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 Heiwa on December 9th, 2011, 4:35 am

Image
Above is a photo of the alleged rubble a few days after 911 - smoke still coming from the rubble - with text added by me. We see the bottom parts of the south and west walls of the south tower still standing and the bottom part of the north wall of the north tower is also standing ... for dramatic effects. There is amazingly little rubble or debris of steel panel walls around and inside the still standing walls on the ground. And no sign of 100+ floors of concrete on steel plates that you would expect to be seen stacked on top of each other in the tower foot prints. And no sign of any top parts/roofs or masts that should have crushed down the towers by gravity.

I assume that the real rubble were two hugh, tall piles of concrete floors with broken wall steel panels scattered around and clearly showing that the towers were brought down from bottom up ... so the perps had to create the images with the still standing bottom walls making the impression that the latter remained.
I assume that the strong, bottom four walls of each tower were the elements first destroyed when bringing down the towers.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Lucifer on December 10th, 2011, 7:15 am

Hey, Im just trying to get a second valid opinion on Dr Judy Wood. I can see from other threads she is considered less than worthy, but I need better information. Why do you think she is inaccurate ? Is it possible she is telling the truth even if video some footage is fake?
Such as there was no seismic imprint ?
No substantial wreckage on the ground ?

Just looking for second technical opinions here.
Lucifer
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: December 10th, 2011, 5:31 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby nonhocapito on December 10th, 2011, 7:50 am

Judy Wood claims are completely unsubstantiated:

1) we cannot base our observations on footage that is clearly faked (I will not summarize for you why it is faked. Read this forum);

2) we cannot base our observations on pictures of the rubble that are also faked (again, read this forum);

3) there is no logical reason why the perps should have used sophisticated weapons rather than traditional demolition: the only logical explanation for a footage that shows the collapse to be so unreal is fakery, aimed at creating confusion and make impossible any objective observation of the collapse and its consequences;

4) who says there was no seismic record?

5) it is much more crucial to establish how 9/11 was faked in all its aspects, rather than focusing on the unprovable claims that need to hypothesize the existence of a certain weapon that we have never seen in action in any other comparable situation.

We know of the existence of the weapons that have been used, because everyone have at least heard of such weapons, and have experienced them in action: propaganda; image manipulation; information control: in other words, media fakery.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby lux on December 10th, 2011, 2:58 pm

RE: Judy Wood

What's the story with the "toasted cars"? I tried searching and couldn't find anything here. Has this been discussed?
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby hoi.polloi on December 13th, 2011, 11:22 pm

lux wrote:RE: Judy Wood

What's the story with the "toasted cars"? I tried searching and couldn't find anything here. Has this been discussed?


We've covered this a number of times. Also look at the Reality Shack archive for evidence of our discussion of this matter.

If you don't want to look, I will make it pretty simple. Look at nyartlab.com and then google "George Marengo" and you will - after a scant couple hours of research - understand perfectly well why the fake "Judy Wood" character doesn't credit her "toasted cars" evidence to the creator. He's a maroon and a scamming phisher that exploits people, if he even is a real person at all. In any case, his name is worthless and the "Judy Wood" personality needs to maintain her/its credibility to keep people staring into the fake 9/11 imagery and seeing the fairies she sees. The "Signs of the Times" cult also latched onto "toasted cars", as did a number of people who are interested in the investigation but are gullible enough to fall for a fake conspiracy theory.

Judy Wood and Nico Haupt and the rest of the early "9/11 truthers" formed a limited hangout designed specifically to prevent your own research into this matter. Research the people who want you to stop researching, and you run into some fishy stuff pretty quickly. If you want to use the evidence they present, you have to gather it yourself from the source they claim to have found. They mix red herrings with real tidbits to make you rely on them, when any information that is public should be perfectly available to anyone to find.

The fakery team is losing. They are cornered. They have to give up some information they are allowed to give, as long as they believe they can control it. Which they can't. But what other options do they have? Look like complete morons like "CryptoAnarchist" and pretend the fakery isn't obvious at all?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby simonshack on December 15th, 2011, 3:11 pm

*
Yet another (composited) view of the WTC2 collapse...

Image
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8TJ2z8kxI (at 2:40)

Compare with this shot (credited to martyr-photographer "Bill Biggart" who allegedly died under the rubble):
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby mondrose on December 16th, 2011, 10:23 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Judy Wood claims are completely unsubstantiated:

1) we cannot base our observations on footage that is clearly faked (I will not summarize for you why it is faked. Read this forum);

2) we cannot base our observations on pictures of the rubble that are also faked (again, read this forum);

3) there is no logical reason why the perps should have used sophisticated weapons rather than traditional demolition: the only logical explanation for a footage that shows the collapse to be so unreal is fakery, aimed at creating confusion and make impossible any objective observation of the collapse and its consequences;

4) who says there was no seismic record?

5) it is much more crucial to establish how 9/11 was faked in all its aspects, rather than focusing on the unprovable claims that need to hypothesize the existence of a certain weapon that we have never seen in action in any other comparable situation.

We know of the existence of the weapons that have been used, because everyone have at least heard of such weapons, and have experienced them in action: propaganda; image manipulation; information control: in other words, media fakery.


I agree. We don't know if this weapon exists, and since her outlook focuses on observed videos and factoids of the journalists, then it would be a bit hard to explain how a beam coming from an upward direction could cause building 7 to collapse from the bottom.

The energy needed for a complete, instant, obliteration of building 7 from a laser, is unfathomable..(and costly to an unnecessary extent, if possible). And that would be the only way that, what we see in the videos of w.t.c. 7 collapsing(since she accepts them), could have happened from an upward direction..If the obliteration from the 'laser' is not instant, then the collapse starts from the initially affected area(top).

Also, there would be no heat ejection of the levels that were 'observed' underground(wtc1,wtc2,wtc7), if the 'beam' was coming from an upward direction..The 'molten metal'(if it existed) would have existed mainly on the top of the buildings..

The toasted cars, if they existed, are a real mystery, that no conventional demolition method can explain, that must be also noted..
mondrose
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 15th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby hoi.polloi on December 16th, 2011, 10:49 pm

mondrose, I politely ask you to please stop speculating into this nonsense. We've made it clear that Judy Wood is a fraud and her claims are unsubstantiated by anything except commenting on fake pictures and making up new stories about them.

Therefore, it doesn't help if you do the same thing. Please provide some actual new research soon or just read for a while. We don't need any more reason to doubt the official story, especially as convolutedly as you've been framing things.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby mondrose on December 16th, 2011, 11:35 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:mondrose, I politely ask you to please stop speculating into this nonsense. We've made it clear that Judy Wood is a fraud and her claims are unsubstantiated by anything except commenting on fake pictures and making up new stories about them.

Therefore, it doesn't help if you do the same thing. Please provide some actual new research soon or just read for a while. We don't need any more reason to doubt the official story, especially as convolutedly as you've been framing things.


How could a truth seeker stop speculating? Judy Wood is, most probably, not only a fraud, but a shill too. So what is your problem?

In order to post on this forum must i comply to the notion that all depictions were faked? So how long were these electronic 'jammers' in action? You seem to propose that they could have been 'on' even in the clean up..
mondrose
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: December 15th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby fbenario on December 17th, 2011, 2:26 am

mondrose wrote:In order to post on this forum must i comply to the notion that all depictions were faked? So how long were these electronic 'jammers' in action? You seem to propose that they could have been 'on' even in the clean up..

Why are you asking us questions? If you're interested in those subjects, start doing some research and share the results with us.

By the way, as a new member, it's not appropriate or acceptable for you to get defensive when criticized on this forum.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby hoi.polloi on December 17th, 2011, 4:17 am

Yes, what fbenario said.

In order to post on this forum must i comply to the notion that all depictions were faked? So how long were these electronic 'jammers' in action? You seem to propose that they could have been 'on' even in the clean up..


Apparently you didn't read our recent zero-tolerance policy for people like you who give excuses for faked, hoaxed, falsified imagery.

I'm tired of it and you didn't respond to my request so you are banned.

Another thing. Since you didn't have the courage to just come out and say "you seem to imply jammers prevented post-clean-up imagery" without framing it in a general and unjustified criticism of the forum, your attitude is rather intolerable. It's almost as if you were reserving this "point" (which basically amounts to you believing CGI imagery is real) until you are criticized.

And yes, our incredulity with the official imagery is more than justified. Your blind belief in it is not.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Equinox on December 17th, 2011, 12:20 pm

Just love how James happened to chose the exact same second of collapse as NBC did for his 9/11 shot.

NBC chosen shot
Image
James Netchtwey chosen shot
Image

:lol: :rolleyes:
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Makkonen on December 17th, 2011, 1:10 pm

Equinox wrote:Just love how James happened to chose the exact same second of collapse as NBC did for his 9/11 shot.

NBC chosen shot
Image
James Netchtwey chosen shot
Image

:lol: :rolleyes:


And in addition to that absurdity, there are some bizarre discrepancies between the two snapshots:

- Hard light & contrast in the NBC version / soft light & contrast in James' version
- The building in the upper left corner looks very different in the two shots; in James' version it has a very flat, fake look (as does the building on the right)
- The cross in the NBC shot looks like it could be any shade of brown, whereas in James' version it's clearly copper

...and so on. More to be found, but those were the quickest to spot. A very poor synchronization job between different CGI teams. A heavily, heavily compartmentalized "workforce" then, I'd imagine?
Makkonen
Member
 
Posts: 575
Joined: March 29th, 2011, 10:21 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Equinox on December 18th, 2011, 6:06 am

Makkonen wrote:
Equinox wrote:Just love how James happened to chose the exact same second of collapse as NBC did for his 9/11 shot.

