid you are.
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange
Well said, but it will take more than that to convince the True Believers; the disciples of Saint Simon Shack. Then again, just think about how many Americans are convinced that war with Iran is necessary to protect their Homeland, because Fox and CNN will not put forward any alternative views. We live in a world where some people will believe anything that they see on the telly. Whatever happened to common sense? Israel's the nation with the nukes, so let's attack Iran.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 It's a mistake to believe you'll change the beliefs of believers
That was fun. Another fine logical piece, thanks, Anthony
beachcomber2008 1 month ago
@beachcomber2008
Having said that about believers, I actually have had several no-planers tell me that my videos had caused them to change their minds and face the fact that the planes that were seen by hundreds of people, videoed and photographed in New York were real. A minor triumph, perhaps, although I often wonder if my time might have been better spent. But the moving finger has writ, and moved on, so there's nothing to be done about it.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 "I often wonder if my time might have been better spent"
I'm sure it would have been
Were it not for the ignorance, apophenia and greed of others
Perhaps we'd all be reducing our use of oil, or living in a cooler, calmer planet
Or just discovering useful things to do to pass the time
"Anything's better than TROOF"
For every conversion that's apparent you can count a hundred people that you never heard of. Betcha.
beachcomber2008 1 month ago
@beachcomber2008
Probably, but sometimes the foolish need to be exposed.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
I see you have finally found in 'mikebeange' a supporter on par with your level of intellect and eloquence. However, I think you two should make your mind up about what you are going to call me from now on. What's it gonna be, guys?... Is it "Saint Simon Shack" or "Simon Shit"?
Good Heavens - I never thought you clowns would ever reach such heights of childishness.
simonshack 1 month ago 3
@simonshack I was calling you no-planers for what you really are long before I discovered alawson's content.
310revelation 1 month ago
@simonshack
All you can do is attack your opponents, not their findings.
"A micro-precision match." Don't those words embarrass you?
Explain the plane-shaped holes in the buildings and all of the videos and eyewitnesses. You can't, so you just attack those who can.
alawson911 1 month ago
We are living in an age of deception. I don't agree with everything in SImon's video, but the whole psy-ops idea is plausible in this age of technology we live in today.
brandon804va 2 months ago
@brandon804va
"We are living in an age of deception" of that there is no doubt, but tell me: which parts of Shack's video(s) DO you agree with? He fails to present one solid, provable fact to back up his beliefs. He has not proved that the "fade to black" was studio generated because of an overshooting graphic, nor that the Naudet video nor any of the South Tower videos were faked.
Beliefs are not facts, and innuendo does not count. Shack has not proved that there were no planes in New York.
alawson911 2 months ago
No kidding... alawson911, your theories are the worst kind. Your explaination for debunking September Clues is ridiculous. Hmmm.. aluminum planes into steel building like hot knife through butter. Gimme a break!
andymorejon 2 months ago 4
@andymorejon
Look at the references material in the video notes, above. The expression "...hot knife through butter" is absurd, considering the kinetic energy to be expended by a 160 (or so) ton mass moving at a velocity of about 850 feet per second. On the other hand, you may prefer to remain ignorant of the physics about such things, but you are young yet, and may realise your errors of understanding in future.
Educating oneself, or remaining ignorant, is always a matter of personal choice.
alawson911 2 months ago
Comment removed
kansasinnovember 2 months ago
american people idiot
intuaidumeda 2 months ago
Here's a conspiracy theory for ya...
Two planes hit the World Trade Center... then one hit the Pentagon, and another crashed in Pennsylvania. All piloted by terrorists !
Yeah, I know crazy,huh ?
Sorry "truthers"... the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Shit happened... deal with it.
Or maybe the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet that ricocheted off of JFK's head and was kept aloft by HAARP for 38 years ! Spooky !
Quick ! Call George Noory !
