CGI collapse footage

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.org
Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Equinox »

simonshack wrote:
AmyRoffman wrote:TV images seemed to match up pretty accurately with what I observed live. Thanks in advance.

http://newyork.citysearch.com/profile/3 ... s_inc.html
Dear Amy,

Does this NBC shot (from the 9/11 "News Broadcasts") match up with what you observed live?

Image

Also, do you also remember - by any chance - those thick black lines seen here around the towers? Could it be soot? <_<
Image

Oh wait - silly me! Those black linings are "video compression artifacts" - someone once told me ! :lol:


The NBC footage is total CGI... Having both of us been there we can say, that this is what NY looks like through a camera on a clear day.
Image

Im pretty sure you looked at this chopper which I also stumbled across recently...
Image

Notice how it does not appear to in ANY of the other shots in the area?

Image

Btw mate, I am pretty sure I have located n archived the postion of the chopper in your movie "Chopped Out".


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ3SQbK2Zfg

Image


by blargg » December 23rd, 2011, 6:11 pm
Thanks for that source info Equinox. That whole video is filled with strange images. The way they pan the picture to make it look 3d is bizarre. I call the horse anomaly the "fish" anomaly. Because the duplicated shapes look like fish to me. Part of the tail is obscured behind the building in the lower one.
I went through the NBC footage which I downloaded of the archives today.
I do insist that it 100% prefabricated CGI. With duplicated smoke clones appearing in the footage.
Whilst not as clear and obvious as the ones that we found on the 9/11 memorial site movie. "Survival and loss. "

Image

I an welcome to any opinions in here, Whilst I am not saying they are spot on clones I definitely see similar patterns emerging in the CGI smoke. Which also makes A LOT off sense seeing as though it is computer fabricated imagery.

Image

Image

Image

Image
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by reel.deal »


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGeuiZr-u50
:o
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by reel.deal »

Image
http://s13.postimage.org/3pe4ti75x/WTC_2_WTF.gif

ok, lets see, look at it in simple fixed POV diminishing-elevation single vanishing-point foreshortened
architectural perspective terms, and we may conclude the following summary observation...
what... the... fuck... ?!?!? ...is ...that !!?!!
Russian Dolls ?!?


Image
http://s14.postimage.org/u1ewh8btb/ruski_dollz.gif
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by reel.deal »

Image
;)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by reel.deal »


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD2DBUJl0OM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD2DBUJl ... e=youtu.be
;)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by simonshack »

*
ENJOY... <_<

Image

Image


Could it get sillier than this? YES - IT CAN !
:lol:
Image

Image
BEN REISMAN source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD2DBUJl0OM
SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by SmokingGunII »

simonshack wrote:*
ENJOY... <_<

Image

Image


Could it get sillier than this? YES - IT CAN !
:lol:
Image

Image
BEN REISMAN source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD2DBUJl0OM


Some unbelievably bad photoshopping there! Great work!

Just when did the Millennium Hotel get coated in dust or smoke from the collapse? According to Greg Semendinger's collection from his Police chopper, it was still pristine even after the collapse!! :P

Image
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by simonshack »

SmokingGunII wrote:
Just when did the Millennium Hotel get coated in dust or smoke from the collapse? According to Greg Semendinger's collection from his Police chopper, it was still pristine even after the collapse!! :P
Excellent point, Smokey...

And, do I really need to point out this other obvious problem about the dust coating the Millenium Hotel? I'm sure it is clear to everyone that the two below images are actually meant to have been shot only split seconds from each other...
(And what about the lampost, you might say...yeah, what about it...Good Heavens - it must be a parallax issue! :rolleyes: )
Image

Allow me to say, once again, 'game over', folks. I know I've been saying that over and over again. But I think our longstanding/persistent efforts fully allow us to say GAME OVER, as often as we damn wish to !

Here's an old 'GAME OVER' gif of mine - showing white smoke neatly emerging...from the edge of WTC7 ! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Image

Quite frankly, the only question I have left about the FAKE 9/11 imagery is: why-oh-why is it taking so long for many honest and intelligent longtime 9/11 researchers to acknowledge the results of our forum's research - since even a 10-year-old should be able to comprehend it without difficulty - and faster than you can say "the entire body of 9/11 imagery is computer generated and is as relevant (to determine just how the towers collapsed) as a Walt Disney cartoon".
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by simonshack »

*

JUDY WOOD - 'scientific' charlatan?