NBC chosen shot
Image
James Netchtwey chosen shot
Image

:lol: :rolleyes:


And in addition to that absurdity, there are some bizarre discrepancies between the two snapshots:

- Hard light & contrast in the NBC version / soft light & contrast in James' version
- The building in the upper left corner looks very different in the two shots; in James' version it has a very flat, fake look (as does the building on the right)
- The cross in the NBC shot looks like it could be any shade of brown, whereas in James' version it's clearly copper

...and so on. More to be found, but those were the quickest to spot. A very poor synchronization job between different CGI teams. A heavily, heavily compartmentalized "workforce" then, I'd imagine?

Site-
Church location: southeast corner Barclay and Church.
Image



Shooter- James Nachtwey.
Image
Info- James Nachtwey has covered more wars than most, winning numerous awards through the 80s and 90s.


WEBSITE- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
-James Nachtwey-


Info- Claims to have taken a shot of the south tower collapsing.


Original shot... ---

Image


*********************************************************************************************
2nd shot--

Shooter – NBC

Info- the exact same shot, and angle appears in the NBC archives located at ----
It is shown in the NBC archives @ 7.05 pm... http://www.archive.org/details/nbc20010 ... tart=539.5 (link takes you to exact section)

Summary—

If James Nachtwey really snapped this photo.

Image- James Nachtwey original
Image


He should be right of whoever filmed this video frame to be found on the NBC archives.

Image- shot of NBC footage.

Image

This is a video frame immediately successive to the above frame,
He should be out standing directly out on the street in front of the camera man,

James Nachtwey is not seen in any of the footage.

Image- frame from NBC TV archives.

Image


A frame by frame analysis has been done to identify the movements of what people do appear in the NBC shot and no one walks back from the street they all come from other directions.




After frame by frame analysis he does not appear in the footage.
Image

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on December 21st, 2011, 4:52 pm

Very interesting information on the "retouching" of the James Nachtwey photographs:

https://plus.google.com/photos/10007364 ... 6734547073


Hodges Max Hodges - Sep 12, 2011 (edited) - Public

Upon seeing James Nacthwey's newly released photos from 9/11's Ground Zero, I was stuck by how heavily manipulated they appear.

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/09/07/rev ... -nachtwey/

It's as if Hollywood special effect talent were called in to transform the photos for use in promoting the latest disaster blockbuster. "How can he get away with this?", I wondered. As a documentary photographer myself, with a NY Times cover photo to my credit, I would lose my job if I edited my photos so heavily.

The Associated Press doesn't even let you remove red eye:
"Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible.... "
REUTERS goes even further. Their rules even tell you what sharpening settings to use.
-No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image. (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)
-No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image)
-Pictures may then be sharpened by 300% at a radius of 0.3, threshold 0, in Photoshop.
-No selective area sharpening should be done.

NOT ALLOWED:
Additions or deletions to image
Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
Airbrush, brush, paint
Selective area sharpening
Excessive lightening/darkening
Excessive colour tone change
Auto levels
Blurring
Eraser tool
Quick Mask
In-camera sharpening
In-camera saturation styles

more here:
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/A ... d_Captions #Photoshop

I wonder how Nachtwey gets away with this stuff. I guess the photo editors consider him more of an art photographer than a documentary photographer or photojournalist, but why not then label his photos as such? It's often said in the fashion photography world, that behind every great photographer is a great retoucher. I wonder how many of Nachtwey's many fans realize how great a role post-prodution plays in the images he produces.

ADDED 9/13/2011
I've leaving the original text above, since that is what people have commented on. But I'm adding this note because I think some of my words above are unfair.

Since 10 years have lapsed, its unfair to consider these photos "news" or to hold them to the same standards. However in my personal opinion, the retouching cheapens them to some extent. Some of the images come across feeling like a Hollywood movie poster or promo for a first-responder video game. That's just my opinion on the aesthetics. It's largely a matter of taste, but it was inappropriate to frame it as a matter of journalistic integrity.

The comparisons may still be interesting simply for the sake of seeing a bit of the "wizard behind the curtain" as not everyone is aware the role post-production plays in some photographer's style or able to easily spot and identity such retouching.

Image

James Natchtwey's 9/11 THEN and NOW (7 photos)
Some others click link below https://plus.google.com/photos/10007364 ... 6734547073
Image

More photos from Max Hodges

Open the page for the comments - they are interesting too.
+26 26 shares - Bryan Formhals, Chandra Tewary, Chris Waigl, Craig Scanlan, Joshua Burdick and 21 more


26 comments +26 26 shares -
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

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 3 guests