September Clues: The Central Role of the News Media on 9/11

The best evidence from:


comparing the animated trajectories of “Flight 175”

The ‘shock-&-awe’ visuals of “FLIGHT 175 striking WTC2” were obviously a crucial part of the 9/11 hoax. As shown in September Clues, there are many ways to demonstrate that those visuals cannot represent reality - one of them being the absurdly conflcting trajectories of “FLIGHT 175”. We can only guess whether these blunders occured due to flawed 3D imaging softwares - or the ineptness of their programmers and animation artists - or both. A case of whistleblowing? I doubt it.

But let us take another good look at these “FLIGHT 175” trajectories, just to make sure that this part of the wider September Clues research isn’t some sort of visual/optical illusion. For this, we will of course examine THE ACTUAL 9/11 imagery - and NOT some computer models /vector graphics attempting to re-simulate the simulation!.. rolleyes

So please note: this study is only - and specifically - about the “FLIGHT 175” TRAJECTORIES.

The “International Shot” (as I called it in SC) as aired LIVE on ABC is, undoubtedly, the ‘visual imprint’ that most people around the world would have of “FLIGHT 175”. (Just a 2-second clip - so not of much interest for our trajectory study.)

Now, the only other LIVE shot showing the exact moment of impact was, of course, the infamous “NOSE-OUT” shot. Of course, that FOX clip doesn’t show much of a trajectory either - since when rewinding the tape to 6 seconds before impact - there’s just no plane to be seen at all !..

On LIVE 9/11 TV, the first time we see a “plane”, is 16 seconds before the strike: the CBS “Divebomber” :



At left: the LIVE NBC shot_________________At right: the NBC evening news shot

Expounded at 12:48 in the September Clues documentary

The TV networks also aired (later in the day) this other trajectory (below left) which shows “FLIGHT 175” actually making a final ascent. Of course, at NO POINT in time do we see, in the “Divebomber shot”, the plane making a final ascent!:

Expounded at 1.04:44 in the September Clues documentary

"FINAL ASCENT shot " - as aired on the BBC:

Can anyone seriously argue/sustain that what we see here (an ascending path) is due to ‘deceptive perspectives’ ?


Now, in this alleged “amateur video” credited to one Luis Alonso, “FLIGHT 175” also seems to make a final ascent. However, just how this final ascent is depicted appears to be a physically/aerodinamically impossible feat. I trust every honest airline pilot and aeronautical expert will agree with this claim. By all means, if you find fault with this analysis, please let me know :


LUIS ALONSO SHOT - full sequence (last 8 seconds before impact)

(Note: none of the three above gif loops are at original speed and are only meant to illustrate the LUIS ALONSO trajectories)

So again, did “FLIGHT 175” make a final ascent? Well, no - not according to that perfectly level approach purportedly filmed (according to the FBI) by some arabic jihadist from under the Brooklyn bridge (the so-called “AL-QAEDA shot”)

the “AL-QAEDA shot” versus the “Divebomber” shot


So, was “FLIGHT 175’s” trajectory ascending/ descending /or perfectly level in its last seconds of flight ? What’s it gonna be ? Is all of this, as naysayers say, “only a matter of perspectives - and just a series of optical illusions?” Can anyone really seriously claim that all the above trajectories are perfectly consistent with each other - thus credibly depicting the very same event as if captured by real cameras in the real world? You decide.


No special photographic skills are required to assess the utter phoniness of the 9/11 IMAGE POOL: all what’s needed is a healthy dose of common sense and a sound, rational mind. Now, whether the most glaring absurdities of this image pool were meant to be exposed - or if it was just caused by laziness/ sloppiness/ or over-confidence on the part of the perps - is a subject open for debate. Are the goons behind all this plain stupid? Foolhardy? Are they gauging the depth of the public’s apathy? It matters little: The bottom line is, quite simply, that THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. To debate just WHY this is the case may be an interesting exercise - but no such intellectual disquisitions could possibly help justify the absurd nature of these shots. Here follows a study of a (growing) ‘family’ of images published over the years, depicting the collapse of WTC2.

