9-11 Truth is Limited Hangout --"September Clues"

July 15, 2015

Simon Shack, who made "September Clues," believes the 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT is a well-funded limited hangout. The leaders reveal certain aspects of the attacks but hide the true events, of which video trickery is a core part.

The CEO of the Loose Change company, a man named Joel S. Bachar, was associated with the Rockefeller Foundation.


from April 16, 2012
by David Richards

The hit online film 'September Clues (2008)' is the most detailed and convincing exponent of the 'no planes' theory of 9/11.

The documentary is the work of Simon Shack, a seasoned video/audio engineer currently residing in Italy.

No commercial airliners were involved in 9/11. Missiles hit the towers and the planes were photo shopped. The amateur filmmakers and eyewitnesses were CIA plants.

The 'no plane' theory sounds absurd on first hearing, but if there were no planes in Pennsylvania, at WTC 7 and at the Pentagon, it would be consistent that no planes hit the WTC.

Shack believes there was a 17-second delay between the attacks and the screening of the footage, long enough for passenger planes to be inserted into the film. He reveals technical glitches in the footage of the jets hitting the towers.

Various shots from both the TV footage and 'amateur cameramen' show United Airlines Flight 175 disappearing into the South structure like a ghost.

Another glitch is the infamous 'nose in nose out' shot, in which the Boeing penetrates the tower so perfectly that the nose of the plane emerges from other side unscathed. This is followed by a little blackout in footage in which Shack believes the perpetrators attempted to hide their mistake.

Bizarrely, different footage shows contradictory flight paths. One shows the plane dive-bombing into the tower, an impossible maneuver for a Boeing 767 (which cannot reach the reported speeds of 470 mph and 590 mph near sea level).

Audio was also faked. The same sample of a woman screaming is found on both an amateur film and TV footage. A fast reverse of the amateur video by 'Sarah Spell' reveals the shattering crash of impact to be a cymbal sample.

September Clues shows that the five major news channels had plants ready to act as eyewitnesses. Shortly after the attacks, all the big TV networks called up their own senior employees who reported seeing a commercial jet.

ABC News called up Mark Obenhaus, the producer of their hit show "Seeing is Believing". He reported, in a suspiciously calm and measured tone, 'the plane was completely engulfed by the building, it was extraordinary, no wings flew off, it just went directly in causing this cavern like hold in the building... It reminds you of the worst kind of effects in movies."

Considering that the CIA has always run the US media (Project Mockingbird), it shouldn't surprise that the TV networks were staffed with spooks ready to play their role. These are the people we rely on for information?

If a commercial jet didn't hit the towers, what did? Shack believes JASSM AGM-158 winged cruise missile is a likely candidate, as it resembles a small plane and only explodes after penetrating its target. The explosion of the missiles was timed to go off with bombs planted inside the towers. 

But what about the passengers on the four planes? They were created by an "identity generating" software program that makes digital people with fictitious names. He encourages people to look into the 'CNN Victim Memorial' and check out the weak back-stories and fake appearances of the 'VicSims'.

This part doesn't stand up to analysis. The flight lists could not have been faked. On board AA Flight 11 was David Angell, the multi-Emmy award-winning producer of the sitcom Frasier. On AA board Flight 77 was Barbara Olson, a prominent Neocon and a regular talking head at Fox News. Unlike the supposed hijackers, the passengers have disappeared; how we don't know.


September Clues has been a big hit; the most popular version on YouTube has nearly 200,000 views. By looking at the comments beneath the videos and praise for the film online, clearly many seasoned 9/11 researchers advocate the 'no plane' theory.

However, the film has received short shrift from the big names in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Alex Jones says the proponents of the 'no plane' theory are disinfo agents designed to make Truthers look clownish. He describes their followers as 'weak-minded' and 'mentally ill'. Dylan Avery (co-creator of 'Loose Change') refuses to allow anyone to discuss the film on the Loose Change forums.

