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.info

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 21st, 2013, 10:25 am

idschmyd wrote: I’m just not getting the ‘20%’


You're right, the 20% were a wild guess based on some crude image analysis. Today I made more precise "measurements" and I'd say the difference is somewhere in the 10%-13% range (can't tell more exactly by the pixel soup). Still it's there, definitely, and it may well be consistent with the camera positions I painted on my map.

simonshack wrote:So the mystery remains: do perspectives behave differently from one country to another? Are perspectives subject to some sort of cosmic refraction effect which varies according to the cities you happen to be filming in? ^_^


No. It's all about perspective and lens (zoom) angles. Just because the tree looks to be the same number of pixels away from the house as WTC1 from WTC7 still does not mean it's the same angle difference. This depends on the camera zoom you use. If you'd zoom in to the tree with a strong lens, you could make the gap fill the whole picture, then moving a step to the left will close the gap.

So in my opinion, if the tree and house distances from your garden are really comparable to WTC7 and WTC1 from Siff/Scarborough, it has to mean, that the angle between tree and house when seen from your garden is smaller than the angle between WTC1 and WTC7 when seen from Siff/Scarborough. If you have a map of your surroundings and paint in the position of the tree, the house and your garden, you will surely find that this is true.

(Additional content moved to viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1628 )

rusty
Last edited by rusty on May 21st, 2013, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 21st, 2013, 2:05 pm

rusty wrote:No. It's all about perspective and lens (zoom) angles. Just because the tree looks to be the same number of pixels away from the house as WTC1 from WTC7 still does not mean it's the same angle difference. This depends on the camera zoom you use. If you'd zoom in to the tree with a strong lens, you could make the gap fill the whole picture, then moving a step to the left will close the gap.


Rusty,

Sorry but I can't see why you would bring up 'camera zoom' in this matter. If you do have some level of optical/ photographic knowledge, you must know this has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion.

As for the Verrazzano bridge, I have opened a dedicated thread for us to discuss the issue - in order not to deviate this thread off topic. Please just copy/paste your above Verrazzano-related paragraphs/illustrations over there. Thanks!

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1628
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 21st, 2013, 5:01 pm

simonshack wrote:Sorry but I can't see why you would bring up 'camera zoom' in this matter. If you do have some level of optical/ photographic knowledge, you must know this has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion.


What is your argument then? As far as I understood, you claim that because the gap between the house and the tree is reduced to zero if you move 15m to the left, the same should have happened to the gap between WTC7 and WTC1 in the Siff-Post and Scarborough shots. This requires, that the geometrical positions of the involved objects are comparable. If the "vertical" distances are similar, the only thing that matters is the angle that makes up the gap.

Look at these two images:

Image

Image

The green dots are the camera positions. The cameras are looking at objects A and B and the gap between them, defined by the angle. If the camera position moves, the angle changes. Although the distance between the camera positions in both images is similar, the relative difference between the angles is vastly different. In the second image, the gap is closed, while in the first image, the difference between the angles is minor.

My suspicion is, that your "tree and house" case is closer to the second image, the "WTC case" is closer to the first image. If the gaps appear to look similar (do they really?), because the amount of pixels looks similar, this could be explained because the lens angle (zoom factor) of the two cases is different. Hope this makes it clear.

rusty
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 21st, 2013, 7:32 pm

Rusty,

I'm glad we're entertaining this little debate as it should finally help clarify for all and sundry (myself included) some important aspects of the thorny 'laws' of perspective, as applied to comparative analyses between fraudulent imagery / versus real-world photography.

Firstly, I will respond to your closing statement in your post above:

"If the gaps appear to look similar (do they really?), because the amount of pixels looks similar, this could be explained because the lens angle (zoom factor) of the two cases is different. Hope this makes it clear."


No: the 'zoom factor' (as you call it) between cameras with standard mid-range lenses does not affect the perspectives of any given scenery. This is a common misconception, probably due to the fact that special wide angle and telephoto lenses do alter natural perspectives (focal distortion) - but this is clearly not our case here. Zooming in and zooming out with a standard camera zoom will only enlarge or reduce the size of the exact same image that you see in your viewfinder.