Up to a few years ago, this family had ‘only’ three members: I compiled them one by one - as I pursued my comprehensive scrutiny of all the available 9/11 STILL IMAGERY published by the news media. This photo-trio is officially credited to three different news media photographers:

  • Thomas Nilsson (of the Norwegian populist tabloid “VG”)
  • Gulnara Samoilova (photo-retoucher for the Associated Press)
  • Amy Sancetta (veteran photographer for the Associated Press)

We are asked to believe that all three of them captured the below three still photos of the WTC2. In addition to these images’ remarkably similar viewing angles we can see that, by observing the smoke patterns, all three are clearly meant to have been snapped at the exact same split second in time. Imagine that! (Moreover, one may legitimately wonder why the blue Millenium Hotel is entirely missing in image 1 and 2):

But it gets sillier still. In 2010, a huge batch of never-seen-before, higher-quality 9/11 imagery suddenly emerged on the scene. The official explanation - get this - was that ABC (yes, the TV network!) had filed a FOIA to force NIST to release heaps of imagery that they had, allegedly, used for their investigations - and kept under wraps for all of 9 years!..

Well, most of this never-seen-before imagery comes in the form of short video clips (allegedly shot by “amateur videographers”) which depict the crucial events of the day. At close inspection, most are nothing but rehashed/ re-rendered material which I was quite familiar with - having examined the 9/11 imagery for over half a decade now. But some of it is indeed brand new - and provides even further clues and confirmations as to how “the 9/11 IMAGE FAKERY FACTORY” operates. I have expounded about this in depth elsewhere, so let me just show you here what can be found in these “brand new amateur videos”:

Here I compare AMY SANCETTA’S world famous still photo with a frame credited to one “ALFIE ALVARADO”:

So, we are now asked to believe that four cameras captured the exact same moment in time, from extraordinarily (if not impossibly) similar viewing angles/vantage points - AND zoom ratios. One only needs to calculate the odds of this occurring in the real world.

But there’s more: Here is another threesome of alleged “amateur” shots to be found in NIST’s “new releases”:

So, you may ask - can it get sillier than this? Yes indeed :

As you have seen in all the above shots, the ROOFTOP of WTC2 is seen tilting at a steep angle as it tumbles down. Well, here is a frame from another “new amateur video” released by NIST. It appears to be shot from the same side as the other shots (from a more distant location). You will only need your eyesight and common sense to realize that something is TERRIBLY wrong here. To be sure, we are looking at the very first seconds of the (proposed) WTC2 collapse - instants before the rooftop gets engulfed in smoke:

Source Video:

Just for the sake of comparison:
TILT ANGLE WTC2 _21.5 degreesSMALL

The 9/11 imagery was created with the extensive use of digital technology, much like a Hollywood production. The news media top brass was 100% complicit and knowingly aired artificial imagery on 9/11 - in order to simulate a “terror attack” - for the profit of everyone involved in the hoax. The WTC complex was of course demolished - but there exists no visual record of just how the towers were brought down.


The 9/11 imagery was clearly made in an ‘assembly-chain’ mode: the lazy bastards (pardon me the expression - but if you have any better way of describing the planners of this pathetic hoax, let me know!) simply made some master templates of any given angle of the Manhattan skyline - and constructed the visual tale they wished to convey to the public. Here are six (yes, SIX!) identical views/vantage points which were credited to six different “amateur videographers”/or TV networks. Please take note of this extremely important point: the imagery shown by the TV networks and the imagery later released as “amateur images” - were all obviously composited by one and the same source (the 9/11 planners - backed by the US government and whatnot):



Now, if you are inclined to argue that these 6 shots are the result of some extraordinary coincidence (6 cameramen standing within feet of each other), I will respond with a snotty sentence that has been thrown at me for years by the silly little army of aspiring debunkers of September Clues out there: “You have mental issues. Please take your medication.” Sorry folks, but I can’t be more sincere than that - and to hell with nice manners. I have observed them for way too long - let me now call a spade a spade.