For all their bluster, they do not refute the evidence in the film. Instead, they use smear tactics and relay dubious personal anecdotes (AJ claims friends from his college days were in NY on 9/11, and witnessed passenger planes). I have searched long and hard for a convincing debunking of the film, but I have yet to find one.

Simon Shack doesn't come across as a spook. For one thing, he doesn't receive the mainstream media attention afforded to Alex Jones and the Loose Change guys. On his website, septemberclues.info, he starts forums asking readers to debunk the various claims in the movie. For those who question his identity, he posts photographs of himself and his country home in Italy.

Shack believes that popular 9/11 Truth is a well-funded 'cover' movement. The leaders reveal certain aspects of the attacks but hide the true events, of which video trickery is a core part.

As evidence he notes the Loose Change website is run by a company named Microcinema International, which funded 'Loose Change: An American Coup' (2009). The CEO of the company, a man named Joel S. Bachar, previously worked for the Rockefeller Foundation. The Loose Change website 'Tech guy' is a man named Douglas Fraser, whose CV shows previous stints in various Military programs.


September Clues is essential viewing.  The fact the passenger planes were Photoshopped reveals that 9/11 was to a large extent a purely televisual event, a mimicry of the disaster movies we are fed.

This may be shocking, but in military circles the idea of utilizing Hollywood effects for strategic gain is in common discussion. We live in a matrix and the Illuminati create our reality.

September Clues also does a pretty good job at filling in the rest of the story: the media talking heads were spooks, the passengers profiles were faked, a JASSM AGM-185 missile hit the towers etc.

Simon Shack admits he doesn't have a conclusive explanation for what happened on 9/11, but his thesis is probably the closest thing we have to date.



 Tupac Hologram Performance - How Hard to fake Planes?

Fake flights/ passengers http://www.septemberclues.info/frameindex.htm



Simon Shack on the 9/11 cover movement http://www.septemberclues.info/obstacles.htm


Loose Change: The Financiers/webmasters exposed http://www.septemberclues.info/loose_change.htm


Hollywood effects used in warfare- Quotes- http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

Mass Media Collaborated in 9-11 Hoax

Comments for "9-11 Truth is Limited Hangout --"September Clues" "

Steve said (April 20, 2012):

Henry, not only 9/11 Truth, but virtually ALL the 9/11 investigative organizations.

Donald said (April 20, 2012):

According to Victor Thorn in his book "MADE IN ISRAEL, 911 BRAND TERROR", the fakery is in the leadership......page 3 he lists individuals sponsored by Israel lobby as Dylan Avery, Jason Berman, Jonothan Elinoff, Luke Rudkowski. Jonothan Gold...et. al.......Although none of these individuals point the finger at Israel, Alex Jones blasted away at Israel on November 28, 2008, with a twenty minute relentless rank, against the Zionist control........just after the election of Obama.......

But little has been mentioned since, leading some speculators to believe that Jones has become a Zionist shill in 2012, according to many truthers including David Chase Taylor, Bro Kapner, Jeff Rense, alexjonesmachine.com, truther.org

SA said (April 18, 2012):

i was in NYC the day of the attacks, i was just outside my campus. one second the tower was in smoke and i turn around for 5 seconds to talk to my friend and POW it was gone!, no smoke. nothing!...at least nothing like what we are being shown on tv over and over and over again. I know this has been out there, but i believe 9/11 was a blue beam project...the buildings were ultimately controlled demolished...but why didn't i see any smoke even though the dust reached my neighborhood in downtown Brooklyn!

Mike said (April 17, 2012):

Once again, the pictures of the jet engine in the street photographed by a Fox news crew minutes after impact:


How do you account for the presence of this engine in the street if there were no planes? Also, why is it the engine of a 737 when the building was to be struck by a 767? This is physical evidence. Can you give a plausible explanation for it in the context of the no planes theory, or failing that, will you admit that the real purpose of the no planes theory is to make people who question the official account of 9-11 look like idiots?



Right, everything turned to a fine powder except for an airplane engine sitting on the sidewalk like a fresh turd, beside Mohamed Atta's passport.

I hope I am wrong but you strike me as a paid dis-informant that skulks around the Internet supporting official lies.


