September Clues -- The puzzle is coming together...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...truth bubbling up all over the place -- watcha gonna do?

1 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eW3_AvwnwSk

2 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WXzbALFBER0&feature=user

3 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CrSoYOafbv8&feature=user

4 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0HkkEBsuU&feature=related

5 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OWOY8EZkP2U&feature=related

6 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yp4ILfAOHq8&feature=related

7a of 9 http://youtube.com/watch?v=49hTGjKlOhg&feature=user

7b of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FJtnL8I9C30&feature=related

8 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LspZ40Ly-c4&feature=user

9 of 9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5NoxrGewB_w&feature=related

September Clues Epilogue: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWIpUoBaUvs&feature=user

[balantz]

1. I'm surprised there are no responses to this.

This is some very interesting stuff.

[seatnineb]

2. Sep Clues is riddled with mistakes....jump before U sink. n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. Please feel free to elaborate...

...that's the whole idea behind this forum.

[seatnineb]

4. Sure....

Simon claims in this video
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

that this black gash:


is not real......and has been digitally composited in.

He is wrong.

I then synchronised another rare video(shown by msnbc) with the naudet footage...so that both videos show the same moment in time......

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eqF8ag7WzN0


As you can see...from the 2 screen shots below.....which show 2 videos showing the same moment in time.....and despite their different angles....both videos show the gash...and the shadow...on the north face of the north tower.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. Does this complete your elaboration...

...on your claim that September Clues is "riddled with mistakes?" That's it?

[seatnineb]

6. No....

Simon claims in this vid....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oqEpuTGc98s&feature=related

......that there is a 17 second delay in the live broadcast:

There is a delay....but The delay is only 4 seconds long....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VTtgCnnKipM



Do you want me to go on......

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Absolutely, let's get it ALL out there...

...please don't withhold anything.

[seatnineb]

8. One at a time....

There has been a bit of controversy as to whether the reflection of the towers and the plane should have been seen in the windshield of the car in the Fairbanks video:

Simon also believes that the towers and the plane should not be seen..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rclZs4cfKU8&feature=related



...well....the petronas towers are quite far away from this car.....yet the reflection is still caught in the windsheild....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. One at a time is fine...

...please keep them coming -- that's what this forum is for.

[seatnineb]

10. Whoa!....hold the press..Do U agree that Simon has made mistakes? n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Hold the press?

...Why is that?

Am I to understand that the continuance of your presentation is contingent on my participation? I must concur or offer a rebuttal, or you stop the show? Why is that?

If you think September Clues is, as you claim, "riddled with mistakes" why not lay out your case in it's entirety for everyone to see?

Again, that's what this forum is for.

[seatnineb]

14. Dude...I just highlighted 3 big and pretty basic mistakes that Simon

...has done......

And I can offer more...

...I just wanna see you stand up and have the guts to admit that Simon has made huge mistakes....


Do you agree/

Yes?

No?

I take it that you have not offered a rebuttal means you agree...or have no rebuttal to offer.....

or by admitting that simon has made mistakes.... u r afraid of pissing off the likes of Fred ,Nico,WefFairy and Killtown?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. You're quite mistaken if you're assuming that...

...my not having offered a rebuttal means I'm necessarily in agreement with your claims.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who would dare to disagree with your assessment of Simon's work, or simply choose to reserve judgment, lacks guts?

You're the one claiming Simon's analysis is "riddled with mistakes." Again, why not lay out your case in it's entirety for all to see?

What difference does it make how, or even whether, I choose to respond to your presentation?

You have so far put forth what you consider to be 3 mistakes in Simon's work, and claim that you can offer more -- if that's the case, let's have 'em.

After all, that's what this forum is for.

[seatnineb]

16. So challenge my claim that sep clues is riddled with mistakes...

..can't be that difficult...can it?

I'll show you another of Simon's mistakes....

He claims the helicopter should be seen in the cnn shot on the left.....becos it is visible in the amateur video on the right...


But Simon forgets that the video on the right is shot at a much lower altitude than the cnn(chopper7) broadcast on the left.....

By syncronising the devlin clark video(on the left) ...to this same amateur video....so that both videos show the same moment in time...you can actually see that the helicopter was substantially higher than the towers:


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w_I1rYPJ9KQ

That is why the helicopter is missing from the cnn shot...becos' it is out of frame

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. Is there some reason you're so determined to goad me into...

...providing instant feedback in the form of agreement or counter-argument? Or is that just my imagination?


And does this conclude your sequential presentation in support of your claim that September Clues is "riddled with errors?"
Or is there more?

If there's more, please lay it out for all to see, since, as you know, that's what this forum is all about.

[seatnineb]

25. I highlighted mistakes in Sepclues..so "what you gonna do"

you plug sepclues....right?

so why don't you defend it...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. I posted September Clues because...

...I think it has validity and is a worthy contribution to the Truth movement. That doesn't mean I've necessarily formed completely hardened opinions about all of Simon Shack's work, nor does it mean I necessarily feel compelled to enter into some kind of smack down debate with anyone and everyone who comes along to question September Clues.

Your input, if it's sincere and you're simply here trying to contribute to the 9-11 discussion is welcome, whether you agree with all, part, or none of Simon Shack's conclusions.

Your effort to goad me into a point by point refutation or confirmation of everything you post challenging September Clues is childish and unwelcome. September Clues is Simon Shack's work, not mine.

Incidentally, have you directed the specifics of your concerns about September Clues to Simon Shack? If not, why? If so, please share his response.

[seatnineb]

32. When Sepclues came out a year ago.....I was one of the 1st to praise it...

Posted Jun 7, 07 by Seatnineb
Blown away by that presentation......awsome!....excellent observation with the delayed live feed analysis......thanks
http://www.livevideo.com/media/commentmedia.aspx?cid=6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129

cos at face value.....it does look like Simon raises important questions regarding anamolies.....until you examine them for yourself.....and realise that Simon is talking bullshit ...for the most part......

