Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" reveals the truth about 9/11.

See September Clues in the following five 10-minute segments:
(more to be made)


http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393...ues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE21...ues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8D...ues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706...ues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68F...ues-part5.aspx

==========================

My opinion on these videos:

If you don't have time to watch all of them, I'd recommend parts 1 and 5. Those two parts offer NEW ANALYSIS and clear evidence of TV-Fakery.

From a plastic nosecone going in one side of the steel/concrete building and coming out the other, to the mysterious 17 second time difference between the seismic events and official "strike" times, these videos irrefutably prove TV-Fakery.

These videos have become very popular on the internet, have been linked to from rense.com (before they took it down), and also on indymedia. With TV-Fakery being the **obvious common sense reaction** from these videos, the full truth exposure of 9/11 may be closer than we think! But this will only happen if each of us do our part in exposing it.

New Segment Available for September Clues:

Part 6

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E7...ues-part6.aspx

oh my goodness, I just finished watching all 8 parts. I want to thank you, CBBrooklyn, for linking this video series. I strive for objectivity in everything in my life, and found this group of videos to present overwhelming composite and objective evidence from the attacks.

While I certainly didn't find moments with which I had discrepancies, on the whole this series delivered a very fair look into a glossed-over, "Here is exactly what happened - no DISAGREEMENTS ALLOWED/ACCEPTED!" view of 9/11.

I'd amend your viewing recommendation(s) to include watching the last half of video #2, namely, the ground-level footage at roughly 2:35 remaining. However, I honestly don't know how that part can possibly have the same import as it does when watching the entire sequence from 1 through 2 (or at least #2 in its entirety).

Perhaps I'm just a newcomer to this footage, which is entirely possible and plausible. I tend to doubt that, though, and think the entire series should be required viewing for anyone who can read written and understand spoken English.

How can anybody be convinced of a fake video by another video? Please share. I really want to know. How can anyone be convinced that thousands of people conspired to fake the whole thing.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I'm not convinced by another video, but of dissection of existing videos. I'm not convinced that "thousands of people conspired to fake the whole thing." I'm increasingly persuaded that the "IT WAS COMMERCIAL PLANES HIJACKED!" was fed over an over again to dissuade anyone from thinking any other reality was possible.

The eyewitness accounts that reported that it was 'a missile(s)'/'small, non-commercial planes' far, far outnumber the 'it was commercial jets!' claims. Coupled with that, the unquestioning claims of commercial jets came largely from network employees, and only shared a , 'No - it couldn't have been anything else!' tone...whereas the accounts claiming something separate from the purported cause share an 'I'm not sure what this was, but it was not a commercial jet, whatever it was.'

Could the 'no-reason-to-have-a-bias' eyewitness reports be all coincidentally incorrect? Sure, absolutely. However, objectively, it's far more likely that the 'reports' which all share similar description and terminology are the false ones.

Honestly, and with no condesention, please do respond with counter-examples. I am not b.s.-ing when I say I strive for objectivity. Please include sources/links in any response. Thanks!

I didn't watch all the videos. If there are thousands of people saying they were missiles, I haven't heard even one of them though we all know there were thousands of people watching. I don't know where you got "The eyewitness accounts that reported that it was 'a missile(s)'/'small, non-commercial planes' far, far outnumber the 'it was commercial jets!' claims."

Did you notice the obvious edit of Mike Walker in the 3rd video?

You may have noticed as I did, that these videos are blurry. Why? With so many thousands of pictures and hundreds of videos, why would they use blurry ones to prove their conspiracy theory? If they were showing missiles and such, wouldn't the clearest image available be best for their purpose?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

I was watching that day - NBC and Tom Brokaw. There was no "Fade to black" which btw, means what it says "FADE" and doesn't have an exclamation point. I knew many people at the Pentagon that day. They would know the difference between a missile or a plane a heck of lot better than anyone else.

Have you ever heard the recorded phone calls from the people on the planes? Did these people go along with the conspiracy because they were suicidal or did they want to "disappear"?

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

These silly videos are part of a campaign to discredit the 911 truth movement.
The idea is to make the 911 movement look dumb.

Fox news has already started to use the no plan theory to ridicule the truth movement.

The guys who make these videos work for the bad guys.

I honestly don't understand how people can believe that Americans would blow up their own buildings. I mean... does that really make any sense?

The12thMan posted a really good link to a Popular Mechanics article which addresses each of the individual topics that most theorists like to question.

Similar to 12thMan, I was watching the news live at the time of the second plane attack. I have no recollection of a "fade to black" either.

Also, addressing the plane or missile issue... It seems reasonable to believe that planes were used as the vessel for attack. It is a strange coincidence that news footage and eye-witness footage alike all show planes flying into the towers. Also, I think it would be difficult for the airlines to "fake" the loss of millions of dollars of property, not to mention the human lives involved. What would they benefit from that? Conspiring with the government just to take a huge loss?? Doubt it.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.