SIMCITY 911

[simonshack]

*

This is a closed thread I wish to keep as a 'notepad' for my 9/11 imagery research.

In time, I will transfer this material to the http://www.septemberclues.info" website. If you have any particularly interesting additions to submit, please e-mail me at simonshack@libero.it
***************************************************************************************************************************************





SIMCITY 911


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.

A LOOP EXTRACTED FROM THE NBC 9/11 (alleged) "LIVE BROADCASTS":

This is the sort of "aerial TV chopper" imagery aired on LIVE TV that morning: whatever cinematic techniques were employed to simulate the Manhattan skyline is up for debate - but, as we will see, a long list of problems with this bizarre TV imagery allow us to rule out - beyond reasonable doubt - its purported authenticity. The above NBC shot suggests that a multi-layered compositing technique was used to simulate the gyrating motion of the "TV chopper" around the cityscape and its backdrop. Other tell-tale signs of digital compositing are the 'ghost' contours lining the towers and the smoke (at right) - and that inexplicable line seen running up the middle of WTC1.


********************************************************************

Every single available photograph and video portraying the "defining moments" of the morning of Tuesday, September 11 2001 is an artificial document. Please note that by "artificial document", it is not implied that every image is entirely computer-generated, but that various cinematic techniques were employed to depict a scripted series of events in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001 - much like a major Hollywood production.

To envision how this could possibly been achieved, without the risk of being contradicted by any real, private imagery captured by Manhattan dwellers, please read this article:

VISUAL CONTROL OF 9/11
http://septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm"

********************************************************************


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

ALL THE 9/11 IMAGERY, WHETHER CREDITED TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA OR TO ALLEGED 'AMATEURS', IS THE WORK OF THE VERY SAME FILM STUDIO :




YURI FAKTOROVICH's CESSNA IMAGES - versus - THE NBC LIVE CHOPPER IMAGES
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/possibilities that Yuri captured (through his Cessna window) a shot which looks extremely similar - in every respect - to the (alleged) NBC4 TV chopper, with its high-end camera equipment?





INEXPLICABLE GLITCHES seen on LIVE TV - and in the "AMATEUR" VIDEOS
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:





SHADOWS / PERSPECTIVES
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: http://www.corriere.it/esteri/speciali/ ... settembre/ )


"HORST" perspectives comparison: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 865911160#


"Mr. HORST's WTC7 close-up":
This is another frame from "Mr. Horst's amateur video" (certainly not recorded with a cellphone camera - as these were not available commercially until 2002). It is meant to be a zoom-in on the WTC7 façade. This is but one example of the dismal quality common to ALL the 9/11 "videos" released to the public prior to 2006. To try and explain away this dreadfully low resolution with "video compression" arguments - or the like - is simply intellectually/technically dishonest:


********************************************************************



The"SCEENZ" video

Now we move on to a view of the "about-to-collapse" WTC from a distance.
It is from a video published on Youtube in 2006 called "Unseen footage from September11thGroundZero".
(Author unknown - but let's call it the "SCEENZ" video, since that's how it is labeled.)
The camera catches a peculiar, circular street-sign featuring the emblem of the CUBA Coat of Arms:




It so happens that we have (as provided by internet searches) a pre-2001 photo of the WTC towers - which features the very same CUBA street-sign as seen on the SCEENZ video. However, the relative locations of the 2 signs appear to be rather incongruous:





The point of the matter is that the two Manhattan street views are in total conflict with each other.
If the perspective discrepancies do not convince you, you will have to explain this: (compare anything you like - my yellow arrows are just a 'teaser'...


********************************************************************


"BART's" video

Another video by one "Bart Van Belle" also turns out to be crafted with digital imagery technology...(Surprise, surprise! )
It's the same video which shows a lot of JUMPERS falling down from the WTC towers. http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Bart Van Belle's video (which was released only in 2007) looks pretty realistic at a first viewing - yet at closer inspection THIS is what "Bart's Manhattan" looks like:




"Bart's video camera" then shows us this scenery :



Here's how it compares to a 9/11 TV scenery shown on ABC:




And here's how it compares with a recent Google street view (large picture):



Building "A" is a total disaster: it is huge and doesn't look even remotely like the real thing!
Computer-generated imagery works pretty well for our corrupt 'top politicians' : most people think it represents reality and fall for it !