He claimed that for 1 frame....the plane disappears in the naudet footage



...when I found the equivalent frame from my DVD.....the plane was still there:



The above are glaring mistakes......

And yeah....we had a mini confrontation on youtube....I challenged him to a debate....and i have not heard back from him....

The oldest message starts at the top going to the most recent message at the bottom.

Seatnineb

Simon.....look at the different altitude of the chopper in my Devin vs Pidgeon...
It is caused by perspective...nothing more and nothing less....

simonshack

No. Sorry, Seatnineb.

Have you also become a 'parallax parrot' ?

Sad.

Seatnineb

I guess the truth about perspective hurts...huh?

simonshack

No, sir. I'm sure you know the meaning of 'sad' in this circumstance. A bon entendeur...

Seatnineb
Your ananlysis in sep clues 2 regarding the missing helicopter ..is flawed....

Open a thread on 911Movement

I'll be more than glad to debate and thoroughly debunk U.....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w_I1rYPJ9KQ

[Flatulo]

33. Let me tell you a little bit about Mr_ Jefferson_24...

He is the master of the hit and run post. He will never debate you, ever. If you question his posts, he will retreat into psychoanalyzing your reasons for questioning him. If you point out a factual error in his posts, which any child can do, he will call you childish and a distraction and a supporter of Bush.

My advice is to completely ignore him. He is not worth getting worked up over.

[Make7]

34. That's funny...

... I was just going to tell Mr_Jefferson_24 that seatnineb was not worth getting worked up over and it would probably be best to just ignore him completely.

Strange...

-Make7

[Flatulo]

48. I think they both exist in a version of reality that is quite different from mine.

But at least seatnineb has taken the trouble to put together a coherent refutation of Mr_jefferson_24's post, which he will now neither defend or acknowlegde any trouble with. He will instead resort to the same old bullshit that I have seen him use time and time again. He'll scamper off to lick his wounds and come back with some new bullshit in a few weeks.

He is like a recurring rash.

I personally do not waste any time on him.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

54. If you're not willing to offer any substantive...

...response to the OP, then why are you here posting on this "no planes" thread at all?

Is post #37 hitting to close to the truth, kinda like the OP?

Is that why nuisance/distraction is all you can come up with? Could you possibly be any more transparent?

[Laurier]

65. That is an excellent demonstration that Flatulo was correct

when he said:

If you question his posts, he will retreat into psychoanalyzing your reasons for questioning him. If you point out a factual error in his posts, which any child can do, he will call you childish and a distraction and a supporter of Bush.

Priceless.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

100. Did you view September Clues, Laurier?

And what did you think, thumbs up?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

90. What do you think of September Clues, Make?

[SDuderstadt]

92. Would somebody PLEASE agree with Mr. J....

so he doesn't have to keep begging for support? It's getting pathetic.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. That's interesting ...

...because once upon a time you started this OP, again offering unsolicited advice, presumably aimed at your fellow nuisance/distraction spam associates:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=195747

And in this same thread you offered this clarification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=195747#195751

And now your unsolicited recommendation is to completely ignore me -- gosh that hurts.

:rofl:

You may recall that I responded to your OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=195747#195885


What is it about exposing the truth of 9-11 that frightens you so, Flatulo?

For anyone with any doubt whatsoever as to what Flatulo is, you need only peruse the numerous 9-11 forum threads he's visited, for many months now, sprinkling nothing but inane ridicule laced nuisance/distraction spam.

Flatulo, like a handful of others who frequent this forum, is here with a purpose that has nothing to do with getting at the truth -- quite the opposite in fact. The idea is to prevent any meaningful discourse from taking place by driving away anyone serious about exchanging ideas, thoughts, and information about the events of 9-11, and they do this via nuisance/distraction spam -- and it works. Nuisance/distraction brigade members are easy to identify simply by examining the frequency with which they post, and by the non-substantive ridicule laced BS they spew.

The 9-11 and I/P forums are the only two places where this kind of environment (nuisance/distraction spammers rule) is permitted at DU. How interesting.

[SDuderstadt]

38. How is calling you on your bullshit...

preventing any meaningful discourse? Oh, wait...you're a "no-planer"....nevermind.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. See post #36...

...Lared and Flatulo will be over to take turns burping you shortly.

[SDuderstadt]

40. It never fails....

when you back a "truther" into a corner, they have no choice but to pretend they have the upper hand. It's hysterical. Hey, Mr. J! How many adherents are you up to now? 12? 15?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. Never fails is absolutely right...

...an OP is started in the 9-11 forum which seeks to honestly examine/understand/explore the events of 9-11, and as soon as somebody shows up who's sincerely interested in a meaningful discussion (this time it was Balantz), in swoops the nuisance/distraction brigade -- like clockwork.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Is your position so weak, that it....

can't stand up to scrutiny? Why are you so terrified of opposition? Can't your goofy theories stand on their own?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

43. What position? All I did was post a series of video presentations...

...called September Clues. Did you view these videos? Do you have any substantive commentary to offer on their content?

If so, why not post it? If not, why are you here?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Seatnineb already did a great job...

of debunking your silly source, Mr. J. Are you really claiming you have no, position? I thought 9/11 "truth" was "bubbling up all over". Now you're claiming you're just posting videos. If so, why are you so touchy? Just askin' questions.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

45. Does Seatnineb do your thinking for you now?

...where is YOUR commentary on the OP? Did you even view September Clues?

Again, if you viewed the videos why not offer YOUR commentary on them? Otherwise, why are you here?