Let’s start with some of the goofiest / macroscopic cockups on the part of whoever directed & supervised the “9/11 Movie” (and its prefabricated imagery). As we analyze any suspected image forgery featuring daylight / open air / SUNLIT sceneries, there are THREE things that we can be absolutely certain of:

1 - the sun never lies

2 - where sunlight cannot reach - shadowed areas will be observed

3 - if we can find two pictures ( A & B ) of an event that occurred at the same moment in time - and picture A features a sunlit area whereas picture B shows the same area in shadow, at least ONE of the two pictures must be a forgery.

Of course, as the 9/11 story went, “Flight 175” impacted the southern face of the WTC at 9:03 am. At that time, the sun would have been south-east of the WTC - thus casting a shadow on the north face of the Twin Towers.

With the above-described circumstances in mind, I don’t think that the two pictures compared below need any further commentary. Judge for yourselves:

Here are some more pictures compared - ALL evidently meant to depict the very same event in time (“impact of Flight 175”)


These shadows (those on the red building at left - versus those seen in the Manhattan backdrop) are simply irreconcilable. THE SUN DOES NOT LIE.


Undebunkable? Yes. But you are free to believe that this picture is real. However, that belief is up to you to cajole and defend.


Hereby, I challenge any engineer specialized in crash physics to explain what we see in the 4 below videos.

How does this aluminum airliner penetrate the steel structure of the WTC without a single part shearing off?

Credited to “Michael Hezarkhani”

Credited to “Luc Courchesne”

Credited to “Evan Fairbanks”

Credited to “Jennifer Spell”


The 4 seamless shots of ‘the airplane approach’ shown on LIVE TV

And here is the full “airplane approach” film sequence - a grand total of 16 seconds of footage - that was aired LIVE on the major TV networks on (split between 4 different networks!) :

I know (from experience) that some people will immediately counter-argue : “SO WHAT? THIS IS WHAT THE TV CAMERAS CAPTURED ON 9/11!”

Fine. So I’ll now ask everyone to consider the odds of these 4 cameras capturing a sequential series of shots showing ‘FLIGHT 175’ entering and exiting their given lens views in seamless fashion. Does this seem likely - or can you say “fabricated animation sequence”? I call this the “16-second magic sequence”. You will have to be very convincing if you are to tell people that this was all a matter of pure happenstance. Please know that these mere 16 seconds of ‘plane footage’ make up THE GRAND TOTAL OF AIRPLANE IMAGERY THAT THE TV NETWORKS SHOWED LIVE ON 9/11.

In all likelihood, this was just a prefabricated 16-second video sequence designed to be launched by the “central 9/11 TV studio” - once they got the ‘ok cue’ from the ground-crew managing the WTC explosives charges. For more insights into this particular subject, please watch SEPTEMBER CLUES part E.

September Clues part E demonstrates that an audio signal (a double-beep) is to be heard - simultaneously - on each and all of the USA TV networks, exactly 17 seconds before the “FLIGHT175 impact”. That audio signal was most likely a classic synch-lock beep - as commonly used in film studios to align/synchronize any given set of film segments. This would, of course, have been necessary to synch the various ‘plane-approach’ segments to be aired live on the 5 different TV networks (CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, ABC).


Cropped animated gif of the NOSE OUT shot (as aired by WNYWFOX5 on Live 9/11 TV):

Most importantly, the frame below is to be found on the current 9/11 FOX ARCHIVES - proving beyond doubt that the nose-out was actually aired on 9/11 - and subsequently covered up (with a different, blue-scale animation of the “crashing 2nd plane”)

Here are 2 twin comparisons between the cockpit section of “FLIGHT 175” before and after striking World Trade Center 2:



Staged Plane Wreckage

Alleged Plane wreckage shot with a clean Murray St sign

Alleged Plane wreckage shot with a thick dust coating on the wreckage and also a thick dust coating on the surrounding street and sidewalk. There is also a headset which appears in the photo.