Secondly: you cannot really use 2D graphics (as you have done above) to try and illustrate anything as complex as the real-world, relative perspectives of two given photographers - pointing at a given scenery from two different vantage points. Remember that what concerns us here is "the GAP", i.e. a small section of the two videoframes of the SIFF-POST/SCARBOROUGH visual material which feature two buildings which are spatially / frontally offset vis-à-vis the vanishing point. I have used your second graphic to illustrate my point.

In this graphic, you 'postulate' that my pair of tree/yellow house shots were offset by 8°:
Image
You may well be right about that angle - and I have no problem with it. In principle.

Now, I will in turn 'postulate' that the SIFF-POST/SCARBOROUGH shots were offset by a far wider angle. The parallax effect created by this angle is what all this issue is about. In fact, you only need to take a walk down a four-lane freeway and observe two similarly placed buildings (from both sides of the freeway)to see just how much the scenery changes. This graphic may not be overly 'scientific', but it should give you at least an idea of what my point is about:
Image

(I will have to re-post this image to show the SCARBOROUGH vantage point:)
Image

I will stop here for now - and let these considerations be assessed and commented by you.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 22nd, 2013, 1:12 pm

Simon,

thanks for your comments.

simonshack wrote:Zooming in and zooming out with a standard camera zoom will only enlarge or reduce the size of the exact same image that you see in your viewfinder.


Exactly. It's just like cutting out a piece of an image and enlarging it. Or, as I would put it, it's simply narrowing down the lens angle. I'm NOT talking about focal distortion here, only about the sizes of the images. But that's not of too much importance here. What matters are the angles that make up the gap. I can't see what's difficult to understand about that.

simonshack wrote:Secondly: you cannot really use 2D graphics (as you have done above) to try and illustrate anything as complex as the real-world, relative perspectives of two given photographers -


For this very basic and simple concept in perspective and geometry the 2D illustrations are just fine.

simonshack wrote:In this graphic, you 'postulate' that my pair of tree/yellow house shots were offset by 8°:
You may well be right about that angle - and I have no problem with it. In principle.


No, that's not what the illustration is about. The distances and angles may differ by any amount from the two real-life cases we are about to discuss. It's just meant to illustrate a basic principle. What matters is the one angle between the two red lines and the other angle between the two blue lines, because the size of that angle defines the size of the visible gap between objects A (in the real-life cases: the left edge of the house and the left edge of WTC1) and B (the tree and the right edge of WTC7) when seen from the respective camera position or vantage point (the green dots).

If that's too confusing, let's get back to our map of Manhattan. I added a blue line to the map:
Image

This line represents all possible vantage points, for which the gap is just closed, that means WTC7 and WTC1 will look as if they are standing side-by-side. Viewpoints east from that line will see WTC7 overlap with WTC1. West from that line you'll see a gap. There's no vantage point on West St. (north from WTC1) where you don't see that gap. The gap will widen somehow if you move south or to the west side of the street and it will narrow down a bit if you move north and keep to the east side of the street. But the gap won't change very much if you move from one side of the street to the other. Now, as the Siff-Post vantage point is placed even farther north than the Scarborough vantage point, the difference is even less. If you move the Scarborough point about 100m-200m further south on the east side of the street, it will be directly below the gap, when seen from the Siff-Post position. The gap will then appear even wider from the that position further south, because it is closer to the buildings.

Can you agree with this so far?

rusty
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 22nd, 2013, 7:05 pm

rusty wrote:Can you agree with this so far?

rusty


Rusty,

I'd just like to add this Google street-view graphic to the debate. It is my best guess as to the supposed vantage points of SIFF-POINT and SCARBOROUGH. As you can see, there are some slight differences with your 2D Map graphic: it would appear that SCARBOROUGH should be placed slightly further North than SIFF-POINT.