[SDuderstadt]

46. For the love of God, Mr. J.

How many times does it have to be debunked before you stop flogging it?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. That's what I thought...

...as always you have absolutely nothing to offer...well, perhaps with the one possible exception of serving as a useful tool for keeping my thread kicked.

Thanks for the multiple kicks, Sdude.

:hi:

[quicknthedead]

27. seatnineb just showed 4 mistakes in the video

Mr_Jefferson_24,

seatnineb just showed you 4 mistakes in the video, and yet for this work he did (in response to your request to produce evidence of mistakes), you show him disrespect by not responding to his request for a simple yes or no on the 4.

His politely asking you to admit if these 4 instances were in fact mistakes (which they are, BTW) and your non-responses that follow, shows a lack of courage on your part to admit TO THE TRUTH (in this instance).

Isn't it good and proper when someone acknowledges the TRUTH with a fierce dedication far and above any presuppositions that may be held?

kind regards
quicknthedead

[SDuderstadt]

28. Ummm, Mr. J. is...

not all that concerned with the truth, as shown by the fact that he is a proud "no-planer".

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

36. Here we go again, baby needs his bottle ...

...Oh alright, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=192792#192920

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. See post #29

[quicknthedead]

58. Understood, loud and clear.

Here it is again in a nutshell.

You ask for evidence of mistakes in the referenced video from seatnineb.

seatnineb then provides the evidence you asked for. He shows you 4 mistakes you had put up in your OP. Yes, the video was done by someone else...but since your "answer" was to see your post #29, here is what it states:
QUOTE:
"...I think it has validity and is a worthy contribution to the Truth movement. That doesn't mean I've necessarily formed completely hardened opinions about all of Simon Shack's work, nor does it mean I necessarily feel compelled to enter into some kind of smack down debate with anyone and everyone who comes along to question September Clues.

Your input, if it's sincere and you're simply here trying to contribute to the 9-11 discussion is welcome, whether you agree with all, part, or none of Simon Shack's conclusions.

Your effort to goad me into a point by point refutation or confirmation of everything you post challenging September Clues is childish and unwelcome. September Clues is Simon Shack's work, not mine.
CLOSED QUOTE.

The underlined part in your quote is not true. seatnineb stopped right up front and asked you in his post #10 (thereby showing prudence as it appeared you were going to ask him for examples all day long while never responding to any of them). He asked for a yes or no.

S/he was not asking for a discussion or trying to goad you into a point by point refutation. seatnineb was simply asking if you agreed yes or no whether the 4 examples were indeed mistakes. He must have felt miffed that he was doing all this posting to show you obvious mistakes that you had asked for, yet you would not give him the time of day. Your answer was (and still is) nothing.

What is so wrong with answering YES OR NO on whether or not you agree the 4 examples (which you had repeatedly kept asking for) are mistakes? I wonder why you post an OP and then ignore people who take time to respond (do you understand this "posting" stuff at all?). You should be making an effort to communicate instead of wasting people's time, because that is what you did.

Or are you afraid to answer yes or no because you are afraid of what your answer might be?

BTW, you haven't wasted my time because I have only been trying to help.

Adios
quicknthedead

[Flatulo]

59. I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time. I've been down this road

with Mr_Jefferson_24 several times.

He is not interested in discussing the merits of his post.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

61. Your "nutshell" recap is just silly.

Seatnineb claimed September Clues is "riddled with mistakes" in post #2 and did not appear to be intent on offering anything in support of that claim. I merely invited him to do so and offer everything he's got in support of that claim.

How do you figure this obligates me to immediately evaluate/analyze his presentation and promptly indicate whether I agree with him or not on each point?

He's the one making claims about September Clue, not me, and September Clues is not my work, it's Simon Shacks -- amazingly, these facts seem to somehow be lost on you.

[quicknthedead]

64. Your character is showing...

And it's not complimentary.

You are afraid of the truth.

It's true, you're not obligated in life to do anything when you don't have the courage to answer when it is appropriate.

Some "truther" you are...well, here's one for you...I myself am a "9/11 truther" and, unlike you, am not afraid of the truth.

In addition, the truth comes out unequivocally that 9/11 was not an inside job, and if you really think planes didn't hit those buildings, you're a sad excuse of an investigator...and a sane person.

Now go back to rolling on the floor laughing your *** off.

[Flatulo]

66. You're a very honest poster, quick, and I admire that.

Peace bro.

[Make7]

72. You might be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

Perhaps his responses in this thread are not a complete picture. Here are a couple of sub-threads that might give a slightly different perspective:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x106915#106915

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x154729#154729

-Make7

[AZCat]

79. quick has had...

something of a revelation recently. He posted about it over on the JREF forums (which are unfortunately still down for maintenance). I don't presume to speak for him, but it is possible his opinions about the subjects of those posts has changed since then. Perhaps he would be kind enough to clarify.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

88. What do you think of September Clues...

...thumbs up?

[SDuderstadt]

89. Won't someone please step up and agree with Mr. J....

so he won't have to humiliate himself by begging for support?

[balantz]

91. I don't think he is asking for anyone to agree with him.

I think he is asking people what they think of September Clues.

[SDuderstadt]

96. So far...

no one seems to think much of it...quite the opposite, in fact.

[AZCat]

93. Who gives a shit what I think? I'm an anonymous poster on the internet.

Whether I liked it or not should be irrelevant. You don't seem to be interested in discussing details, so what's left?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

94. Did you view the September Clues videos?

[AZCat]

95. Again - why is this relevant?

You shouldn't care about my opinion and you're not willing to discuss specifics, so what else is there?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

98. Pretty amazing -- I post an OP linking 10 Youtube videos that ...

...comprise September Clues, you show up and post on my thread, so I ask you if you've viewed the September Clues videos, and you respond by asking:

"Why is that relevant?"