Barry said (April 17, 2012):

Interesting. To be fair, this week, Alex just mentioned yesterday that a witness saw a plane with no windows going into one of the towers.

A friend told me in '02 that he talked to a witness in NYC who took a couple of 35mm shots of one of the planes that had no windows. The lab he sent the film to somehow managed to "lose" the film. He also had a story about the fellow who allegedly found one of the black boxes from the WTC attacks. This fellow, a very arrogant Jewish contractor, had made millions from the government and profited from the OKC attack.

Linda said (April 17, 2012):

My truth is Dimitri Khalezov. He has many videos on 9-11
Here is the first link


Part 2 is here


The total viewing is around 3 hours.

Just think it is strange none of your comments mentioned him. He explains he sent his book (The Third Truth) to the FBI. They told him you are 90% correct. He chgd it and then the govt banned his book. (Darn) He released a few chapters for free.

In his video he explains pretty much except what happened to any passengers, if there were any. He explains what kind of missile (russian) hit the Pentagon and where it was launched from.

Dimitri is pretty credible. He has been on many talk shows.....of course, not on Rense.

Kathy said (April 17, 2012):

I just watch the most amazing video concerning 9-11 by Dr. Judy Wood that was reference by Benjamin Fulford. Are facts stranger than fiction? The perverts in Hollywood cannot come up with a story line this fascinating.

Benjamin Fulford : Cheney Admits to 911 ?


Dr Judy Wood at New Horizons - Where Did the Towers Go - Part 1


Dr Judy Wood at New Horizons - Where Did the Towers Go - Part 2


Dick said (April 17, 2012):

While I haven't studied the various technical theories of 9/11
extensively, I find "no planes" to be more or less plausible.

That said, I don't think any variation on the theme – hijacked
planes, remote-controlled planes, no planes, space weapons, nuclear weapons – really changes the big picture. To call 9/11 truth a "limited hangout" is disingenuous. There are areas for genuine disagreement, and probably too many unanswerable questions to figure everything out.

For example, why would so many military drills be required to
distract NORAD air defense if there were no planes, even if they
were remote-controlled drones? And I haven't looked into this, but wouldn't the airlines have come forward if no such flight numbers existed? Henry, I'd tend to agree with you that these flights and certain passengers existed, but were flown somewhere else (and who knows what happened) while the events were accomplished with drones and/or missiles. I clicked on your link about David Angell, and found it interesting that he had worked at the Pentagon before becoming a producer, and his brother was a Catholic bishop. The
plot thickens!

"Why" is a bigger question here than "how," and I think all
"truthers" would agree on the broad strokes. Maybe "no planes" vs. "yes, planes" can bring up some clues as to "who." For example, if the planes were a mere camera trick, then the WTC demolitions might have occurred with less infiltration of air defense, and maybe an "Israel did it" theory could become more plausible. But I think you'd have to explain away alot of the drills, exercises, and history of how the "deep state" operates.

In short, this is not a ridiculous theory, but if true, what does
it accomplish other than further dividing this all-but-dead



Those airline flights existed- they just didn't hit the targets. Don't know how they got rid of the passengers.


Doug said (April 17, 2012):

I find your ideas here entirely believable, I've been a no-planer for years - I signed onto AE911Truth.org and have a bachelors degree in engineering. At the point in time just after the building was impacted it would be very easy to have witnesses convinced in the short few minute post period that what they saw was planes - even if there was nothing.

I believe the 9/11 truth movement attaches itself to too many un-necessary details, details that can perhaps be shown incorrect later and used to discredit the whole idea. Really, the book "Propaganda: The Shaping Of Mens Attitudes" by Jacque Ellul is ESSENTIAL reading for 9/11 truth and for everything else in this muck of corruption and sh*t baggery we find ourselves in. Propaganda does not work the way people assume it does, many aspects are entirely counter-intuitive.

Jim said (April 17, 2012):

David and Henry.