The dust cloud allegedly covered the whole south Manhattan.

With all the dust surrounding the pavement, street and alleged wreckage debris in expert opinion it would defiantly have coated the sign. There is no dust coating whatsoever. It appears to have been wiped or moved at the very least. That is defiantly tampering with evidence, but above all of this leads to definite acknowledgement that it is staged.


Here’s the supposed path of the stray “FLIGHT175 jet engine part”


Only 1min & 52seconds after the “LIVE strike”, CBS aired a “follow-up” shot. It showed a small dot passing between the Empire State Building. So small, in fact, that CBS anchor Bryant Gumbel complained that he couldn’t see it.

This shot exemplifies most effectively the digital aspect of the 9/11 TV broadcasts. By simply blowing up a detail of the scenery, we can make the following observations :

  1. No ‘video artifact’ issues can account for the thick, black linings/ghost edges (see contour of WTC). The “plane” is seen overlapping those edges.

  2. The approach angle/trajectory of the “plane” is absurd: if this were to be a Boeing 767 (travelling at the reported speed of “550mph”!) no way could it perform a last-minute turn to hit the WTC almost head-on (as seen in other 9/11 imagery).

  3. The overall aspect of the imagery is not in the least consistent with real, video broadcasting standards; it has an altogether artificial aspect often seen in chroma-key/luma-key filtering or similar digital manipulations.




This is the only LIVE clip which you will not find in the TV archives: the infamous “Nose-In/Nose-out fiasco” is featured in September Clues and comprehensively analyzed in NOSED OUT. It was broadcast live by WNYW-FOX5 and replayed by CNN 6min later (albeit with a large CNN-banner covering the “plane”). The fundamental question this shot raises is : “Can a passenger airplane crash into a steel tower and emerge from the other side with its cockpit intact?” No - but this of course raises another question mark: Why, if the 9/11 imagery was pre-fabricated, would such a ‘cock-up’ have occured? Now, here’s where we must put our questions on hold and appeal to common sense. The bottom line is that whatevever the reasons, the fact remains that it cannot be real footage of a crashing airliner. Since this is what we have (an impossible depiction of an “airplane crash”) we should stop right here - and ask FOX TV for explanations. Undeniably, FOX has actively attempted to remove this shot from public view. In fact, shortly after the release of September Clues in June 2007 - the WNYWFox5 video I had found on Youtube (containing the “Nose-Out fiasco”) was removed with this ‘candid’, unambiguous message:


With the “LIVE SHOTS” out of the way, we are left to analyze the alleged “AMATEUR” shots which emerged only later: some within 12 hours of the event - and some as late as 2008! The sheer amount of “amateur” shots (around 45) is ludicrous in itself : we are asked to believe that 45 amateur videographers were able to get a clear panshot of the “550mph airplane”… The purpose of this ‘overkill’ is all too evident : by flooding the public with huge numbers of alleged “amateur” videoclips, the 9/11 plotters hoped to raise a wall of ‘undeniability’. This has miserably backfired; simulating such a complex, real-life event involves a vast number of variables - all of which are difficult enough to reproduce realistically from two/three different angles - let alone 45! By contrast, only 1 video exists showing the first event at 8:46AM (“Flight 11 impacting WTC1”). Let us first have a look at this most “iconic” videoclip of 9/11. Barely two frames are needed to expose it - incontrovertibly - for the fraud that it is.