Gee, I can't imagine what relevance my question could possibly have, AZCat, sorry I asked.

[AZCat]

107. That wasn't what you first asked.

In post #88, you said

What do you think of September Clues...
...thumbs up?

This is irrelevant, for the reasons I explained above. You responded with post #94

Did you view the September Clues videos?

This appeared to me to be an attempt to reframe your question from post #88, and I felt it was irrelevant (for the reasons I explained above).

If you are purely interested in whether I have seen the video, I think I have watched about half of it, but it was a while ago. I might be confusing it with something else.

[greyl]

97. Forum's are back up.

Looks like quick may have been inspired by a post of JBerryhill's last year, in regards to sound traveling down through pipes etc.

[Make7]

99. AZCat, the subject under discussion in those sub-threads...

Edited subject line to specify who I was responding to.

... was not really the aspect I was attempting to point out. It was actually the manner in which quicknthedead seemed to respond to those who disagreed with and/or questioned him. Especially in that first sub-thread. Even though he was demonstrably wrong on a point of fact, he chose to reply with name-calling and reposting his error again and again.

Perhaps if in the beginning he had made more of an attempt to converse with people that have opposing points of view, his revelation may not have taken so long.

quicknthedead wrote: (in post #27 of this thread)
His politely asking you to admit if these 4 instances were in fact mistakes (which they are, BTW) and your non-responses that follow, shows a lack of courage on your part to admit TO THE TRUTH (in this instance).

Isn't it good and proper when someone acknowledges the TRUTH with a fierce dedication far and above any presuppositions that may be held?

The above statement just seemed at odds with his prior reluctance to deal with mistakes of his own. Perhaps he has changed his ways. My previous response was based on my knowledge of his past behavior - I was not aware of the new Craig. Thanks for sharing that information.

-Make7

[AZCat]

106. I apologize for missing your point.

You may indeed be correct about the delay of his revelation. I don't know if his ways have changed, but his point of view regarding the various conspiracy theories of September 11th has indeed changed.

[quicknthedead]

109. You can speak for me anytime, AZCat...

...and what you wrote is true.

Make7, I have come to understand the answer to "the seismic times vs the radar times" in the paper I wrote. What follows finally explains the factual but unexplained incongruity of the times.

The 8:46:29 seismic time is beyond reproach (plus or minus 1 second).

However, thanks to gumboot at JREF, we have the solution from two of his posts that finally solves this mystery.

(1) He explained that radar screens refresh all at once, something I did not know (even when I asked ATC Robin Hordon extensively on this mystery a while back, he did not provide this critical piece of information). Here is gumboot's excellent post on this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3685761#post3685761

(2) Then we consider the actual radar return time of 8:46:40. Yes, it was based upon the final primary return, but when the screen refreshed all at once, this actual final return for AA Flt 11 could have occurred anywhere during the "pre"-refresh time, and it would depend upon the actual antenna that picked up the return. Thankfully, gumboot also had provided the answer to this a few posts prior. He stated that "the ARSR-4 has an update rate of 12 seconds - that gives us a sweep margin of error".
Link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3682663#post3682663

I am convinced this antenna's update rate of 12 seconds must be the answer to the mystery. Thanks, gumboot!

FYI, I had thought long and hard about WTC7 about a month before this, and finally came to a definite conclusion in my mind that WTC7 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CD (this is based in logic; I subsequently put this into a thread at JREF linked here in case you are interested):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3693504#post3693504

Once I had come to this conclusion about WTC7, I seriously re-examined all evidence claiming to be indicative that 9/11 was an inside job...but there just isn't any hard evidence anywhere...nothing I can find.

However, the paper's mystery still nagged me, so in the posts prior to these by gumboot that I've linked here is where I finally told JREF that, although I still had questions about the incongruity of the times, I no longer believed 9/11 was an inside job.

WTC7 was always the linchpin in my mind on this matter (way more than the paper I wrote).

BTW, my title for the paper was originally "Plane Impacts Time Discrepancies", but Jim Fetzer did not like this and strongly suggested "Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was An Inside Job". I liked my title and did not care much for his, but I felt they might not put the paper into the Journal unless I changed the name, so I agreed to the change (much to my chagrin, because at the time, all I wanted was an investigation into these questions of WTC7 and the impact times). Agreeing to this title change was a mistake; it was my paper and I should have paid no attention to Fetzer.

Oh well, we all make mistakes in life, but hopefully we continue to learn.

To this day I still maintain unequivocally that WTC7 does look like a classic, controlled demolition. However, does this mean it is one just because it looks one?

The answer is an unequivocal NO.

WTC7 could not have been a CD because it is illogical based upon the facts.

Sorry for giving you such a hard time, Make7. You were always a gentleman and straight-forward (even though you are as stubborn as I am!).

This darn 9/11 stuff does tend to get people all emotional at times, as we all know.

Adios
quicknthedead

[Make7]

112. Discussions about 9/11 do tend to become somewhat adversarial.

(Especially on the internet.)

I accept your apology, although one really isn't necessary simply for giving me a hard time.

It was unfortunate that those threads were not as productive as they might have been - I did find your observation regarding the impact time discrepancies interesting and wanted to see what possible explanations people might uncover. And as you already know, I also wanted you to demonstrate how you determined that the 9/11 Commission times were accurate (as you had claimed at the time). Apparently that's no longer an issue.

---

Before the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth split up, I wrote Steven Jones an email concerning Judy Wood. The response I received was from Jim Fetzer, and all he wanted to know was what my real name was. By not using my real name I guess he figured that the content of my email was factually incorrect. He doesn't seem to be the champion of truth he makes himself out to be. The idea of an organization of scholars investigating 9/11 is a promising one, but with Fetzer involved it was pretty much destined to fail.

Anyway, here's to more productive discussions in the future.

:toast:

Make7

[quicknthedead]

114. Thanks Make7--I'll drink to that too!

BTW, on the Judy Woods issue, wow...I could not believe Jim Fetzer went there.
Very sad, and also very ridiculous.

Credibility is precious and should be based on facts (all the time), not on conjecture.

AFAIAC: Conjecture = Just Another (Conspiracy) Theory



Fetzer should have known better. He jumped right from a certain amount of credibility into the same place where the "no-planers" dwell--the Land Of Oz!

Take 'er easy, Make7--I'll see you around the forums!

Adios
quicknthedead :beer:

[quicknthedead]

110. Thanks. Same to you too, Flatuo. n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

104. There is some truth in some of your words, but not much.

You say my character is showing -- I agree that it is, as is yours.

You call me a Truther, but I have never claimed nor sought that title. Everything I post is actually the research/presentations of others, research I have never attempted to take credit for.

You claim that I am afraid of the truth -- well, I don't deny that I find the many truths being exposed concerning the events of 9-11 frightening -- I do, in fact, find them terrifying. But I don't feel threatened by, nor do I fear, exposure of the truth. It is the people who frequent this forum with nothing but non-substantive attacks, and nuisance/distraction posts that I believe fear exposure of the truth of 9-11, and that's a profile you come much closer to fitting than I.

And most amusingly, you call yourself a Truther and then follow that up with this gem: "...the truth comes out unequivocally that 9/11 was not an inside job..." while providing absolutely NOTHING in support of it.

:rofl:

You asked for it, you got it.

:hi:

[quicknthedead]

111. Please see my post #109...

...the truth is out there.

(BTW, you really should spend more time standing on your feet.)

[seatnineb]

113. Give it up Jefferson....sepClues really is full of shit....

Simon does not have a fuckin clue(no pun intended)

In Sepclues7...he says that there is a "runaway blob"(seen to the right of the north tower antenna)....just after the 2nd plane has impacted....

He refers to this runa away blob like it is proof of some fakeryconspiracy....




But becos Simon is a pisspoor researcher.......he does not know that the runaway blob ...was in fact the helicopter that flew in a East to West direction....just south of the south tower...after the south tower was hit....

As shown here in these 2 videos(both synched to show the same moment in time)

[nebenaube]

133. I have never seen any proof that it was not a inside job... n/t

[seemslikeadream]

19. 3 mistakes?

How many mistakes are in the offical report?

[LARED]

22. How many mistakes are in the offical report

Do you know?

[seemslikeadream]

23. Zelikow knows

go ask him
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3367258&mesg_id=3367258

[seatnineb]

26. 3 mistakes too many......and piss poor ones at that......n/t

[seemslikeadream]

35. How many mistakes are in the offical report?

[Flatulo]

49. I don't understand what this question has to do with sepclues...

It's commonly accepted that the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed.

[seemslikeadream]

50. Your friend asked me

LARED (1000+ posts) Sat May-31-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. How many mistakes are in the offical report
Do you know?

[Flatulo]

52. And you repeated the question back to him... why?

[seemslikeadream]

53. No

seatnineb


OMG please try and keep up

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[balantz]

17. 5:30 into the epilogue there is a video

showing a succession of explosions manufacturing part of the gash.

Not to mention the original impact explosion in that part of that video is missing a big airplane. It looks and sounds like maybe a missle, not an airplane.

[balantz]

21. And scrutinize just after 9 minutes into this video:

What is that under that weird looking plane?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vI3ZpLuz3ts&feature=related

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. I froze it at 9:15 for a look...

...and I have no idea what that is.

I am pretty sure what it's NOT though -- it's not standard equipment on any commercial passenger jet.

[balantz]

56. Certainly not standard airline equipment.

B-)

I am grateful that there are the videos for all to study.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

115. I wonder if you could find time to...

... freeze and zoom in on this video at 4:25 and explain where the black gash is, 'cause I don't see it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X_kmfzwc5Pw

You and your supposed research aren't passing the smell test, Seatnineb.

[Perry Logan]

12. Why are OBL tapes always fakes, but a YouTube clip of unknown origin is solid evidence?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. Perhaps you should direct that question to...

...whomever has made this claim "OBL tapes are always fakes, but a Youtube clip of unknown origin is solid evidence."


You post this thread lamenting the fact that you "get accused of using the Straw Man Argument all the time..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x206255

...and then show up here and do exactly that.


I don't think you even understand what the straw man argument is. Here, Perry, read and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Perry Logan]

24. I don't think it was a straw man. This is behavior I've observed in Truthers all over the world.

The Truthers' double standard with regard to "evidence" is well-known.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. Which only confirms what I've already said...

...you don't even understand what the straw man argument is.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Ghost in the Machine]

77. Because bin Laden has been DEAD since December 2001?

:shrug:

Just a guess....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

82. Interesting theory, Ghost, was it something in September Clues...

...that led you to that conclusion?

[Ghost in the Machine]

84. No, it was reported in Fox News (I know, I know) and the NY Times

Fox News: "Bin Laden Already Dead"

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

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

The Death of bin Ladenism
By AMIR TAHERI
Published: July 11, 2002

Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.

With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?

Even if he is still in the world, bin Ladenism has left for good. Mr. bin Laden was the public face of a brand of politics that committed suicide in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people in the process.

What were the key elements of that politics?