As we have now determined the fraudulent nature of the tower collapse imagery (such as the images credited to "Amy Sancetta" and "Ben Reisman" - see my previous post), we must ask ourselves what exactly the 'scientist/physicist' known as JUDY WOOD is up to. Here is a video of one of her lenghty presentations (mostly relying on fake imagery) expounding her DEW theory - in Brighton, UK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4N3Y4Jj6WU

Image

Image

Is anyone going to tell Judy that she is looking at CGI imagery?
Needless to say, for any scientist to base a thesis on fake imagery... isn't very scientific at all! <_<

**************************************************
I do believe most longtime Cluesforum members share my views about Judy Wood, i. e. - that her gatekeeping role is to uphold at all costs the credibility of the 9/11 imagery - as she specifically struggles to 'make some sense' of the physically impossible/ ridiculous visuals of the ("dustifying") tower collapses proposed by the media. However, it seems that Mrs Wood has gained - to my dismay - quite some traction with a number of other longtime 9/11 researchers. I am currently having a dialogue about this with "Señor El Once" - over at Craig McKee's blog: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20 ... e-911-lie/
Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf »

To the gracious participants of the clues forum,

I respectfully ask your indulgence. I am "Herr der Elf" here, because it is easier to type than the "Señor El Once" I use over at Craig McKee's "Truth & Shadows blog" http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20 ... he-911-lie.

I am the resident champion there of both September Clues and Dr. Wood, although I do it in an admittedly left- and back-handed manner.

I objectively review all that I can; I think for myself; I stand on the shoulders of others and mine, re-fine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Wood and have no association with her or her textbook; Mr. Shack I only know from cyberspace.

I have been in email contact with Mr. Shack and requested the assistance of him and the Clues Team. I am hoping that you could focus your digital-artifact-seeking-eyes on a select group of images acknowledged by everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement... but particularly by Dr. Judy Wood.

In preparation for that, Mr. Shack sent me some links to review, which includes this very thread (the middle link to CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE). From Mr. Shack:
simonshack wrote: My historical outlook concerning the Judy Wood character: THE KOOKIE CLUB:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p2365280

Here is why I believe the Ground Zero imagery cannot be trusted: OLIVER STONE'S RUBBLE FIELD:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2353367

Here is why I believe that the entire pool of WTC collapse imagery is a fraud:
CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

Here is proof that the rubble imagery is also untrustworthy: FAKING THE RUBBLE
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489

And here is further proof of the same: THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

I'm sorry to have to ask you to spend time looking out all these links, but I reckon that this is a necessary requirement for anyone asking me to allow my forum to indulge in an umpteenth, circular debate of the technicalities of the WTC collapse - such as those infesting most 9/11 truth forums.
I have reviewed them (mostly). They all have merit. You have sold me on the updated "Ronnie Ray-Gun" paraphrase to distrust but verify when it comes to all 9/11 imagery.


Mr. Shack wrote:
simonshack wrote:I do believe most longtime Cluesforum members share my views about Judy Wood, i. e. - that her gatekeeping role is to uphold at all costs the credibility of the 9/11 imagery - as she specifically struggles to 'make some sense' of the physically impossible/ ridiculous visuals of the ("dustifying") tower collapses proposed by the media.
I disagree with this characterization of Dr. Wood's efforts. It can easily be proven wrong. If Dr. Wood's purpose was "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", then we would see all of the images that she collected re-used elsewhere. We see some, because the borrowing went from established 9/11 sources to Dr. Wood and everyone else. The more curious cases are the images that she borrows and nobody else does, like the anomalous damage to vehicles. These are avoided by the mainstream leaders of 9/11; these don't get an explanation in their versions of what happened.

The above paragraph takes nothing away from any of the discoveries of 9/11 image tainting and the possibility that tainted images made it into Dr. Wood's work (as well as everyone else's). It would be a case of Dr. Wood being duped, just like the world was duped.

In fact, it was the Anonymous Physicist who suggested that Dr. Wood's purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event and wrap it under some zany theme. (I use the term "nuclear event" to include potentially multiple milli-nuclear devices as well as nuclear and/or cold fusion reactors to power DEW devices.) Thus, Dr. Wood's purpose wouldn't be "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", but to garbage-in/garbage-out misinterpret the significance of what was depicted.

Mr. Shack, you write:
simonshack wrote:Is anyone going to tell Judy that she is looking at CGI imagery?
Needless to say, for any scientist to base a thesis on fake imagery... isn't very scientific at all!
To your first sentence: I don't have direct contact with Dr. Wood, but will mention it to those I think might.

To your second sentence: Very poor... no, "lame"... framing on your part. Did she know the images were tainted? The vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement are not suspecting image/video manipulation, so we should be gracious and give her the benefit of the doubt. Basing a scientific thesis on tainted information does indeed call the thesis into question; only after answering the "what did she know and when did she know it" questions can any sort of innocence or guilt be affixed to the scientist. So, please. Let us be courteous and mindful by separating the thesis from the scientist.

