Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
I know that there is already a thread covering these materials, nevertheless, I wanted to start fresh.
Apparently, a man calling himself Simon Shack has decided to tackle the events of 9/11 from a different perspective than most people. He is challenging the basic assumption of most people:
that the News reels from the morning of 9/11 are describing actual events. According to the film series, September Clues, news events of the day have been tampered with, and the feed from live tv was altered using computer graphics. Some scenes from the morning may actually be real, but the content has been altered. In other cases, he argues for a total CGI environment. Needless to say, these claims are very extreme. So where's the evidence?
I have watched the video series September Clues, and read most of the articles on his website. I Have also come across two documents claiming to debunk the series:
The "definitive series," (apparently, Mr. Shack can revise his theories in response to criticism):
From 9/11 truth website truthaction.org:
So that the discussion can really focus on taking these claims to task, you should probably also know how Shack responds to some basic gut level criticism of his thesis:
-There were many witnesses that morning and they saw the plane."
Not so according to Mr. Shack. Lower Manhattan was evacuated pretty quickly that morning. Also witness give conflicting reports. Some claim to have seen a small plane, a very few to have seen a missile, some claim to have seen nothing, and some to have seen a large jet aircraft.
-What about the many armature videos that have come forth since.
According to Mr. Shack, they were put out by the government. According to Mr. Shack, The videos themselves show evidence of being produced professionally, and there are "CGI mistakes."
-How about the many documentaries that came after the event and interviewed more witnesses.
Mr. Shack points out what he sees as "acting" and contradictions between the various stories and scripts of what happened according to the documentaries.
This is one of my first posts. I realize the severity of the claims this man is making, and what a pile I am potentially stepping in. Never the less, I would like to take the video series apart piece by piece, analyzing the claims and the debunking. This is a serious issue. If it only means that one more false theory of what happened that day is put to rest, my mission will be accomplished, and my time not wasted.
Finally, I have a question for SKEPCOP. What do you make of Mr. Shack's claims that people like Alex Jones, and AE9/11 truth, are part of the lie ( ie. paid by the government to mislead)? I know you have pointed out in past posting your suspicions about David Icke, because of the potential contradictions in his Conspiracy System, so I thought that you might also have an opinion on this.
PS. I apologize, ProfWag, as I know you don't like to watch YouTube videos. The first debunking article has a summary of each basic claim made by the Clues series. You can use that as a reference if you want.
Yes, I would say it's a good start. I just finished watching the first one, "September Clues" and I have VERY limited recall of that day. Excuse me but I'm getting old and recalling facts isn't one of my strong points.
Exactly where do you want to start with this convo? I can remember beyond a shadow of a doubt that the day was perfect. Clear, blue skies, not a cloud to be seen. The footage is really what I would call 'smoggy' but considering the cooler temps and the conditions that day, smog should not have been quite that bad. Also, the towers don't look right for some reason and I can't put my finger on it. I'd say that there is something worth looking at when it comes to that footage.
Also, for the life of me I can't find exact footage that I remember seeing on the TV. The only channel that was working on my TV broadcasting was FOX. I did have cell service as I called a girl friend a few minutes after the first hit. I did NOT have ANY phone service later that day when I found that my daughters dad was booked on a flight out of Newark Airport that morning. I think the telephone service was spacy to say the least. At least I can verify that my recall is also spacy all these years later.
I was thinking that since the truth action website has a point by point rebuttal, then perhaps we should look at each point and decide whether the clue is "debunked," or whether the evidence still stands. We could also look at the video debunking.
From the PDF file:
For me this explanation seems problematic for a number of reasons:
a) You can see in the video that the buildings around the twin towers are surrounded by other tall building, and that and that Theresa in Chelsea are in a much smaller building. Wouldn't this reduce their vantage point of the towers?
b)According to the videos, the day was pretty smoggy. That also could have affected visibility.
c) Perhaps, but wasn't the Boeing going pretty fast and executing difficult maneuvers?
d) The conversation in the video seems suspicious: at first Chelsea doesn't know what is happening, the all of a sudden, "oh yeah, the second plane just hit."
Last edited by Heero_Yuy on 29 May 2012, 14:59, edited 3 times in total.
Then I will have to catch up and watch the second video before I can play.
Have you ever walked the streets of NYC? From the ground, you can't see all that far as buildings block any horizon. On some streets, the buildings are so tall they can block the sun out for most of the day depending on the direction of flow. Depending on where you are in Chelsea you certainly should be able to see the WTC.
I have a gf who lives in Hell's Spamalamadingdong (a few blocks away to the south) on a 7 floor building. She's got one hell of a view of NYC from her windows. Could she see WTC? I don't have a clue as I never asked her but it's always possible. It would depend on exactly where in Chelsea as there is direct view from some streets right down to the WTC. On some streets you couldn't see much other than the WTC looming into the sky and it wasn't right around the corner.