These 2 frames are extracted from the original DVD of the French Naudet brothers’ movie “911”. In the frame at left we may see that, 6 seconds after “plane impact”, there simply is no right wing gash to be seen. Obviously, no BOEING 767 has entered that tower! Somehow, at the 20-second mark, and after much camera shake, a distinct gash appears. In the full video clip, one can clearly observe the gash being ‘painted in’- and no - it is not a smoke plume. Once again, we don’t need to pinpoint exactly how this video was forged: the inescapable fact is that this simply cannot represent real footage of a crashing airliner. Full video analyses here: THE PLANE FACTS (1min12") * 911AMATEUR part2 (7min18")


One of the unshakable certainties we have on this planet: The sun does not lie. Here we have two different “amateur” pictures depicting practically the same moment in time. All we have to look at are the North sides of the WTC towers: In one shot they bask in sunlight - in the other they are in shade. Both cannot be real.

Note: As these analyses unfold, I will use the fair and objective ‘both-cannot-be-real’ conclusion (in the case of back-to-back comparisons). This, solely for reasons of academic correctness. However, it is hoped that the reader will ultimately realize that the countless observable discrepancies call for a more severe, no-nonsense assessment of the entire 9/11 image pool.




Here we have an “amateur” shot credited to one “LUIS ALONSO”. The two compared sections of his shot show why his video cannot be real. The “airplane” is seen passing behind the Woolworth building, after which it drastically changes trajectory. This can only be a poorly crafted video composite. In fact, trajectories were a constant problem for the 9/11 fakery crew: their 3-D simulation skills were evidently rather limited.

It should be noted that the plane looks ridiculously slow - if you consider it should be travelling at 550mph (900km/h)! And yes, there are ways of verifying (subsequent expansion of the fireball) that this notorious clip is not meant to be in slow motion.

(The 2 loops at left have been stabilized - that’s why the MSNBC logo moves around)



Only 1 second separates these two pictures ( extracted from video by alleged “amateur” Devin Clark ). A Boeing 767 cannot bank (or ‘roll’- in aeronautical jargon ) at a rate of 12°/second. It just cannot do it - at any speed.

Full “Devin Clark” analysis here :
911 AMATEUR part1



This shot credited to “Evan Fairbanks” was repeatedly aired on ABC in the aftermath of 9/11. At the bottom of this shot we can see what is meant to be a reflection in a car windshield. The utterly ridiculous nature of this shot is for all to see. Film & video professionals will instantly recognize this classic ‘trick’ of the trade : ‘Reflections’ are all-too-common, special-effect gimmicks used in cinema production to ‘enhance the reality’ of digital sceneries.

Full “Evan Fairbanks” analysis here :
911 AMATEUR part3


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.



This is a clip from the NBC archives. It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real. It has all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation. Just as the “FOLLOW-UP SHOT” aired by CBS, it features black linings/ghost edges around the WTC. Of course, the absurd, dark-yellow hue of this “daylight shot” is unprecedented in the history of photography: Critics wishing to prove the contrary should provide samples to back up their contentions.

In case you should wonder, the slight ‘bobbing’ of the picture is supposed to imprint the idea of this being filmed from a helicopter (NBC’s “Chopper4”). Ironically, this tilt motion is precisely what gyroscopic cameras will not allow: To the makers of this poor animation, we may say : “Fail”.


Another horrendous cock-up by the “9/11 animation crew”: White smoke is seen covering the West side of WTC7. It is inexplicably ‘cut’ along the edge of WTC7. Could it be a reflection? No: The sun being where it is, any ‘reflection’ would have been that of a shadow. The animation crew probably mistook the WTC7 NORTH FACE for a separate building and decided to make smoke emerge from behind it.

Note also the impossibly white smoke emerging from WTC1 in the small, central picture. NO lighting issues/camera angles may account for the black/versus white smoke aberration: All 3 shots have similar blue skies. Lastly, WTC7 was a red/brown building - not grey. None of these three shots are real.

