Enter your email address and subscribe to DAILY news updates for FREE!:

Remembering 9/11: The Media Hoax

"It is now high time for everyone to realize that the entire world was fooled by digital computer-generated imagery on 9/11. The entire 9/11 morning's TV broadcasts were nothing but a prefabricated "Hollywood"-style production. This has now been demonstrated in every imaginable way."---Simon Shack


Imagery Analyses:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION

Q: “What about the many private videos of the 9/11 events showing the plane crash?”

A: All the alleged “Amateur” stills and videos depicting crucial moments of the day (“planes”/“tower collapses”) are forgeries - and demonstrably so. The “9/11 plotters” manufactured a large image-pool to be attributed to private cameramen for three main purposes :
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake ...”Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing 'airplane' images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released - inexplicably - as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight”:


ALLEGED “AMATEUR” SNAPSHOTS OF “FLIGHT 175” in its 
 “last second of flight”
For in-depth info and sourcing of the above pictures, see: WTC Crash research by Killtown.


Here’s where any rational-minded person should stop and ponder: What are the odds that so many amateur cameramen would capture a clear shot of an unexpected 550 mph airplane in its very last second of flight - both 'plane' and towers nicely framed - with no apparent motion blur of either? There are, for instance, no such precedents in the history of motorsport photography: no speedway crash has ever been captured by 55+ cameramen, in crowded arenas where hundreds of lenses are aimed right at the action. On most occasions, only a handful of professionals will capture an image sharp enough for publication. 

 
 

 IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS: Other “amateur” shots depict the actual impact of the "airplane" on the tower fa├žade: The aluminum airframe is seen integrally penetrating the steel tower with no deceleration – without as much as a rear aileron breaking off. This is, of course, utterly absurd and makes a joke of the laws of physics. This ‘shortcut compromise’ was chosen by the fakery crew for obvious reasons: More realistic forgeries (with many bits and pieces shredding at impact) would have required vastly superior computing power in order to simulate convincingly all the various viewing angles of the “plane crash”.

CONFLICTING VISUALS: The rest of the alleged “amateur” shots disqualify each other by the way of irreconcilable discrepancies and aberrations. All kinds of parameters simply fail to add up as one compares the different shots (all of which – of course – are supposed to depict the same “airplane”) : trajectories, angles, pitch, yaw, speeds, lighting, hues - to name a few. Here's a trajectory comparison between two well-known videos - the last 7 seconds of "Flight 175"...according to two different 'cameramen':


WHO ARE THE ALLEGED "AMATEUR" CAMERAMEN ?
About 90% of the alleged authors of these “amateur videos” are people linked to the news media and the film/video industry. A mere coincidence? Not likely. A more rational hypothesis is that they were chosen as credible scapegoats should any of those forgeries be publicly exposed - since all could be plausibly suspected of faking pictures for personal fame and gain. So why don’t we have a single authentic video of the crucial 9/11 events? Most likely, electromagnetic technology (commonly used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics) prevented any private footage being recorded at the time of the tower strikes. In fact, several electronic disruptions occurred in NYC on the day. See: Visual Control of 9/11.

ALLEGED AUTHORS OF 9/11 “AMATEUR” SHOTS (on public record): 

DEVIN CLARK
computer graphics animator. Clients: Comedy Central, MTV, TCM and HBO.

EVAN FAIRBANKS
On 9/11, worked for KSK VIDEO STUDIOS, New York City: “Creative programming solutions for television, interactive and multimedia.” Photographer with world renowned Magnum agency.

LUC COURCHESNE
3D visual arts expert. Inventor of “Panoscope 360”, a sophisticated 3-D installation which simulates “alternative life experiences”.

SCOTT MYERS
ABC TV video technician. 3-D motion expert and software designer. Clients: ABC and US NAVY.

CLIFTON CLOUD
Events manager at Scharff Weisberg, Inc., a NYC-based video production company, whose slogan reads: “Whether you're looking to dazzle the ears, mind or eyes, we've got the latest equipment and the expertise to make it work for you.”

JENNIFER SPELL
Director/founder with “SPELLBOUND” pictures. Independent television producer.

NAUDET BROTHERS JULES AND GEDEON
Emmy award-winning filmmakers. Caught 1st and 2nd ‘airplanes’ and 'WTC7 ‘collapse’ on film. 


NAKA NATHANIEL
Multimedia journalist at New York Times. Specializes in ‘desktop virtual news.’ Embedded with US military in war zones. 

KELLY GUENTHER
Pulitzer Prize winning photo-journalist whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Time, Newsweek

GULNARA SAMOILOVA
Worked for 9 years as ‘photo retoucher’ (in her own words) for the Associated Press. Award winning 9/11 photographer. 

THOMAS NILSSON
Swedish photojournalist in New York City. Works for Norwegian populistic tabloid VG

ROBERT CLARK
National Geographic photographer based in New York City. Works with the world's leading magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, French Geo, Vanity Fair, Stern, Der Spiegel

MOSHE BURSUKER
BFA degree in sculpture and photography from the Hartford Art School at the University of Hartford.

SEAN ADAIR
Founder of ADAIR film & Video productions. Consultant in digital media and visual effects. 

ROB HOWARD
Professional award-winning photographer. 

KATHY CACICEDO
Professional photographer. 

DAVID HANDSCHUH
Photojournalist for New York Daily News. Took picture of South Tower exploding right underneath it. No plane is seen in picture. He says he did not see any plane.

550 mph at 700 feet above sea level is a physical, aerodynamic and mechanical impossibility for any passenger airplane. In fact, as noted by qualified pilots and engineers, both the steep roll angles (banking) and speeds seen on the various available 'plane' videos are totally unrealistic. Various official sources set the speed of "Flight 175" at around 550 mph Incidentally, the winged JASSM AGM-158 precision missile travels at 550 mph. 
The morning TV broadcasts of airplane graphics cannot be rendered into retroactive physical existence by any number of alleged amateurs “capturing” the impossible event, nor by pseudo-scientific articles published by the increasingly desperate efforts of the 9/11 cover-up crew. 




f you have viewed SEPTEMBER CLUES and wish to further your understanding of the 9/11 media hoax, please watch the additional video analyses listed below. The various sections of this site seek to provide an accessible overview of all aspects of this research. 

On the morning of 9/11, the US TV networks broadcasted what was, by and large, a 102-minute ‘Hollywood’ production. Computer-generated landscape sceneries, animated airplane graphics, staged witness accounts and cinematic special fx. Multiple techniques of image manipulation were employed to simulate both fictitious events (planes crashing into the WTC) and real-life events (the WTC collapses.) 

It now clearly appears that the 9/11 false-flag operation relied heavily on counterfeit imagery (henceforth referred to as “TV Fakery”) to stage the great 9/11 lie. As the mainstream media ( henceforth "MSM" or "news media") finds itself directly implicated, this is truly the unspeakable truth of our times – one that the MSM will staunchly oppose for the foreseeable future. To allow this to proceed unbridled is not a good idea. I hope with this research to motivate the individual mind to both learn from and rise above this disturbing chapter in mankind’s history. 


SEPTEMBER CLUES addendum CHAPTER 1 

The last addition to my video research reveals the full extent of the TV Fakery. As hard as it may be to believe, the evidence speaks for itself: as we compare and cross-examine the available videoclips depicting the WTC2 collapse, absurd discrepancies reveal them for what they are: nothing but computer-generated animations. They are just as ‘real’ as the buildings blowing up in the movie Independence Day (1996). 



“911 AMATEUR” (3 parts) 

This series takes a closer look at the so-called 9/11 “amateur” videos: there are now more than 45 known “plane crash” videos (!) allegedly captured by onlookers - a ludicrous amount of “lucky” cameramen. As we get acquainted with their identities - and the falseness of the footage they claim to have filmed - it becomes clear that they are all somehow part of the gigantic 9/11 media hoax. See: Non-Live Imagery 


http://www.septemberclues.info/further_analyses.shtml

Visual Control of 9/11

Since the core of the 9/11 operation relied on airing fake imagery on TV (to simulate the real-life events of the day), it would be only logical to assume that a solid infrastructure was in place to ensure 'success'. To be sure, the news media has been caught red-handed many times in the past, shamelessly airing outright fake news. This time, however, more sophisticated safeguards were necessary in order to control and impede any inconvenient private footage being captured - most embarrassingly leaking out and exposing the hoax. Here, we will look at some technology which conceivably could achieve these goals. Admittedly, addressing this issue requires some level of speculation, yet one may well presume that this operation would have put to good use the most advanced technology and military discipline available.

Why don’t we have a single authentic video of the crucial 9/11 events? Firstly, there are many indications that a blanket evacuation of Lower Manhattan took place after the first "plane" strike at 8:46AM. Few people were likely left dwelling around snapping pictures. In any circumstances, the chances for anyone capturing a clear image of an unexpected, sky-diving 550 mph+ object are extremely slim. These factors alone drastically reduced the probability of undesired image recordings in the area. Nevertheless, one must assume that the 9/11 military-backed operation would have required no less than a 110% "safety level". It should also be safe to say that the perpetrators relied on top-end military technology. Thus, we may formulate a plausible hypothesis - based on the known objectives which had to be met.
If total visual control of the wider Manhattan area was a top priority of the 9/11 psyop, it would have been essential to impede any authentic footage to be captured in NY that morning. Electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF or HPM) is routinely used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics. Read about it here . Conceivably, this technology was used to prevent any private footage being recorded throughout the limited (102min) time-window in which the defining 9/11 events took place (from first "plane" strike to last tower collapse). To be sure, the research into this field has long been a top military priority: with this in mind, we may reasonably consider that this well-tested technology was employed on 9/11. It is, all in all, a hypothesis grounded in logic and (military) common sense.

Do we have any indications from the day that may back-up this hypothesis? Indeed, we do: it is a well-known fact that thousands of electronic devices malfunctioned - or blacked-out altogether. As many as 4 important electronics-related disruptions were reported in the 9/11 aftermath :
  • 1) : all New York cell phones
  • 2) : the firefighters' NYFD radio-transmitters
  • 3) : the WTC’s internal communication system
  • 4) : the Port Authority's transmission repeater on top of WTC5
These disruptions caused quite some controversy - and were explained away with claims such as:
  • 1) : “the NY cell phone network was overloaded”
  • 2) : “the NYFD had faulty radios/was confused over new T-R channels”
  • 3) : “the WTC intercom wiring was damaged by the crashing airplane”
  • 4) : The Port Authority simply denied that their equipment malfunctioned.

The official explanations for these four serious and (apparently) unrelated disruptions, all seem appallingly contrived. Now, even though EMP/HERF beams can be calibrated to disrupt a specific Hz range, one may reasonably surmise that some ‘bleed’ may have occurred - thus affecting more than the targeted videocamera circuitries. In any case, an electromagnetic "storm" would keep any private cameras from operating. Only special cameras shielded in protective faraday-cages would function. 

911 foreknowledge:



This book was written in 1983








This shot is credited to "Jennifer Spell": One may wonder if she cast a spell on her camera lens, allowing it to focus both the wire fence and the distant towers as she caught this 'lucky' shot of the "planecrash". In any case, her magical lens must be the envy of every photographer in the world. Her shot also features - like so many other 9/11 'lucky shots' - a miraculous zoom-in just as the "action" unfolds.

Disqus for Ste Matthew Murray

Powered by Blogger.