In any case, this is what it looks like on a current Google street-view. Too bad that the old WTC1 and WTC7 are now gone - we could have settled this matter in a few minutes!... :P

Image

For reference:
Image
Image

Over to you.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 22nd, 2013, 8:19 pm

Simon,

the reason why I think that the Scarborough vantage point is further south is the road sign marked with red arrows here:

Image
Image

Don't you think that's the same sign? It looks like the Scarborough position is much closer to it.

But on the other hand: Isn't this nitpicking? What about the more general assumptions I made?

rusty
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 22nd, 2013, 11:16 pm

rusty wrote:
Don't you think that's the same sign? It looks like the Scarborough position is much closer to it.

But on the other hand: Isn't this nitpicking? What about the more general assumptions I made?

rusty


Point taken - I stand corrected: I was wrong guessing that Scarborough should be placed further North than Siff-Post. We may perhaps agree that they were (supposed to stand) almost side by side - on either side of the Westside highway, laterally displaced by about four car lanes? So, where does that leave us? I understand that your position is the following (correct me if I'm wrong, Rusty):

- The GAPS between WTC7 and WTC1 seen in the two videos are perspectively correct. The almost imperceptible angle change of the GAP-width and DEBRIS placement is explainable by simple trigonometry.


Here's a greyscale gif of the two 'DEBRIS' shots
Image
Hmm... can we see only sections of the smokeplume rotating from shot to shot - while others don't?

For reference :
Image

This is fascinating! ^_^

****
Just for historical purposes and FYI: You might wish to watch the "Peter Strid video" - which was one of the 'early' releases (well, 2006 or so) of so-called 'private, amateur footage' at the WTC... Enjoy the quality!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lx3OQr_K1U
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby beyondafringe on May 23rd, 2013, 12:17 am

I posted last night in reference to the two Scar/Siff images.

Was it removed for some reason?

While not directly related to the gap between towers and debris issues, the position and realism of the orange-hued buildings (lower far-right side of frame) would surely both narrow down possible 'photographer' positions, insofar as distance from WTC is concerned, and less surely their viewing angle.

My internet connection is such a travesty that I cannot be certain the message made it.

On the Google street view image posted for comparisons, is that a lingering trace of smoke still ominously hanging in the sky?
beyondafringe
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: March 22nd, 2013, 12:22 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 23rd, 2013, 8:53 am

simonshack wrote: I understand that your position is the following (correct me if I'm wrong, Rusty):

- The GAPS between WTC7 and WTC1 seen in the two videos are perspectively correct. The almost imperceptible angle change of the GAP-width and DEBRIS placement is explainable by simple trigonometry.



Yes, that's it :)

simonshack wrote:Hmm... can we see only sections of the smokeplume rotating from shot to shot - while others don't?


Doesn't look like it to me. Still it's an interesting idea: What if they took real-life videos of the scenery and only superimposed the dust cloud? Or more likely: At least WTC1 and the cloud, probably also WTC7. Still they would need to have a 3D-model of the cloud in all stages and set the perspective right. That wouldn't be too hard, because they simply had to compare the result against the real scenery.

One thing that strikes me as "too realistic" for a pure CGI shot is the blurred appearance of the buildings in the foreground. I don't say it can't be simulated, but if they wouldn't be blurred, that would be a giveaway.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 23rd, 2013, 5:46 pm

*

ANON AND ANGEL

This is one of my all-time 'favorite' WTC1 collapse clips. It is (un)credited to an "unknown ABC cameraman" which I will call "ABC-ANON" - for the purpose of this exposé. The clip features yet another 'prescient' zoom-in and zoom-out (on the so-called spire, just as it drops... like a castle of cards). But the funniest part are the people seen casually strolling and cycling about - as if the cataclysmic mayhem unfolding down the street was part of their daily lives. Seriously, ladies and gents: Would YOU not have freezed in your tracks at this sight, staring at the scene in petrified horror? Would you, for even ONE second, have turned your backs at this scene - let alone leisurely walked away from it? Honest answers, please!

Btw, this supposedly happened 1h42min (one hour and forty-two minutes!) after the "first plane strike". So what in the world are those people doing there? Weren't we told that Lower Manhattan was rapidly evacuated?