TacomaPaul 2 months ago
thanks for answering so quickly, sooooo what though? Nano-Thermite, uhhh, Free-fall? uhhhh never has a high-rise "exploded" into its own footprint in less than 10 seconds,, WTC7 again..into its footprint... uhhh no physicists, architects, realists, basic human knowledge beleives this 9/11 commision BS, get with the program dude, September Clues may not be perfect, but at least he's in it for the truth. 13 million into 9/11 investigation, 130 million into Clinton's BJ.
eric1love 3 months ago 2
@eric1love
Now you are moving the goalposts. The collapses of the towers and WTC7 have nothing to do with whether or not the planes were real planes. September Clues is a stupid diversion; Shack has proven nothing, and his disregard for the truth, in favour of unprovable suggestions and innuendo has misled a lot of people, including you. The planes were real, as proved by the debris they left; the holes in the towers; the impact shaking of the South Tower and the videos. You've been fooled.
alawson911 3 months ago
ooooo, he edited one audio... and if all 'amateur' videos were not amateurs at all, explain that...all worked in media/video/3D imaging. explain it, all eyewitnesses questioned all work for one of the furious five ABC,CNN, Fox etc., explain that.
eric1love 3 months ago
@eric1love
You do write a lot of rubbish. Shack not only edited an eyewitness sound track, he faded out one element of what was supposed to be a "pixel-perfect match" and misled viewers about a "fade to black". His accusations amount to nothing but innuendo; he does not make a single point that supports his claims that all of the videos were faked, and nor have you. Your claims about the video's being made by people working in the media do not need explaining because they are untrue.
alawson911 3 months ago
@alawson911
1: You are still stuck at the 2007 SC version, Anthony dear. In the 2008 version, I elongated the Live CBS segment with Theresa Renaud - including that sentence of hers you believe is so important.
2: At the time of the 2007 SC version, I only had a low-res version of the Nose-Out shot. The high-res version I found later only helped confirm the case: watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
3. The fade-to-blacks are to be found in the OFFICIAL TV ARCHIVES, Tony!
What exactly is "untrue", Anthony?
simonshack 2 months ago 3
@simonshack
1: What you edited out was highly relevant to your innuendo. I am not a fool, Mr. Shack, people in tall buildings can see and hear events at greater distances than those in short ones. You know that edit was not to save time, and early lies have a habit of remaining in people's minds.
2: Forget video quality, the same event was captured without "fades to black" from the eastern side of the WTC by several cameras; the shape rapidly dispersed. Explain that.
3: What official archives?
alawson911 2 months ago
@alawson911 Could you "please" show any video evidence of the huge hole in the asphalt on Murray Street that would have been caused as a result of an engine dropping out of the sky from 700ft up and how did it end up where it did,without knocking down any of the surrounding scaffolding,or did it just roll there as many others claim,thank you.
kansasinnovember 2 months ago 3
@kansasinnovember
What is your point? Are you suggesting that because no one took a photograph showing a dent or a hole in the road where a 3-ton engine core hit it, having already damaged a building on the way down, that this means that the engine did not come from the South Tower?
Have you overlooked the fact that photographers and video makers might have been otherwise engaged, while the world, almost literally, was falling around everyone's ears, and people were jumping to their deaths?
alawson911 2 months ago
@alawson911 ...Are you suggesting that there is NO video evidence showing a hole in the ground as a result of an engine falling out of the sky from 700ft because the photographers and video makers might have been otherwise engaged ?,Doing what....filming the landing gear & engine on Murray Street.
please let me know your address and i'll send you a two-piece jigsaw that may well keep you occupied until christmas.
kansasinnovember 2 months ago 9
@alawson911
Just google "September 11 Television Archive", Tony darling. If those archives are not official enough for you - I cannot help you. Perhaps you believe I manufactured those 3000+ hours of TV broadcasts myself? I really wonder why I even waste my time responding to you, Tony. You recently admitted that you had not watched September Clues v. 2008 at all (only part of the 2007 version) - and now you are telling me you have never looked up the 9/11 TV archives?? What a clown you are.
simonshack 2 months ago 3
@simonshack
You are always resorting to insults. Because you cannot successfully attack my logic, you feel a need to attack me.
The word "official" has a very particular meaning. Google it. You used it in your earlier post, but dropped it in your most recent one. Oh yes, I have looked through hundred of 9/11videos, sourced from many Internet sites, but I have never found one with the appellation "Official" attached to it.
You really should learn to stop moving the goal posts during arguments.
alawson911 2 months ago
@alawson911 wrote:
"You are always resorting to insults. Because you cannot successfully attack my logic, you feel a need to attack me."