The first was a cynical misinterpretation of Islam that began decades ago with such anti-Western ideologues as Maulana Maudoodi of Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb of Egypt. Although Mr. Maudoodi and Mr. Qutb were not serious thinkers, they could at least offer a coherent ideology based on a narrow reading of Islamic texts. Their ideas about Western barbarism and Muslim revival, distilled down to bin Ladenism, became mere slogans designed to incite zealots to murder.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EFDE1230F932A25754C0A9649C8B63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may be Fox News, but the story has never been retracted or refuted... it still stands, as of today....

[seatnineb]

57. The biggest problem is the claim that the videos are layered

Simon says that these 2 videos showing the wtc are the same....the only difference being that the backgrounds behind the wtc ...are different...



....but a closer examination reveals that the smoke is slightly different....which implies that the angles are different...

I have found a gap between the smoke and the antenna and inserted a vertical bar to highlight it....in the video on the left.....



...as you can see there is no gap between the smoke and the antenna in the video on the right......

The towers were tall beasts......just a slight change in angle.....could alter the perspective radically:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

60. Interesting that you chose not to lead with...

...what you consider to be the "biggest problem" with September Clues when first asked to offer support for your claim that it is "riddled with errors." And even more interesting that you didn't first seem intent on offering any support at all, but rather only this hit-and-run post obviously aimed at discouraging people from even viewing September Clues:

Seatnineb: Sep Clues is riddled with mistakes....jump before U sink. n/t

How do you explain that Seatnineb? Does this not smack of someone who lacks confidence in their claims?

BTW, does this now conclude your presentation, or is there still more?

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. WOW

I applaud seatnineb for doing his homework on this subject.

How do you explain that Seatnineb? Does this not smack of someone who lacks confidence in their claims?

No it smacks of someone who initially bought this hook-line and sinker, and who after detailed analysis, of his own found the substance and content lacking.

Which is more than one can say for you.

[seatnineb]

63. Every mistake is a big problem dude....

Like this one....

Simon says that these 3 videos are showing identical towers(with different backgrounds composited in)

He is wrong.



The video on the left is taken from a slightly north western angle...
that is why You can see smoke rising up the western face of the north tower in the video on the far left....

Wheras the video on the far right is taken from a direct north or slightly north eastern angle......that is why you cannot see the western face of the north tower and the the corresponding smoke rising up it's western wall.....

I have put a horizontal bar at the corresponding positions in both vidoes to show the difference.....

I am just hittin dude......no need to run!

[Flatulo]

67. Again with the pop psychology instead of addressing seatnineb's debunking.

You sound like a petulant child. Could you at least acknowledge that he has found inconsistencies in sepclues? No, I didn't think you could.

What a sorry friggin' spectacle. This is precisely why you are the only poster here in the Dungeon that I advisw people to ignore.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

68. So now Flatulo's not even following his own, always unsolicited, advice...

Flatulo: "...you are the only poster here in the Dungeon that I advise people to ignore."

Shunned by the great king of nuisance distraction spam himself -- oh God, how it hurts...

:rofl:

...my side, that is.

Oh btw, thanks for keeping my thread kicked.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

69. "Nuisance distraction spam" is a "truther" codephrase for...

"my claims basically suck, so I'll just claim any refutation of them is merely a distraction/nuisance/spam". No wonder no one is taking these clowns seriously.

[Flatulo]

70. The more people can see how intellectually dishonest you are,

the happier I am.

As I mentioned upthread, I have gone down this road with you several times. I spent quite a bit of time and effort to make a strong point that even you could understand, and for my efforts you responded with snide remarks, ridicule, nyah-nahs, and complete disdain for anything resembling rational thought.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. Damn dude, how can you say he "lacks confidence in (his) claims"?

seatnineb has been more than gracious with his time and analysis, and more than accommodating to your requests for more examples. At what point will you decide to check out the claims on your own? I think he's given you, and the rest of us, plenty enough already to motivate us to research further on our own, if we so desire.

Frankly, I'm surprised that one of our resident OCTers hasn't grabbed some of those crooked tower pics to say "look! the towers are already leaning!!" I almost fell out of my chair when I saw *that* post & picture....


PEACE!

Ghost

[balantz]

73. Why is there no background on the right pics.? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. There is... it's called "the sky"...

Look at the pictures again, but pay attention to detail this time please...



Do you notice anything *else* in the pictures? If so, please tell me what you see. If not, I'll be glad to point it out to you...

[balantz]

75. Looks like something flying around out there. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

76. I was hoping you would notice the different elevations and angles the pics were taken from

Look at the fireball, for starters. Notice the difference in height of in relation to the bottom of the frame? Also notice the angle difference where you can see the fireball on two sides of the building in the left picture, only one side in the right. You might also notice the angle of the building is opposite in each photo. This is due to camera angle, as well as position, when it was shot. Don't forget that these photos & videos were mostly taken from moving and/or hovering helicopters.

[balantz]

78. Not that much different.

Doesn't seem to be enough to wipe out the background. I'll watch the whole program again soon and check it out. Thanks!

[Ghost in the Machine]

80. It really doesn't take much...

one is from a further away downward angle, which captures the landscape below it, the other was taken from a closer, more straight on or slightly upward angle and different camera position..

PEACE!

Ghost

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

81. So what are your thoughts on September Clues, Ghost...

...thumbs up?

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. Honestly? I don't think much of anything about "no planes theories" myself...

but I don't bash others for their beliefs. We all have questions, and those questions lead us down different paths. The simple truth is that hardly anyone *really* knows the truth about what happened that day... and the ones that *do* know ain't talking, they have too much to hide. When it's all said and done, 9-11 was an inside job.... LIHOP at the very least, which is backed up by the ignored warnings and the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack"....

[seatnineb]

85. It's a definite thumbs down...........

simon shows the trajectory of the plane in this video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yp4ILfAOHq8&feature=related



...simon believes that becos the trajectory of the plane is below where the explosion will take place....