[simonshack]

*

RENDERING GLITCHES



The animation software(s) used to produce the fraudulent 9/11 imagery seems to have been affected with a peculiar rendering bug - causing frames to 'shear' in a manner not ascribable to any known video artifacts. To be sure, this 'pixel shearing phenomenon' can be observed in various clips supposedly shot by various cameras - both in the available "amateur footage" and the "TV broadcast footage". We may therefore rule out the hypothesis that this was due to a disfunction of any one given camera or some sort of video format conversion / compression or the like. It appears to be a recurring, 'exclusive and proprietary' glitch of the 9/11 image pool. Here are a couple of examples :

source: RICK SIEGEL's "amateur video"___________________________________________source: ABC7 Live 9/11 broadcast


In fact, even NIST's newly released (mid- 2010) "high-definition 9/11 footage" contains many anomalous frames - reminiscent of the above 'phenomenon'. Here is a series of frames extracted from the (in)famous "EVAN FAIRBANKS" video clip. As Evan runs away from the WTC (having just captured "the Flight 175 crash"), he first keeps the camera tilted up towards some buildings:



Evan then runs around a street corner and, seemingly, decides to drop the camera on the ground to capture
scenes of panicking people 'running for their life' among heaps of flying paperwork and debris (?) strewn on the tarmac:


Here's a series of 4 sequential 'distorted people'. Note that the 'pixel shearing' (for lack of a better term) does not always span the entire length of the video frame. It mostly appears to affect the people only - but not the backdrop scenery:



Here's another sequential series of glitches. The last frame at bottom right features a man in yellow shirt 'losing' his lower leg only (no 'videotape-tracking' involved whatsoever): this rules out any tentative counter-arguments suggesting that these glitches are any sort of standard video artifacts caused by tape tracking/misalignment issues.



And a man walks away - with a badly upset stomach... :lol:


Undeniably, the difficulty of exposing the fraudulent 9/11 imagery pool and its digitally animated graphics resides in the fact that it was most likely produced with non-consumer softwares; as we are left unable to compare the bugs and flaws of those softwares with any known image-processing tools, we can only speculate as to the origin of the observable aberrations. Conversely, the uniqueness of these aberrations represent the most compelling evidence that something is very wrong with the proposed images of 9/11.

[simonshack]

*
THE PENTAGON LIVE 9/11 TV IMAGERY

This was shown Live on CBS on 9/11. What on Earth is going on here? (animated GIF is looped at 3X speed)
Is the waterspray 'melting' the Pentagon façade? What is that thick, wobbling black line?
And where are the Pentagon windows? Is the TV camera's too distant from the scene to show any window at all?


This is also quite absurd/hilarious: what are these firefighters doing? Watering the Pentagon lawn?


Of course, SOMETHING happened at the Pentagon in reality. Perhaps some smoke-bombs were set off in order for any bystanders ( kept at safe distance from the scene ) to witness that big smokeplume rising from the Pentagon - while the nearby freeways were most likely closed for traffic BEFORE the event. And - once again - the 9/11 perps relied on prefabricated computer imagery to convey this event on TV.


THE PENTAGON COLLAPSE IMAGERY

Here are two adjacent shots taken from a National Geographic 9/11 documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfwsjF8X5U

This is shown between 25:23 and 25:27:____________________________And this is shown between 25:28 and 25:32


As you can see, they have simply looped twice the same scene. But they have clearly also slightly cropped the second one (red thing disappears). Why ?

Naysayers who object to the 9/11 TV Fakery will always come up with excuses to this tune: "Duh, this is just an innocent editing mistake on the part of the National Geographic editors. Those mistakes happen all the time in the TV montage business."

You're free to believe in the naysayers. The question remains: WHY can we find countless such oddities in the 9/11 imagery, time and time again?
But of course, the most hilarious Pentagon collapse shot is the one aired by ABC - which starts with a brick jumping to its death...



The above video sequence asks us to believe that a camera operator zoomed in - on the exact spot and timeline in which the Pentagon wall started to collapse- AND zoomed out JUST as the collapse initiated! Wow! This cameraman deserves a Pulitzer Prize or two!

[simonshack]

*

PERP-SPECTIVES

The 9/11 imagery was entirely crafted by a central FAKERY FACTORY. All the available 9/11 video clips and stills were composited within a digital 3D environment, only slightly (and clumsily) rotated and tweaked to produce imagery seemingly shot by different cameramen. The end result makes for a surreal mishmash of shots featuring absurdly conflicting angles and perspectives - or, as they can be justly called - "perp-spectives".