Attack you? Me? Attacking you? How funny... Didn't you make this very "September Clues Busted" precisely to attack me? Insults? You are the one and only person I know on this planet who keeps trying to insult me - and discredit my research. You're not very good at it. But I actually enjoy it all & I wish you'll live forever, Tony - you are such a puny lark...
simonshack 2 months ago 16
@simonshack
Research! You don't even take into account the videos taken from the other side.
Did you know that if the plane's image had been a graphic, in the clip you go on about so much, the "nose" should have emerged about a 1/4 second earlier than it does? You say it was a moving graphic and that is why the shot was "faded to black". But the body of evidence shows that it was extruded dust which quickly lost its barrel-like shape as it dispersed, which explains the apparent time lag.
alawson911 2 months ago
@alawson911
"Research!" (??) Anthony dear, for you to ask me "to research 9/11" (more exhaustively or comprehensively, I take it?) is breathtakingly hilarious. I invite you to get familiar with my website (septemberclues.info) and my forum (cluesforum.info) where I - along with dozens of international researchers - have analyzed/dissected for the last 4 years just about every single available image/photo/video released by the media in relation to 9/11. Have you done likewise?
simonshack 1 month ago
@simonshack
And not one of you has come up with proof that any of the videos were faked. You are a charlatan who insists that what he thinks MIGHT have happened is an accurate portrayal of what ACTUALLY happened. Even if your "fade" to black were a fade, you cannot supply one piece of evidence that indicates that it was done to cover up a graphic-overlay mistake. Why would anyone waste their time looking for more holes in your claims, when they are all so obviously unsustainable?
alawson911 1 month ago
@simonshack Nobody needs to discredit your reasearch because your theories are crap, your video it shit to begin with, and you don't know jack about video production. I watched your video all the way through and laughed at the lunacy behind it and the lack of it proving anything. The impossibility behind animated planes live on tv timed with building detonations and every single fire fighter, cop, and news anchor all being paid off secret agents is outright stupidity
mikebeange 1 month ago
@simonshack Your famous "nose-out" shot has already been debunked. If the mask of the towers drifted to allow the nose of the plane to come out the other end, guess what also would have happened? It would have drifted on the opposite side as well, meaning, that the plane would have gone in FRONT of the building for a split second before going into it and then coming out the other end! You can’t have it on one side only. It doesn’t work like that in your imaginary world of tv fakery
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange wrote:
"It would have drifted on the opposite side as well, meaning, that the plane would have gone in FRONT of the building for a split second before going into it and then coming out the other end!"
That is precisely what can be observed, dear Mikebeange:
NOSED OUT: watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
(between 1min17 and 1min25)
simonshack 1 month ago
@simonshack Actually no, that’s not what can be seen. The airplane is a dark colour and as soon as it hit’s the grey building it disappears. If the nose went in front of the building you would see a dark nose in front of the building! But it’s not dark, because it’s not there! A dark nose does not blend in with a grey building. What you're seeing is the result of highly compressed footage that was poorly shot to begin with.
310revelation 1 month ago
@simonshack The nose out is also NOT a micro precision match as you claim it is. It’s not even close. The nose out can also be seen in other shots from the opposite side of the building where it becomes obvious that it’s nothing more than part of the explosion
310revelation 1 month ago
Comment removed
310revelation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simonshack And btw, if Fox is trying so hard to hide some dubious secret by taking this video off the internet as you claim than why is it still online at the following WNYW link in it's original unedited form?
myfoxny com/dpp/news/sept_11/090921_First_Minutes_Of_September_11th_Attacks
310revelation 1 month ago
@simonshack You dare say my friends son ISNT DEAD??!! Come to NY and try that bs here. You would never. All you are, is a nutjob, looking to make money off the backs of the dead. Your distraction side show has been debunked over and over again...and your assertions NO ONE DIED is sick and disrespectfull.
What you and your scumbag friend Ace Baker did to the truth movement is unforgivable. This is not a joke for you to make a buck on....but scum like you are sociopaths who cant understand that
FreedumbFighter28 1 month ago
@FreedumbFighter28 Would you find it disrespectful to mention your friend's son's name? If I had some friend who died in a terror attack I would most certainly mention his/her name as often as possible - in order to honor my friend's memory. Will you?
I've been several times in New York and plan to return - money permitting.