The "ABC-ANON"clip:
Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnrGC6mAHo

Now, it so happens - surprise, surprise - that there exists a 'sister clip' (yet again) from this apparent Westside Highway vantage point credited to one "ANGELO MARTIN of ABC-TV" who, we must surmise, was standing pretty close to his unknown colleague "ABC-ANON". So let us take a comparative look at the "ABC-ANON" and "ABC-ANGEL" clips.

Link to the "ABC-ANGEL" clip on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... yf78#t=10s

As usual, we may now say, both clips 'coincidentally' feature a zoom-in and zoom-out on the spire, just as it fizzles into ... steel-powder. But the coincidences don't end there. Amazingly, ANON and ANGEL both capture this capped gentleman at the bottom of their viewfinders - just as the spire drops (note the fairly equally-sized backdrops in these two frames):

Image
Image

ANON and ANGEL then capture these other two frames - slightly offset in time:
(note / compare the now vastly different backdrop sizes):
Image
Image

So what's going on here? If the above, distinctly different backdrop sizes were due to ANON and ANGEL using different lenses / focal lenghts, this difference would be constant throughout the two clips. As seen in the first two compared frames with the capped gentleman, this doesn't seem to be the case. You can't have it both ways (large/small backdrop)- in one single clip, such as "ABC-ANGEL's".


******
Brief focal length tutorial:
This cannot be achieved with different zoom levels. Only with different lenses:
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 24th, 2013, 8:42 am

simonshack wrote:Brief focal length tutorial:
This cannot be achieved with different zoom levels. Only with different lenses:
Image


What's the difference between the focal length and the zoom factor? In my book they are practically the same. The zoom factor is just a multiple of the focal length. If you use a 35mm lens and use 2x zoom you will get a field of view equivalent to a 70mm lens. So it all amounts to the field of view (= angle of view) you get with a certain lens/zoom, it is inversly related to the focal length. There may be some distortion, but that's not relevant for the basic considerations.

That image with the lady is actually a good example. The vantage point of both pictures must be different. As the first image is taken with a smaller focal length, the camera must be much closer to the lady. Look at the fence in the background. The relative size difference is equal to the relative distance from the camera. As an example: Place a another lady who is equally tall at the fence. The size in pixels relative to the first lady will be inversely proportional to the distance of the two ladies from the camera. If the second lady has double distance from the camera, her size will be half. But if the camera with a small focal length is close to the first lady and the second lady is 10 times further away from the camera, she will look 1/10 of the size.

Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 24th, 2013, 7:58 pm

*

Yes, Rusty - that's about right, and my specific problems with the ANON-ANGEL imagery have to do with exactly what you mention. Let me try and expound this as simply as possible (optical issues related to focal lenghts are notoriously difficult to explain in writing). As a matter of fact, the anomalous ANON-ANGEL imagery should help me illustrate what is definitely NOT possible in the real world of photography. Firstly though, let me list a couple of principles which we need to keep in mind - also as a way of clarifying a few things I have stated earlier:


RELATION BETWEEN FORE/BACKGROUND PROPORTIONS/PERSPECTIVES

1 - Zooming in or out with any lens will NOT affect the relative sizes of foregrounds vs backgrounds.

2 - Fitting your camera with lenses of different focal lengths will NOT, per se, alter the relative sizes of foregrounds vs backgrounds at any given, 'normal' distance from a subject (an exception being the barrel distortion produced when, for instance, a short lens is pointed extremely close to a person's face).

3 - What WILL produce fore/background ratio variances, is when photographer A (equipped with, say, a short 24mm lens) and photographer B (equipped with, say, a longer 200mm lens) stand at different distances from a given subject.