Here we have an old clip aired on CBS2 - purportedly showing "FLIGHT 175" exploding out of WTC2:


Let's now compare it to a couple other shots (2 and 3) - purportedly showing WTC2 collapsing:


And now, let's compare them all to this recently-released (2010) high-resolution image credited to one "CHAO SOI CHEONG":

Source of image credited to "CHAO SOI CHEONG": http://framework.latimes.com/2011/08/19 ... 1-2001/#/1

The entire pool of 9/11 photo/video imagery is clearly nothing but a fraudulent digital image database crafted by a single, centralized FAKERY FACTORY. There exist NO real images of the crucial events of the day. Access to the WTC complex area was denied early on – and smoke obscurants were released to hide from the public a quite conventional demolition job. Electronic jamming devices routinely used in modern warfare were most likely in place as an extra ‘safety-measure’ to impede any private cameras from capturing the morning’s events on film – including the two upper floor WTC explosions; nonetheless, two blasts may have occurred in reality (at roughly the same floors we see in the fake 9/11 imagery) in order to imprint – in the minds of distant onlookers – the desired illusion of two airliners striking the towers. The damage caused by those 'planegash-shaping' charges only needed to be visible temporarily (with smoke gushing out of them) - until the main smokescreen obscured their view. The (fake) images repeatedly aired on TV would effectively ‘silence’ any onlookers who would dare question any discrepancies with their personal visual recollections of the morning’s events.

[simonshack]

*

THE WTC7 IMAGERY - more of the same (poor) CGI

The reddish-brown WTC7 provides a simple way (whenever it's visible in any 9/11 imagery) of determining the fakeness of the Manhattan scenery. The vast majority of 9/11 imagery featuring World Trade Center 7 shows it as a dull, greyish building. Even when a given image includes other, reddish surrounding buildings - the WTC7 remains obstinately GREY.

Here's a comparison of WTC7 (9/11 image versus Pre-2001 photograph):


************************
This is an image from the NIST IMAGE ARCHIVES - credited to "NYTransit - Miller/Cruz/Gorvetzian" :


source: http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/Coll ... 1.jpg.html

And here's another (anonymous) version of the same image - which has been circulating on the internet for years:



The question is: HOW can these 2 versions co-exist - and WHY does NIST store in their official archives what is obviously a darkened/color-altered/downgraded version of it? Indeed, what would be the reason for any 9/11 photograph to be tampered with in such manner?


***********************


Over the years, the 9/11 FAKERY FACTORY has evidently kept trying to improve/re-render their dreadful, early imagery...





The below frame is extracted from a History Channel feature. The wall at right is pink/reddish - yet again, WTC7 is a dullish grey.


And if WTC7 wasn's shown as a grey building - it was shown as a blue building! Here's an old 9/11 shot (featuring a blue WTC7. (Note the surrounding brown/red buildings):


But - "best of all", in the infamous propaganda film by the French NAUDET brothers, WTC7 was snow white!

The animated video sequence (above left) is extracted from the original, best-resolution DVD (which I have purchased) of the Naudet Brothers' movie "911". There is ONLY ONE explanation as to why WTC7 should appear almost completely white in the Naudets' movie: it's a poorly rendered computer animation. But did you know that these very same images (of the white WTC7) were first aired on NBC2?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg


And here are two more atrocious images (as aired on TV) purportedly illustrating the WTC7 :


There is absolutely no reason to believe that we have been shown ANY real images of 9/11.

NO 9/11 imagery is real. All 9/11 imagery is fake - or as 'real' as a Hollywood movie.

[simonshack]

...........

[simonshack]

*

THE VERRAZZANO BRIDGE ISSUES

At left: The Verrazzano bridge as aired LIVE on 9/11 on ABC TV (and later on the History Channel)
At right: The Verrazzano bridge as depicted in a private pre-9/11 aerial video.




There are three distinct issues with the 9/11 VERRAZZANO bridge imagery (this is, without even mentioning the absurd-looking colors and 'texture' of the imagery itself - which bear no resemblance to images shot by top-notch TV cameras).


ISSUE 1
It has been argued that this ridiculously large/wide aspect of the Verrazzano seen on LIVE TV on 9/11 could be explained by lens distorsion - caused by different focal lenghts of the given lenses used. As we see, in the above left ABC TV image, the bridge appears approx 3.3X taller/wider than in the above right PRIVATE image. Yes, when using a telephoto zoom lens (200mm or upwards), objects in the backdrop will appear larger than with a 'shorter' lens (such as a standard 50mm lens): this optical phenomena is called 'focal distorsion'. The problem is, large 500 or 1000mm telephoto lenses have notoriously a much inferior focus range/ depth of field than shorter lenses: when focusing on a subject in a given skyline, any object in the backdrop will be entirely out of focus / i.e. totally blurred. Yet, the bridge seen in the ABC TV imagery is perfectly visible and only slightly out of focus.