.....that this is proof of fakery...



Again ...Simon is wrong.......

The above video that simon analized was shot from a relatively low altitude...balcony/rooftop of a low/mid size building....

....just like this fotograph taken by one Robert Fisch.....

The lower you are ...and the closer you are......the lower the trajectory of the plane appears relative to the height of the explosion.....




.....but the higher in altitude you go.......then the true height of the plane....relative to the height of the explosion is revealed.........so the trajectory of the plane appears higher than the explosion....as shown in this video below:



In the screen shot below:
The above video is on the right....and the video that simon analized is on the left:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

86. But you wouldn't try to discorage people from seeing September Clues....

...so they can make up there own minds, would you, Seatnineb?

[seatnineb]

87. No ...but I'll eloborate....

The video on the left is the one simon analized....and is from a low altitude...

The video on the right is shot from a higher/high altitude

Both vidoes are synched and showing the same moment in time:

Notice how the different pespective affects the trajectory of the plane...

[vincent_vega_lives]

101. That's the problem

When viewers are told what they are seeing, it is not the same thing as making up your own mind.
The information is now biased.

Like the flag "waiving" on the moon. If told the flag is waving in the still picture, one may think "huh thats odd, it does look like it could be waiving, how could it be waiving if it was on the moon?"

Where as when one views the video it is clear the flag is not "waiving" in the wind, but the hoaxer's won't show you that.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

105. What about September Clues, Vince, have you viewed the videos?

What did you think, thumbs up?

[vincent_vega_lives]

108. Oh the thumbs up there all right...(n/t)

[victordrazen]

102. It's good because it helps break through assumptions

but I would go further and say that more than just the plane was fake. And remember they all showed the same live footage , isn't it strange different networks wouldn't all have their own camera crews and that they would take such poor quality footage?
The only problem I have is the missile conclusion.

There is a funny segment where Dick Oliver, a former NY fixture (who seems to no longer work) was interviewing people on the street and they were ALL saying they didn't see a plane or that it was something else and they cut him off saying they couldn't communicate because of the transmission pole on the North tower LOL. Then they start to interview people who are related to the government and people in the media instead - all fake.

[balantz]

103. See post 21.

And run those few frames over a few times. What do you see under that strangely shaped engine?

[Bassman66]

116. The plane was fake?

So let me get this straight.

They fake a second impact 20 MINUTES after the first with THOUSANDS watching the towers because of the first, these people will include any number of visitors from anywhere in the world carrying their videos and cameras, and the fakers totally controlled this situation by making sure not one picture or video made it onto the web that showed an explosion and no plane.

Wake up, smell the COINTELPRO.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

117. Watch this video from 1:20 to 1:40 and tell me...

... if you see a plane:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkvC1SCsIcY

Have you even watched September Clues?

[Bassman66]

118. Yes I've watched it

it's garbage - it addresses none of the issues of modern digital photography, jpeg compression or older issues like focal length and parallax, it's COINTELPRO.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

119. You really do give yourself away with...

...remarks like that.

[Bassman66]

121. You tell me

why anyone faking this would fake a second one 20 minutes after the first with thousands watching and control all the videos and pictures after the event so that there is no film or pictures of an explosion and no plane.

You tell me why I shouldn't suspect you of COINTELPRO.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

122. I just showed you one...

...and you reacted the same way OCTers always do, summarily dismissing anything and everything that doesn't fit with their sacred pre-conclusions.

How 'bout you tell me how an aluminum aircraft just melts into a steel and concrete skyscraper without exhibiting any discernible deformation, shearing of wings or stabilizer, or deacceleration.

And how the nose section makes it into, through, and out the other side of the building -- ONLY in a cartoon, Bassman.

And why no appreciable plane wreckage near the base of either tower, the Pentagon site, or at Shanksville.

And how a plane gets anywhere near the Pentagon without being shot down.

And why there's no video showing a plane flying into the Pentagon.

And how the Pentagon lawn on the approach side comes away virtually unscathed.

And why men in business clothes (no gloves or protective clothing) were immediately out collecting any debris they could find off the lawn at the Pentagon site. Is that part of accepted NTSB crash site investigation procedure?

And why so many of the first eye-witness accounts aired on 9-11 were media personalities, and why media conveniently forget to get the names of the other plane corroborators they interviewed.

And how building WTC 1,2, and 7 just collapses into their own footprints at roughly free fall speed, if controlled demolition wasn't used.

And why, when informed of the attack, that Chimpy just sits there with a guilty blank stare rather than leaping into action, and why he wouldn't have been immediately hustled off to a secure location.

And why, according to the Bureau of Transportation statistics, the four planes allegedly hijacked on 9-11 never took off, and why, according to the FAA, they weren't even scheduled to fly.

And why five of the 19 accused hijackers turned up alive and well.

And why there is so much first responder testimony of multiple explosions in WTC 1 and 2.

You're suggesting I'm engaged in COINTELPRO? That's rich. Like listening to Bush talk about the axis of evil.

[Bassman66]

123. No try again

you pointed me at a crappy mpeg of the Naudet film, you just can't be serious.

You didn't answer my question I notice, about how the images of a second fake impact watched by thousands from potentially anywhere in the world could be controlled.

COINTELPRO.

Go and watch 'Press for Truth' and stop distracting from the real 9/11 issues.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

127. Wow, you really nailed all those questions...

...by not answering any of them. Very compelling, Bassman, I think you may have turned me. 19 Arabs with box cutters is starting to look awful good now.

[Bassman66]

124. Do you know how COINTELPRO works?

You're a classic example.

"and you reacted the same way OCTers always do, summarily dismissing anything and everything that doesn't fit with their sacred pre-conclusions."

That's funny!

Now, answer my question about the second impact or desist with the no planes nonsense.