Let's say that Mr A and Mr B are both framing - from identical vantage points - a girl standing at the edge of a valley. In their viewfinders, they will see the exact same scenery (although Mr A will see a much larger portion of the valley). Now, if Mr B takes 30 steps backwards and zooms in on the girl to make up for his displacement, 'his' valley will look proportionally larger to the girl than Mr A's girl/valley ratio. The valley in Mr B's viewfinder will look unnaturally close to the girl >>> 'focal distorsion'. (Also, if the girl isn't brightly lit by direct sunlight - or worse - in the shade of a tree, Mr B will have to adjust /increase his lens aperture - and his picture will feature a totally blurred valley).

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

With this said, let's take another look at the ANON-ANGEL imagery. I have precisely re-sized the two pairs of ANON / ANGEL frames in order to equalize the proportions of the objects seen in the two pairs of images.

I have called the first pair of frames "the capped man frames". Let's have a look at them:

"ANON's capped man frame"
Image

"ANGEL's capped man frame"
_______________Image

Well, everything seems to be quite ok and in order here - (apart from the extraordinary coincidence that both ANON and ANGEL captured such very similar frames). The foreground / background "X" measure references I have drawn on this pair of images are all perfectly identical, which suggests ANON and ANGEL used identical lenses. SO FAR SO GOOD.

Now, let's take a look at this other pair of frames which I have called "the cyclist frames". You will have to keep in mind that the ANON / ANGEL clips are very short and continuous, uninterrupted segments of 'footage' lasting less than 30 seconds:
ANON clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnrGC6mAHo#t=42s
ANGEL clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvqLtPyf78#t=11s

"ANON's cyclist frame"
Image

"ANGEL's cyclist frame"
Image

Well, the "Z" measurement in ANGEL's frame above is almost half (55%) as wide as my 'control measurement' "X".
All of a sudden and inexplicably, the ANGEL foreground/backdrop ratio has shifted by as much as 45% !

So: if you wished to defend the authenticity of these images you would have to argue that:

"ANGEL changed his standard lens at some stage to a much shorter lens, he then ran down Southwards on Westside Highway so he could still capture that cyclist - and that grey car - as big as we seem them in ANON's frame. ANON didn't move, and that's why his X measurements remain constant - and that's why we see ANGEL's foreground-to-background-ratio shrinking by 45%."


Well, good luck with that! ^_^


***************
To put it VERY simply, I would conclude that these "WTC COLLAPSE CLIPS" were constructed like this: The lower part of these shots (showing street sceneries with cars, people and so forth) were filmed separately in some 'Hollywood' location - with several cameras placed at various angles, in order to simulate various vantage points - to be credited to various "amateur or professional cameramen". The upper part showing the dramatic "3D" WTC collapse animation (and a few surrounding buildings) was inserted in post-production. This complex 'layering' technique was prone to human error - and caused the many perspective aberrations we have been exposing throughout the years on this forum.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby Vext Lynchpin on May 24th, 2013, 8:14 pm

From what I understand of the explanation above, it looks like ANON would logically have to be a greater distance away and zoomed in, given the width of X, while ANGEL would be closer

So, since the video/frames look like they're capturing the same moments in time, from roughly the same perspective, wouldn't ANGEL actually appear in ANON's video while he's filming it? ANGEL would have to be much closer to the cyclist and thus in the line of sight of ANON.

Is ANGEL somehow invisible to other cameras, like an invisible perspective in a video game?

I feel like I'm watching a dissection of footage from Mario Kart! It's so unreal.
Vext Lynchpin
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 10:11 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 24th, 2013, 10:13 pm

Vext Lynchpin wrote:So, since the video/frames look like they're capturing the same moments in time, from roughly the same perspective, wouldn't ANGEL actually appear in ANON's video while he's filming it?


That's of course a very good point. I meant to mention it, but I always try to allow a generous 'benefit-of doubt-margin' to these 9/11 images in order not to sound overly "cruel" towards the perps - hehe!

But yes: if ANON was standing behind (and not just beside) ANGEL - as the two "cyclist frames" suggest, how could ANGEL ("the-flesh-and-blood-videographer") possibly be absent in ANON's clip? It is anyone's guess, really.

Btw, here's a great tutorial addressing the optical/ photographic issues we are debating here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... p?t=672913
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest