Problems With September Clues, Part A

This is an analysis and debunking of September clues, Part A

0-31  sec- There’s a crackling sound, like logs in a fireplace

32  sec: Of course pieces of evidence were removed. Ground zero was a crime scene- collecting evidence from a crime scene is SOP for law enforcement agencies

47 seconds- even taking into account the smoke from the fires, the picture is far too blurry- possibly the copy-of a copy effect.

 1 min, 10 seconds-  the color is way off and the picture is blurry-  again, the copy of a copy effect.

 1:16-  Apparently, the author  of September clues doesn’t realize that TV cameras are designed to go dark if something is too bright as a safety precaution.  It seems to me that the fireball from a plane that crashed into the building would be just a bit on the bright side.  At around 7 minutes  to 7 minutess 35 seconds , this video here  points out another plausible-  and far more likely reason for the “ fade to black” 

 1 minutes 26 seconds: The explosion inside doesn’t prove anything.  Some of the elevator cables may have snapped on impact and probably would have made a bit of a ruckus falling that far down the shaft.  Furthermore, there were electrical transformers inside the WTC which are also a possible source for explosions.

 1 min, 36 seconds.  Just because the camera saw the plane doesn’t mean the news person did- after all, the news person is usually facing TOWARDS the camera.  Also, take a closer look at the video-  looks like a very poor-quality picture-in picture, indicating the possibility of sloppy editing by the video’s author.

 1 minute 41 seconds-  refer to 1 min, 16 seconds

 1 min, 44 seconds-  Microphones are designed to pick up sounds within a certain radius-  maybe the sound from the explosions were outside that radius.  Also how do we know the author of September clues didn’t tamper with the volume when he made the video.  After all, as we see from about 1 min 54 seconds to around 3 minutes 5 seconds in this video here, the author of September clues edited out the portion of the interview with Teresa that didn’t suit his agenda.

 2 minutes, 19 seconds:  Just because Teresa doesn’t mention a plane doesn’t mean there wasn’t one.  Yes, her window faces the WTC,  but how do we know she was facing the window at the time the plane hit?  She could have been facing away from the window and then turned as a result of hearing the explosion.

2 minutes 53 seconds; The fact that Teresa did not see what caused the first impact doesn’t prove a thing.  After the 1st impact, she was probably watching the news like everyone else.

2 minuts 56 seconds:  Teresa was watching the news, so even if she didn’t see the plane hit and only saw the explosion, she could conceivably come to the conclusion that it was another plane.

3 minutes 26:  The fact that David Handschuh didn’t see the plane despite being right beneath the tower doesn’t prove anything.  There are 2 possibilities, neither of which require a conspiracy:  1) He simply wasn’t looking up, or 2) He was on the opposite side of the tower from where the plane hit, which means that, unless he had X-ray vision, he wouldn’t be able to see the plane through the tower.

4 minutes, 39 seconds:  As we see from this video at 7 minutes 41 seconds to 8 minutes 15 seconds, no graphics artist would have been able to paste in a plane with all the zooming, therefore, it MUST have been a REAL plane.

5 minutes 10 seconds:  The plane DID not emerge from the building with it’s nose intact.  That was fakery by the author of September clues.  Refer to this video here for the evidence.


Posted September 24, 2010 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: