Screw September Clues Part I

This video does an excellent job of debunking some early bits of September Clues. A few things I would add:

At about 4:08 in this video, the narrator notes that September Clues claims that an on-site reporter's microphone picks up no sound of the impact. This appears to be true, but what is more important is that it also picks up no sound of whatever it is that the No-Planers think happened. Shack highlights the word "explosion" from the reporter but we don't hear the explosion either. This indicates that the microphone simply wasn't sensitive enough to catch the impact/explosion.

The deception exposed at 4:50 with regard to Theresa Renaud's discussion with Bryant Gumbel is quite telling. Shack has carefully snipped out Renaud's mention that her building is the tallest in the area and has a good view south to the World Trade Center. This is so that his argument from incredulity that she could not have heard the impact or seen the second plane crash into the South Tower may seem a little more credible. But of course this is simply intellectual dishonesty and is a very strong warning that the film is fraudulent.

On the "Nose-In, Nose-Out" issue, the part that amuses me is the way the No-Planers explain this. The "Fade to Black" was done because somebody producing the fakery saw the "Nose-Out" appearing and quickly "faded" so they could remove the fake plane. Of course, this is undercut by all the video of the South Tower attack that does not fade to black. Note as well, that local media as well as national media are apparently in on the plot.

Obviously I don't agree with the ending of the video, where Anthony Lawson blathers on about how the No-Planes theory "has tainted the mainstream 9-11 Truth Movement". That's silly. All "Truthers" are "No-Planers" at heart. The idea that "September Clues" is any different from "Loose Change" or your average David Ray Griffin lecture in this regard is ridiculous.

Note: This is not my debunking of September Clues. I am going to go through the video myself to cover the parts that Lawson left out; where I think he explained things adequately I will simply refer to this picture. But I thought this was a good intro to the ways in which September Clues is deceptive.