As for me 'making a buck' on this, please know that the entire body of my longstanding research is freely available online for anyone to view and read.
simonshack 1 month ago
@simonshack Youve already said his name enough and I will not give you the pleasure of using it here. YOU PROMOTE DISINFORMATION SIMON
The camera on Rockefeller Center and the Helicopter shot, ARE NOT the same shot. ANY serious 911 researcher KNOWS THAT. PEOPLE DIED!! Anyone who smelled the hole, or watched as family members NEVER returned home KNOWS THAT. I already know what kind of a scumbag you really are. So, you can save the nice guy act for some other dupe you meet along the way
FreedumbFighter28 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 2 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How do you explain Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to planning 911 in an Al Jazeera interview back in 2002?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 2 months ago
@ctcole77 ummm, there's 4 questions in your babbling there... and ALL of them can be answered quite easily by anyone, u don't have to be a so-called "truther"... look at the big picture, or look up the word "Reichtag" (that's how Hitler started his war btw). They didn't investigate 9/11... they cleaned up their tracks as fast as they could so they could play the patriotic card putting only around 10-13 million into investigation/legal processes... compared to Clinton's 130million dollar BJ.
eric1love 2 months ago
@eric1love Um, acually NO they don't all work for the news. There where lots of eye witnesses that where average people off of the street who where going to work. But if you believe everything Simon Shit tells you than you wouldn't know any better.
mikebeange 1 month ago
@mikebeange
To call me "Simon Shit" is rather childish of you, is it not? In any case, this is not about 'believing anything that I might tell you. Everyone is entirely free to make his/her own mind up - by personally verifying each and every one of my analyses and conclusions (as summarized at my website - septemberclues.info)
simonshack 1 month ago
This video shows the Proof it was fake.. At 3:00 judging from the speed and angle of the plane coming in from the top of the screen, it should of hit at about 8 seconds after it came into view, but right when its suppose to hit, there's a cut to a different shot, but count 8 secs in the next shot and then that's when the explosion happens.. 8 + 8= 16 Time on video 3:16 = Explosion. Pre-edited video..
xeno4ever13 3 months ago
@xeno4ever13
I doubt that even Chuck Yeager could have estimated "from the speed and angle of the plane" that from the moment it appeared until impact would have been 8 seconds. Can you tell us how you developed this remarkable skill?
With such a hazy image, getting any accurate information about the plane's size, relative to the buildings, would be extremely difficult, even knowing the object-to-camera distance and the focal length of the taking lens.
Your marks: Zero out of 10, I'm afraid.
alawson911 3 months ago
@alawson911 wow your good, but I didn't post this video PUPPETS DID.. And since your so good, you tell me how they "Pulled" Building 7 when it was on fire.. That meas that while the building was still on fire they had men go in with explosives risking their own lives??? the only way Building 7 fell was because explosives were already in the building...OH wait the Fire brought the building down..Right??? But I thought it was Pulled??? I'm confused cause that's what Larry Silverstein said..
xeno4ever13 3 months ago
@xeno4ever13
You appear to be one of those people who thinks that anyone who accepts that the planes were real, also accepts the entire official story. If you look at my video notes you will see that I do not think that way. Also, watch my first 9/11 video: WTC7 -- This is an Orange, and you may decide that your sarcasm is unwarranted.
Of course WTC7 had to have been rigged long before 9/11, so were the Towers, but that does not make Simon Shack's September Nonsense acceptable in any way.
alawson911 3 months ago
@alawson911 .. No I'm one of those people who understand whats going on around the world and how Zionist are fuking everything up for humanity..you might be right that there were no planes, but i don't think many people are going to swallow that one.. The official story is so much better to work with because there way more holes that are easier for people who don't know the truth to see. I'm a pretty good editor and I can tell that maybe your "No plane" idea can be true.. No hard feelings :)
xeno4ever13 3 months ago
@xeno4ever13
What are you on about? You wrote:
"... you might be right that there were no planes..."
Of course there were planes in New York, that is what my video is all about: debunking September Clues which claims that there were NO planes in New York.
You call yourself "a pretty good editor" but you can't follow the storyline of a video. I suggest that you do some serious thinking before making an even a bigger fool of yourself.
alawson911 3 months ago
@alawson911 .. Oh.. never mind.. you and your videos are a waste of time then..
xeno4ever13 3 months ago
very professional video by the feds .the truth will set us free.
sheenyheed 3 months ago