Elsewhere, you wrote:
simonshack wrote:Doesn't Judy Wood do her very best to provide a "scientific explanation" for the absurd imagery of the WTC tower collapses?
Mr. Shack, you have proved that some of digital image/video manipulation occurred in the corporate media on and after 9/11. You have indeed justified the distruct but verify position we should take on everything presented to us. Anyone marginally familiar with military (and political) actions knows that "controlling the media (and the message)" are top agenda items.

What you have not proven, Mr. Shack, is the degree of digital manipulation on individual images and more especially as it relates to the whole set. You have given us reason to question all images, but you haven't proven that all are tainted and should be taken off of the table (which appears to be your agenda). And even of the instances where tainting is proven, the degree of taint versus the complementary degree of "probably real" isn't provided. Admittedly, you have proven multiple instances where everything is CGI imagery; other cases you've proved items were photo-shopped in. My point concerns the aspect of imagery that appear as original, weren't digitally inserted, but had digital things inserted on top of.

You mention the "the absurd imagery of the WTC tower collapses". Yes, it is absurd. Its defiance of the rules of physics blows holes in the official govt conspiracy theory (OCT). If we go with the premise that the perpetrators had deep pockets and deep connections such that they could control the media, what was depicted, and were actively doing this on and after 9/11, why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd.

Thus, the thesis I make is that the vast majority of the images/videos of the tower destructing is "real" or close enough to the "real-reality" in the grander scheme that the towers were destroyed in a spectacular fashion. When the hand of digital manipulation entered, it may have been to mask out tell-tale flashes, anomalous destructive features, or projectiles that were too energetic. They wanted to show the world that the towers were being destroyed, but not give away methods.

In terms of the photoshopping of individual images? Advertisements already photoshop drop-dead georgeous women into unreal images of beauty. I can certainly see all manner of publications on 9/11 taking license with images in terms of crafting a single composite image from separate images of debris, firemen, American flags, etc. It doesn't mean the individual elements were all false or didn't exist at ground zero.
simonshack wrote:Wasn't she perhaps brought in to "protect" (and uphold the dwindling credibility) of at least PART of the prefabricated, made-for-TV 9/11 Hollywood movie?
Again, no. If she was brought in for anything nefarious, it was to scoop up all evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event, to misinterpret it into being something "zany" (Hutchison Effect, free-energy from Hurricane Erin), and to thus take said evidence off of the table from further consideration.


Here's some red-meat for this forum, particularly for those who have little respect for Dr. Wood.

Want to debunk her (or at least part of her premises)?

Please caste a keen eye on the following images, being on the look out for artifacts of digital manipulation.

Caveat: Part of the assignment may include finding another web repository for the images that will be closer to being source or the original.

I apologize in advance that this isn't my forte, so I haven't been collecting them and don't have as great a knowledge of all that exist or are even available as you in this forum do.

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/hotslagil3.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg

Image
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/jn08.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dir ... _space.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg

Image
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewp ... tefull.jpg

Consider this the starting set of images needing review to see if and how much digital manipulation occurred.

The prospective second set of images for digital forgery review could be those on Dr. Wood's website (or a source website) that show damage to vehicles.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

Final note: I own and have read Dr. Wood's book. It is pretty crafty, really. She presents information well for a science-challenged audience, particularly in disproving the OCT. She offers several new concepts that could have scientific validity; applicability to 9/11 is a different question. She does not definitively connect these with 9/11. Her textbook is a worthy addition to anyone's 9/11 library, even if parts of it are proven as disinformation. (The latter will be for our grand children to show how our generation was played.) I have found few errors in Dr. Wood's textbook, but that may change if various images provided to her are found tainted.

I am a respectful, open-minded, and objective participant. When the foundation upon which my opinions are based is proven in error, I am man enough to change my opinions. Mr. Shack has already done this several times for me with regards to my understanding of 9/11.

I know that some regular participants here will want to ban me on sight for the crime of even mentioning Dr. Wood in a favorable light. Yours is a forum for image manipulation, not discussions on Dr. Wood. They are related and must be discussed, particularly where they overlap.

My challenge to you is to find the errors in the photographic evidence upon which Dr. Wood bases her work. You will be doing the 9/11 Truth Movement a great service. Aside from the images that you rake over the coals as frauds, it will be just as important to preserve those images that are not and that remain as valid nuggets of truth that the true theory of 9/11 must address.

I ask that you be respectful and focused on the facts; please stay away from attacks on the person, Dr. Wood. If found warranted, you'll have plenty of opportunity to venture there once the investigative work has unhinged (or not) the foundation of her evidence.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner,
Herr der Elf
truthseeker
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by truthseeker »

Herr der Elf wrote:
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner,
Herr der Elf
I'm sure Simon will answer your post in a much more articulate way than i can. Hope your ready for it.
AmongTheThugs
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:07 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by AmongTheThugs »

:lol:
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by HonestlyNow »

Herr der Elf wrote: . . .why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd.
Please explain exactly what would be the non-absurd physics-compliant result of a large aluminum-tube plane plowing into a larger and very tall steel building. You may use historical examples of similar occurences, if necessary.