[Flatulo]

128. You seem convinced that it is not simple stupidity.

Why are you so certain that no-planers aren't just ignorant? Why must they be cointelpro?

[Flatulo]

129. Truther deathmatch. Awesome.

:popcorn:

[Bassman66]

130. Classic use of COINTELPRO

awesome.

You're transparent.

[SDuderstadt]

131. Put me down for five on Bassman...

he's far more believable than Mr. J.

[Bassman66]

120. 1.20 to 1.40

You're really asking me if I can see a plane in a crappy jpeg compressed YouTube version of the Naudet film and you think that proves something?

Are you serious?

COINTELPRO.

The question is are you the duped or the duper?

[Perry Logan]

125. There's tons of evidence. Yet no two Truthers can agree on what it is!

[Bassman66]

126. Classic use of COINTELPRO

Well done.

[balantz]

132. Kick

[Diane_nyc]

134. "September Clues" - debunked by 9/11 Truth activists

Please see the following:

• http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf">Debunking "September Clues" (PDF) by Nick Irving, 10 October 2007, with forward by Anthony Lawson. A point-by-point analysis of each of the eight episodes in the “September Clues” series.


• http://www.archive.org/download/TruthRevolutionRadioJanuary52008/20080105TRR.mp3">Truth Revolution Radio January 5 2008 (MP3) - "Deconstructing the No Planes TV Fakery disinformation campaign with guests Anthony Lawson and Jim Hoffman. September Clues debunked - Full spectrum dominance disinfo - No planers with fake accents - and more!" (http://truthaction.org/?q=node/20">description here)

[dailykoff]

135. That "point by point analysis" is just plane lame

no pun intended. Mostly it's low-grade quibbling along the lines of "It has not been established that this was not a real airplane! These claims are completely unsubstantiated!" (pg. 3) and "The claim that “it’s computer graphics” has not been proven!" (pg. 5) repeated ad nauseum.

The parts that actually deal with the substance of the videos are also strained and stupid. For example, here's how the "debunker" deals with the claim that an aluminum airplane wing could not have sliced through densely spaced steel columns:

The maker of “September Clues” is once again begging the question. In order to declare that the
steel building is being sliced by aluminum, one must first rule out that there is nothing assisting
the planes’ entry into the Towers. Obvious possibilities include:

1. The planes were “rigged” in some way to assist their entry into the Towers.

2. The Towers were “rigged” in some way to assist the entries of the planes.

3. Both the Towers and the planes were “rigged” in order to assist the entry of the planes.

One cannot jump from the apparent physical impossibility of aluminium slicing steel, to the
conclusion that this event did not take place as depicted in the videos and photographs, and that
therefore this is evidence that the videos and photographs were faked. You can't draw the
conclusion of No Planes/’TV Fakery’ on the grounds of physical impossibility without first
ruling out that the planes or the towers - or both - were rigged in some way.

Therefore, no case has been made that there is anything impossible about what is seen in the
picture. (pg. 4)

In other words, because the shot may have been faked, it's wrong to say it was fake. Please.

What I'd like to know is who is paying for all this high-end debunkery, which looks a hell of a lot slicker than the videos it unsuccessfully tries to debunk.

[Diane_nyc]

136. High-speed collisions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=204337&mesg_id=216701">dailykoff wrote:

For example, here's how the "debunker" deals with the claim that an aluminum airplane wing could not have sliced through densely spaced steel columns:

I agree that the author doesn't deal with that claim well. He has accepted the premise that there's a problem with the idea of an aluminum airplane wing penetrating the perimeter columns.

I would say that, in such a high-speed collision, I would expect both the wings and the columns to be broken.

Lead is even softer than aluminum, yet even lead bullets can penetrate steel to a limited extent. The perimeter columns weren't so thick that they couldn't be penetrated by an airplane, which is much more massive than a bullet.

Because Nick Irving has accepted the faulty premise that there's a problem with the plane penetrating the perimeter columns, he proposes a bunch of alternative hypotheses, all of which are very unlikely. Still, unlikely though all his alternative hypotheses are, even they are less unlikely than the no-planes video-fakery hypothesis. As he correctly points out:

The sheer complexity of such an operation, requiring split-second timing of the explosions and the visual illusions, plus the multiple risks that many amateurs with video cameras could have caught either or both of the buildings exploding — without any aircraft involvement — makes such a scenario highly unlikely. Also, several other videos surfaced, and were broadcast only hours later, making it highly unlikely that they had all been tampered with.

[dailykoff]

137. Wood is also softer than steel, but when steel vehicles collide with trees,

the vehicle usually loses:















The reason is that cars, like planes, are built to travel, and are therefore relatively lightweight, whereas the WTC columns, like trees, were built to resist lateral forces, and thus would have offered considerably more resistance than the thin-skinned airplane wings that supposedly sliced through them.

[Diane_nyc]

138. However, if these cars were going 500 MPH instead of, say, 50 MPH ...

... then I would expect both the cars AND the trees to "lose."

[dailykoff]

139. If the trees were made of steel, they wouldn't lose. (n/t)

[Diane_nyc]

140. Steel trees probably WOULD lose if they were HOLLOW. The perimeter columns were hollow. nt

[burnage]

141. more september clues debunking discussion

here

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

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

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

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13099

[dailykoff]

142. One column, possibly. But these were unusually densely spaced on 3'-4" centers,

forming a virtually impenetrable steel cage which, in addition to resisting staggering lateral forces, were built to carry a hefty share of the vertical loads:



If an aluminum bird flew into this steel forest, I can assure you that the bird would lose.

[balantz]

143. As with anything I suggest that people not let others decide for them

and watch all of September Clues.

That way they can decide for themselves what information they want to keep or toss.