ISSUE 2
Here is now a sequence from the 9/11 LIVE TV broadcasts, showing the bridge drifting in the backdrop. It has been argued this could be explained by the TV helicopter camera's zoom out motion/and sideways drift of the chopper which supposedly carried the TV camera :


The problem is: at the end of this sequence, the zoom-out motion stops. Yet, the bridge continues to drift sideways at a rapid rate - far superior to the apparent 'helicopter' drift. And again, the bridge remains magically focused, this time even though a long zoom-out motion is performed ! That is truly an extraordinary / other-worldly lens which every pro-photographer in the world would dream of putting their hands on...


ISSUE 3
Furthermore, please consider these facts:
- The distance of the Verrazzano bridge from the WTC is/was almost 12km.
- The height of its pillars is 211m - roughly half the height of the WTC towers - 417m.

Now, imagine for a minute that the bridge pillars were as tall as the towers themselves. Here is what it would look like:



The challenge is open for anyone wishing to take it:

Choose two equally tall buildings (A -in foreground ; and B - in backdrop) placed 12kilometers apart. Use whichever existing lens you wish - and choose to stand at whichever distance you wish (from A) with your camera. See if you can get B to look as tall as we see it in the image above.

Good luck!

[simonshack]

*
Addendum to above VERRAZZANO post

I feel compelled to make the following point - lest anyone wonder whether my above ISSUE1 and 3 could be easily debunked.
To this end, I will now try to debunk myself - let's see how it goes, ok?

Here's a scenery of a lamppost and a church captured with a 50mm lens:
IMAGE1


Here's the same scenery captured with a 100mm lens:
IMAGE2


(source of the above images: http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective# )

To be sure, the different focal lenghts will make the church look much larger in IMAGE2. Wow! So could this perhaps explain the 3.3X size-discrepancy between the VERRAZZANO bridge seen in ABC's "chopper shot" versus the same bridge seen in the PRIVATE chopper shot? Have I actually debunked my ISSUE1 and 3 - as expounded in my VERRAZZANO post above?

(END of my attempt to debunk myself).

No -and here is why:
The church is at least six times taller than the lamppost - and it is also only about, shall we say, max 1 km away from the photographer. Note also that, in IMAGE2, the 'pyramid roof' (seen at left in IMAGE1) is cut out of the frame - due to the different lens used. Now, if the church had been an object of the same height as the foreground lamppost - and 12 km away - it could not possibly appear as an object more than half the height of the foreground lamppost (as is the case with the above VERRAZZANO bridge comparison).

I hope I've been as clear and concise as possible in illustrating this point.

[simonshack]

*


THE DISASTROUS "GOOD DAY" WNYWFOX5 911 BROADCAST


If you like Ockham's razor-style proof, here's one for you - exposing the WNYWFOX5 broadcast as fake, in one single take.

Source video (first uploaded on Youtube only in August 2011 !): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQdpTzqh8Ag


The WNYWFox5 911 broadcast was perhaps the most appalling disaster of the entire 9/11 Made-for-TV Hollywood movie. No wonder that they decided to replace the FOX5 9/11 broadcasts for the historical record with a TV archive videofile liberally patched together with 9/11 imagery ripped from the other 4 "rival" TV networks - as demonstrated in my "FOXED OUT" analyses ( part1 and part2 ). Of course, the "GOOD DAY" broadcast contained the now infamous NOSE-OUT shot. But there are countless other atrocious 'fails' to be found in the WNYWFox5 imagery - right from the very start of it. Such as this:

As FOX reporter Dick Oliver first appears on air, this is an image we see of the WTC1 on fire, supposedly from Dick's street vantage point:
IMAGE A


About 1 minute later, we are shown THIS "chopper view" of the towers:
IMAGE B



As we compare the two above images, we can use as a reference measurement the distinctive upper "Windows of the World" section of the WTC -> ) . As you can easily see, the goofy CGI animators have placed the smoke (seen in IMAGE A) waaayyy too far down the tower façade:

IMAGE A____________________________________________________IMAGE B


Quite simply, there is no way that Dick Oliver, from his streetview vantage point, could have seen what is depicted in IMAGE A. That is, of course, if one is to assume that IMAGE B is real and legit - hehe! But you'll have to choose to believe in either IMAGE A or IMAGE B!... Good luck with that one!

[simonshack]

*

[simonshack]

*

[simonshack]

*

[simonshack]

*

[simonshack]

*

[simonshack]

*
Please proceed to page 2 >>>>