The WTC2 COLLAPSE is fully analyzed in SEPTEMBER CLUES addendum CHAPTER1
The WTC7 COLLAPSE is fully analyzed in

THE WTC1 COLLAPSE AT 10:28AM (as seen on TV)



  • “Chopper camera” performs an 18-second zoom-in just prior to collapse start.
  • Two seconds after collapse initiation, the feed switches to “camera 2”.

This fact alone must ring an alarm bell in any rational mind: what are the odds for this to occur? Did the “chopper cameraman” anticipate the collapse by sheer luck, zooming-in just in time to catch its start? Did the producer then - with Superman vision & reflexes - decide to switch the feed to “camera 2” within two seconds - perhaps for more ‘drama’?..


The collapse proceeds and yet more camera switches are seen during this short time span. The switch from “camera 3” to “camera 4” is quite surreal: it is clearly the same camera - at two different zoom levels. And what about the final brightening of the picture? Did the ‘ace’ CNN producer notice “cam4” was too dark at that precise moment?

Another extraordinary aspect of this LIVE CNN shot: the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) claims that WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds. Yet, what we see on CNN is a collapse which clearly lasts for at least 18 seconds. The whole “9/11 commission” was a joke -but of course- that’s now common knowledge.


This video is attributed to “amateur” Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?

Clearly, Siegel’s video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!



Since 2001, technology has evolved and, if another false-flag based on fake imagery should take place, none of the atrocious blunders of the 9/11 imagery will be repeated. This is why I think this is our very last chance to expose the intentions of the self-anointed ‘elite’ of this world. The human race has to be thankful for the fact that the nerdy people behind the 9/11 hoax were so laughably inept in planning and executing their disgraceful, sordid scam. So here we go, folks - valiantly fighting the “War on Error” !

I will hereby attempt to illustrate some photographic aspects of their failure which I left out of September Clues (my video- research documentary) due to the difficulties of highlighting the finer details of my longstanding 9/11 imagery research. I fully realize that not everyone masters specific notions of photography and have legitimate difficulties in relating to the material at hand. This is why I strive to present my findings in the simplest and most ‘user-friendly’ manner to share them with the layman. Technical terminology is - and has always been - a limiting obstacle for social communication.

Someone may opine that “yes, well we knew all of that already” - but I believe the issue of the absurd 9/11 imagery has to be put to rest once and for all - especially in the eyes of people who have not had a fair chance to assess the vast body of evidence acquired in years of methodical research. This thread will focus on the proposed sceneries of the forged 9/11 image pool, in order to comprehend the scale of the efforts made by the scammers to convey a false reality to the unsuspecting public.

Firstly, let’s get one crucial point out of the way:



Here is another example showing that both the alleged “amateur” imagery and the TV imagery was crafted by the SAME FILM / ANIMATION STUDIO. Below, I compare a shot credited to one “Yuri Faktorovich”, who allegedly flew by Manhattan around 9AM that morning. Now, think about it: what are the odds / chances that Yuri captured (through his Cessna window) a shot which looks virtually identical to the (alleged) NBC4 TV chopper?



Moreover, the exact same type of inexplicable glitches seen in the most recently released, high resolution ALLEGED “amateur” 9/11 imagery, also occured in the original TV footage home-recorded on VHS tapes by private American TV viewers:


Here we have a (oft recurring) street view with people hanging around beneath the World Trade Center.

Please remember that sunlight is undisputable - whereas human beings (and their technology) are not always to be trusted.

These 2 frames are extracted from different 9/11 TV documentaries. What’s going on here??

Here are yet 2 more comparisons of the same city block (with pretty much similar vantage points/viewing angles). But does it all add up?

Now find buildings Z and Y in the below image ( Source: … settembre/ )

Yet another view of the “same” scenery.

September Clues blew my hair back when it first came out. Glad to see it revived here on the forum. Until the footage was dissected like this, I had never considered how the aircraft themselves may have been special effects.

I discovered the documentary below a couple years ago and it expands on SC. Highly recommended (if you got 4 hours to spare).

9/11 The Great American Psy Opera