Thank you.


eta: You really don't have to answer that -- it's just a thought exercise.

Really, what I'm saying is "How can one make a demonstration of a physical possibility that is based on a physical impossibility",
that is, if the official story is that planes flew into buildings, which therefore collapsed shortly afterwards, which is physically impossible, how can one cgi it without it being absurd?
Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf »

Herr der Elf wrote: . . .why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd.
HonestlyNow wrote:Please explain exactly what would be the non-absurd physics-compliant result of a large aluminum-tube plane plowing into a larger and very tall steel building. You may use historical examples of similar occurences, if necessary.
Dear Mr. HonestlyNow,

You are preaching to the choir, mixing (faux) events, and distracting from the assignment. To your point, the pixels of the plane crashing into the tower was also absurd and physics-defying. But it has the tinge of almost being believable, because it isn't every day we experience planes crashing into buildings. We don't have many reference points for such an event.

Buildings being destroyed, on the other hand, we do know about. And so does Hollywood. If they could have made it look physics-compliant, they would have, I'm sure. I don't think they were given that luxury. Too many cameras rolling, too many angles. The best they could do, as we see from Simon Shack's images, was to mask things so that the flashes of the true causes weren't exposed.

Image

This group excels at showing where the tell-tale signs of manipulation entered the picture.

I'm trying to figure out the how. I need help trimming the fat from Dr. Wood's textbook, as well as in killing the sacred cow of super super nano-thermite.

Mr. Shack asked me:
simonshack wrote:What would someone proving exactly HOW the towers were brought down contribute to exposing the 9/11 hoax? Would the effort of proving precisely WHAT SORT OF explosives/destruction methods were used, actually help making any progress towards exposing this psyop? Nano-Thermite? DEW? Conventional demo-charges? What difference would it make in the great scheme of things?
I replied:

In general, you are correct that the distinction between most of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant, with one exception that you didn't list.

Nukes have the worst PR, because the public believes that radiation from anything nuclear (e.g., milli-nuke, or a nuclear generator) will be cancerous ground for decades, if not centuries. Public gets a whiff of anything nuclear, they aren't going to rebuild the WTC. They probably would make them re-route the subway elsewhere. Hell, it might even cause an exodus of Manhattan. If banking elite had any hand in 9/11 (as would be indicated by Silverstein), then this is something they had to avoid at all costs.

Nuclear mechanisms not only gives little wiggle-room for who some of the conspirators were, but a whole string of enabling agencies from the military to CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc., not to mention the mass media conspirators. Certainly, terrorists could nuke us, but as we're seeing, terrorists wouldn't be so organized and efficient both in what they destroyed, but what they didn't,... or in how they controlled the message coming out of the media.

Everything that the conspirators hoped to gain from the hoax would be shot down with any form of nuclear revelation, because for them and govt, there would be status quo no longer. The house cleaning would be deep, possibly even to the restructuring of America into smaller regions. From within, the great empire crumbles.

I'm not married to milli-nukes or DEW or nano-thermite. But in my objective review of various sources, nuclear clues get the most song and dance to get them off of the table in dubious means. It was why Dr. Jones was called in: "Dr. Jones, we need you to put anything nuclear to rest from within the movement. We know there are unanswered energy questions. Here, take nano-thermite to fill the vacuum, even though it still a defense secret. Just as long as nuclear suspicions are squashed."

Most science-challenged thinkers didn't question the 9/11 Truther Dr. Jones. His papers were hard to work through, and even I had glazed over eyes. Still, tricks and deceit were discovered. [Refer to February 14, 2012 at 9:03 am. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20 ... mment-3395 ]

I am not going to fall into the trap of saying they used method A or method B. The destruction at the WTC, being overkill and redundant, probably used something of every form of destruction conceivable: DEW mounted to the internal structure that later became "the spire"; DEW from space to bore holes in WTC-5; milli-nukes to create a crater in WTC-6 (or maybe that was space-based DEW as well); etc.

So the difference that knowledge of the exact mechanisms of destruction would make is in how deep we must cut to get out the rot, how deep we must re-structure, and what controls must be put into place to prevent it from happening again.
Human
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Human »

Herr der Elf,

"why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast?" That is a question that needs to be addressed to the perps, not anyone here.

In my humble opinion ALL of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant because none of it (evidence ex:dust/steel beam's etc) would be permissible in a court of law, the court would simply ask to prove the evidence is from the buildings destroyed on 9/11 and since the evidence has been picked up and taken away it would be impossible, therefore the case would be thrown out rather quickly. The only evidence we have is the fake t.v. broadcast's and "amateur" photo's/video, which can be shown in a court of law quite easily how it was done.
Post Reply