You are both to be commended for taking a bold stance. This takes great integrity. Honestly when I hear the crap peddled on rense regarding 9/11 it is so annoying. When has he ever shown a willingness to consider this view? Never. The Jim Marrs/Judy Wood/Ed Ward crowd are obfuscating the truth that September Clues is revealing. This is the most important story of our lifetimes and it is heartening to see your site come out for real 9/11 truth.

Jim Fetzer said (April 17, 2012):

You might find four recent articles of mine of interest about this:

"9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”


"The official account of the 9/11 Pentagon attack is a fantasy" (with Dennis Cimino)


“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)


“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”


My take is that, while no plane crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon, what happened in New York was two different forms of plane simulations.

Art said (April 16, 2012):

About Enrico's video .... whatever. I saw that video and immediately knew what was up .... for the first month it was broadcast ... there was NOTHING there. Certainly not a plane that the wingspan alone is 75% of the width of the WTC north tower. That horribly rendered "whatzit" looks to be drawn in with a child's crayon.

I recommend anyone interested in this topic to search for the video of the hijacked Ethiopian Airlines 767 that was ditched off the Comoros Islands when it ran out of fuel. That is the exact same plane model reported to have flown into the WTC buildings. Watch closely as it contacts the water, left wingtip first. What that particular video (pre-altering) showed was the entire left wing, sans engine, being ripped cleanly from the fuselage. The whole wing flew 150 feet into the air, straight up ... and was the most incredible thing I had ever seen.

I said "pre-altering" because the footage was obviously altered (IMO) to wipe the flying wing out of the video altogether. I mean, what sense would it make for a wing to rip free on contact with water, while on the same aircraft model it stays connected whilst cutting through 12+ steel girders? It doesn't take a video analyst to see the horribly rendered artifacts of the wiping.

Maybe someone out there has seen the original video and can confirm this observation.

Rollin said (April 16, 2012):

It makes sense to me, prima facie, that there were no planes, for the following reason.

If planes were used, they might to a large degree shatter against the buildings, rather than penetrate into them. This would obviate the explanation that the fires and explosions and the subsequent collapses were due to interior damage caused by the planes' jet fuel, and without that explanation the whole story would quickly collapse. No intelligent conspiracy could take that chance.

As for whether the passengers were invented, rather than murdered, that seems to need more investigation. My first thought was that some of the passengers must have been well enough known that we could verify their demise, and that one such person was Barbara Olson.

But on second thought, she and her husband Ted Olson were prominent neoconservatives, politically connected to the people probably responsible for 9/11. That in itself seems slightly suspicious. Perhaps her death could have been faked, which would help to avert suspicion with regard not only to the plane's passengers, but to the true identity of the perpetrators.


Thanks Rollin

Creator of TV's Frasier, David Angell and his wife also died.


Ken Adachi said (April 16, 2012):

I was sent four DVDs in 2010 by a man named Eugene which included the September clues video mentioned in this article, along with another excellent "there were no real planes' expose by a Canadian named Jeff Hill, and a homemade video made in 2005 by Artie Wheeler with Roger Muffay that proved conclusively that there were no actual airplanes that flew
into the World Trade Center buildings. Mainstream media provided us with all the video evidence you need to prove that there were no actual planes entering the WTC buildings because a hollowed out, flying aluminum tube (a commercial airliner) cannot enter a steel framed, concrete building and NOT decellerate (meaing lose velocity because of the impact), and yet
that's EXACLY what you see when you watch the 9/11 videos shown to us by mainstream TV. The so-called "planes" entering the WTC do not slow down one mircosecond in speed as they slice into those buildings. That is physically impossible. We weren't witnessing real planes. We were seeing a
holographic video projection of "planes."

Artie Wheeler pegged the "no plane" story in 2005 and deserves the lion share of credit for having the first video out of the box to show the deception.

I posted a note about Artie's work in May of 2011:


Enrico said (April 16, 2012):

In response to David Richards’ article on the tiresome issue about what hit the World Trade Center, I have attached a link showing the first plane crashing into the tower. The video was made by an independent videographer, so no tricks were involved. So enough already.




Independent CIA contractor?


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at