"According to the videos", is the key here. There was NOT a cloud in the sky in NJ or Newark Airport. As a matter of fact when I went down to the beach, I could see the smoke from the WTC billowing into the sky. It couldn't have been THAT smoggy or the smoke clouds would have been impossible for me to see all those miles away and within 3 hours I could smell smoke, so that means that there should have been a south wind and a fairly good one. Smog doesn't stick around with a good wind.
I don't know, I didn't see it myself and I hate to fly so I don't pay attention to the pilots job when I am actually on a plane. I know those babies can drop like a stone when they experience bad weather but that's all I know about planes. I grew up in a house that was on the flight path for Newark Airport and all I know is those things make a hell of a lot of noise when they're coming in for a landing. IMO, the engines should have rattled windows all over NYC being that low to the ground.
What you see and what you hear may not sync as there's always some sort of sound delay so that if the "F word" flies, it can be bleeped. New Yorkers (and NJers too) tend to use that word to describe just about anything. As a matter of fact, if you want to think about this for a moment, I find it hard to believe that in all that yelling in all of those videos, there's not one curse word. Now THAT'S impossible!
Your right, and I think I may have misunderstood the video's point.
It's not just the distance, but the distance combined with the angle(s) of approach of the plane. Take a look at the FIRST video from 2:00-3:20. You may still be correct.
Last edited by Heero_Yuy on 29 May 2012, 07:35, edited 2 times in total.
I think I skipped the original claim and counter claim in my haste. Here is the original claim/counterclaim FROM THE PDF file I linked to in the original post (the pdf and video are not the same):
“Fade To Black”
Failure of TV anchor to notice
“On-site” reporter’s phone
doesn’t pick-up impact sound
Perhaps the TV anchor wasn’t watching the TV monitor in the studio, and thus missed seeing the
Just because the on-site reporter’s phone didn’t pick up the impact sound, that does not mean that
the Tower did not get hit and did not explode! It simply means that the phone didn’t pick up the
impact sound! There could be many reasons for this. Therefore it does not constitute proof that any
act of fakery took place.
The maker of “September Clues” seems to be implying that because the phone did not pick up an
impact sound, nothing happened to the Tower! Clearly, this is absurd!
That covers the September Clues video claims through the first 2 minutes.
That is probably where we should start... Sorry about that...
Last edited by Heero_Yuy on 29 May 2012, 15:01, edited 2 times in total.
At 3:06 on the video, they show a map of the two locations. That would be my guess as to a possible good vantage point. Many of the buildings along the water are lower buildings like warehouses and even some open lots.
There are many TV personalities that look good on camera but don't have any sort of sense of real reporting. They read what's on a teleprompter basically. I don't know if that is/was the case here but I do know that what I personally saw on the TV 'LIVE' didn't register in my head for a few minutes. I can only imagine what a news broadcaster might deal with during that time. It took a few moments before you got your jaw off the floor while watching that LIVE broadcast.
Yes, so she could probably see the buildings, but what about the plains? At first she simply reported an explosion, then she changed to plains. Now, perhaps Theresa could have seen the plane come in but that also rases the question of why did the plane come in at different angels? Was it just different cameria providing different perspective? Did Simon mess with the footage?
That's definitely a possibility. I didn't hear any supprise from the news room either though, no collective gasp like I heard from some of the other news rooms. Perhaps the people were in shock.
It would have been nice if Mr. Irving would have included some reasons why the mic would have picked up ambient noise, but not an explosion.
Perhaps since the footage was borrowed, there was a delay in timing, but the reporter and anchor react almost at the same time.
Last edited by Heero_Yuy on 29 May 2012, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.
Now that's something that a good conspiracies is made of. It certainly does open a lot of doors when you have something of this nature.
There are so many things that can be the cause. My video camera will jump if I hit the tripod. In all of that mayhem, that wouldn't be a strange thing to happen. Heck, you watch flames shooting out of a 110 story building loaded with people, with no instant explanation, and you wonder if where you're standing is next. I'm sure tension was super high for everyone at that moment. Pulling a stupid move with a camera (like even shutting the thing off instead of hitting the zoom) wouldn't be the worse thing someone could do under those circumstances.
I do a bunch of event videos and let me tell ya, some voices pick up on a mic while other ambient noises don't. I have 2 hours of footage of a parade where all you can hear is the slapping of nylon lines (I was on a boat) and the woman next to me talking to her mom. You can't hear anything else at all as these two things drowned out the music and the guest speaker.
Since there was no other television transmission due to the broadcasting towers being affected by the blasts, it's possible that lazy human nature prevailed and they took what FOX had and just sort of gussied it up.
Rush hour traffic in NYC is a bitch. I doubt anyone could get from Rock Center to Battery Park in any sort of a jiffy on a good day, let alone with every firefighter, police, ambulance and emergency response vehicle going that way.
Ah yes... the "nose out" scene. That's an interesting bit of footage as well.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests