America's Sweethearts Matt & Katie Take a Dive

A board that I recently began reading and posting to, rigorousintuition, took a sudden and weird turn a day or so ago, when the administrator of the broadly intellectual discussion forum, his name is Jeff, enacted a rule, which seemed to target me, or so I felt. Henceforth, he said, there was to be no discussion in support of the controversial "no-plane theory" regarding the September 11, attacks on the World Trade Center. Dumbly, I still claim, I did just that, by posting what I thought was a very good video, September Clues #7.

Apparently, Jeff was familiar with it, for he quickly locked the thread and offered this link, "September Clues" is a Fraud as a rebuttal. That effort is by a Mike Swenson, who must be kept busy as the host of "Revolution Radio" and webmaster for Real Inside News, as he doesn't put much time into this video rebuttal, which consists of taking a 20-second clip from one of the previous six September Clues, which represents, he says,

"some BIG TIME fakery by those that claim the mainstream media used “TV Fakery” on 911. Ironic huh?"

and attaching a 47-second YouTube clip and inviting us to compare. Neither has any sound, and since illustrating sound volume was the purpose of the clip in September Clues, Swenson in return could stand accused of audio trickery. He says "Real Inside News has uncovered some startling information, based on observations of the film." That there are "a couple of troubling discrepancies," which amount to "two anomalies," which "are classic signs of video manipulation." He may have a point or he may not.

There are clear distinctions between the two clips. The problem though is, what we see we see only for a second, and it doesn't look remotely like a jet-plane in either clip, both appear to have been altered with a felt-tip pen. And it would be dancing on the head of a pin to try and show a malicious manipulation of the imagery by socialservice, towards any goal, with this in-your-face snippet, especially as alteration is the theme of the video, and this example would be--how shall I put it?--lacking in subtlety. Swenson says other distinctions may also be relevant, but the one I noticed--the planes appear to be striking at different heights of the building--had the "official" example too high, in my opinion.

Swenson posts some screen grabs so we can study at our leisure, then he appends an "update to this story," writing, "Further examination of the film September Clues has brought me yet another strange anomaly and further evidence of tampering with official footage taken from September 11th." This brings up an important point for all of us to consider. The footage is and will remain a permanent public resource, ultimately we will all have to come to some decisions over the meaning of what we find in there.

Swenson embeds a 35-second video clip from September Clues consisting of part of a telephone interview Bryant Gumble conducted with Theresa Renaud, who's the wife of one of the producers of Bryant's program, The Morning Show, recorded during a critical stretch--including the moment of the second plane strike. Reynaud is the person who exclaims,"Oh my God! Another plane has just hit another building!" Every network had someone doing this job. NBC had Elliot Walker, a female producer, husband unnamed.

Integral to the plot, and the claims of TV Fakery made in the video, is how these eyewitness actors bridge the 18-second lag between our screen times and the real time in downtown New York. Renaud "sees" the plane, for us, and her exclamation, "a plane," is the foundation of our new reality. Bryant isn't seeing a plane on his monitor when she does, so he's incredulous, "You see a plane," he asks? He still isn't seeing a plane when the tape first replays. NBC was running a live shot off of a helicopter, zooming in for closeups, out for wide angle views--then, during the grave moment of impact, they switch to a shot from a never-before-seen camera and angle, one that completely obscures the impact, for just those few seconds, then back to the wide aerial shot. Why? Show us the uninterrupted aerial pan! Likewise, CNN has a live newscaster on the scene but he fails to acknowledge the crash as we see it on screen.

The object of Swenson's objection is some cuts Socialservice has made of Renaud describing her location, which Swenson says displays malicious intent to diminish Renaud's credibility and deceive the public. But the clarity or accuracy of her witness is never an issue in the video, so there is nothing to undermine. But this brings up a different point.

From the transcript:

Bryant: Um you’re over in Chelsea um did you hear the explosion from your position?

Theresa: Oh yes as a matter of fact we heard it cause I was just standing there pretty much just looking out the window. I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact.

Bryant: So you have no idea…

(31:54) 9:02am Theresa: Oh! There’s another one! Another plane just hit! Oh! Oh my God! Another plane has just hit another building! Flew right into the middle of it! An explosion! My God, it’s right in the middle of the building.

Later they had this exchange:

Bryant: You’re in Chelsea right?

Renaud: (12:32) Yes we’re on the 14^th floor 360 degree view perfectly clear a straight shot I would say that the explosion was much larger on the first impact than the second.

Bryant: You heard both?

Renaud: Yes, I saw the impact from the second building, I saw the explosion come from the building on the first one.

Bryant: Un huh.

Neither of them recognized the significance of what she was saying. Renaud tells us she was basically standing there, looking out her south-facing window, when she suddenly sees an explosion and fireball rising from the top of Tower 1, but what of the plane? She was perfectly positioned to see the airplane's arrival down the length of Manhattan, but for some reason she doesn't.

Although it may ultimately be determined that Reynaud fabricated her witness of the second plane, nonetheless, she rightly, if unwittingly, reports her witness of the absence of the first. (Te he he. My God works this way. I think I'll keep him)

This video reminds me of Stein's "there is no there, there," and how anyone can pretend otherwise is hurtful. Jeff's proffering this video as carrying the meaning of rebuttal, with a value of argument, is very disturbing to me. Surely he isn't serious about it in any way addressing some factual point made in September Clues 7? The most likely to be flung epitaph in the coming months may be insane, so instead, I'll say, Jeff's behavior here is unreal. But revealed is Jeff's participation in a high-level consortium that attempts to steer the blogosphere.

Coincidentally to this, Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Jim Fetzer were on a radio program comparing notes on what they perceived to be a putsch that was shutting down internet chat and discussion groups devoted to the no-plane topic, so it's hard not to feel a conspiracy practice underway, and that Jeff, who in my brief experience on his board always came across as rigorous, if not intuitive, is a part of it. Fetzer and Wood worried this indicated a major false-flag operation was imminent. I think the devastating critique of NBC contained in September Clues 7 is the cause.

Perhaps shielding members of the Fourth Estate is more important than shielding members of the administration. To realize the people you invite in in the morning while you sit in your dirty bathrobe are also part of a organized scheme ending in genocidal mass murder, would rankle more than removed politicians in distant Washington. I know that when this dam breaks, the surge will be tremendous.



contact@realinsidenews.com

http://www.realinsidenews.com/911trutharticle010.html

huge article (taken down) cached here: : http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc52kcvf_312d94vswhp