9/11 SIMCITY

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
kybertech
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by kybertech » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:58 pm

Ma'at 4 Oct 16 2010, 08:00 PM wrote: Oh, R2-D2 the little droid from the Star Wars movie?
Aghh not R2D2 on the other building, this Blair Witch Project style guy on the Tower.. I uploaded a Image where I highlighted it, hmm did somebdy edit my post?

Image
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3852 ... roject.png
if it doesn't load ...


blairwitchproject.png just in case.. strange <_<

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:51 am

*

THE TELL-TALE SHADOWS

I have taken a better look lately at the shadows in the 9/11 street imagery. It appears to be the way to go in order to establish - in the simplest and most conclusive manner - the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 street sceneries.

For instance, the most (in)famous Naudet "1st hit" clip can be definitively exposed as an entirely artificial, goofily crafted "3D" composite:

Image

The implications of this incontrovertible proof are:

- The entire Naudet scenery is an advanced 3D "virtual reality" composite and was never actually filmed in that Church st/Lispenard street intersection. It cannot even have been shot in advance on a different morning (with successive CGI insertion of "airplane crash"), since the lighting is physically impossible.

- We can now be certain - beyond any shadow of doubt - that the "virtual reality" compositing technology was available in 2001, since this clip was shown within 24 hours of the event. This should now be acknowledged as a fact beyond debate - and I hope this will always be kept in mind by all those who patiently contribute to the 9/11 imagery analyses.

The recently released "New footage of 9/11" is in fact not new at all ( I have seen most of it before in various TV documentaries of recent years) but have only been re-rendered in higher definition. Their dreadfully contrived audio tracks are as bad as ever - so don't get fooled by their 'slicker' image resolution.
http://www.septemberclues.info

SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:19 pm

Slam dunk, Simon!

Even better, the guy crossing the road has a shadow pointing in the opposite direction to the sun's rays! B)

fakers911
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:55 pm
Contact:

Unread post by fakers911 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:28 pm

I am not too sure about it be?ng impossible. The sunlight is reflected by the building across the street, which is causing the shadow of the fireman being faced the opposite direction. He is not in direct sunlight, so the shadow should be caused by a reflection.

I think you should not use this one as proof, because people will debunk it easily. Just my humble opinion ;)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:05 pm

fakers911 4 Oct 17 2010, 12:28 PM wrote: I am not too sure about it be?ng impossible. The sunlight is reflected by the building across the street, which is causing the shadow of the fireman being faced the opposite direction. He is not in direct sunlight, so the shadow should be caused by a reflection.

I think you should not use this one as proof, because people will debunk it easily. Just my humble opinion ;)
As I tried to think of what sort of counter-argument anyone might have about this fireman's shadow, I forced myself to imagine what you just wrote, Mr. fakers911: "I bet someone will come up with the idea that the building in the background is bouncing light back on the fireman..." :rolleyes:

Well, I won't just laugh this away: I invite you to prove your contention in any way you wish. Be my guest. But if you fail, I invite you to retract your suggestion to "not use this as proof".

Remember: you would have to prove that a sunlit, yellow, concrete wall reflects sufficient light to make people standing on the other side of a street (in a shaded area) cast a clear shadow towards the sun. Good luck.
http://www.septemberclues.info

fakers911
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:55 pm
Contact:

Unread post by fakers911 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:16 pm

simonshack @ Oct 17 2010, 03:05 PM wrote:
fakers911 4 Oct 17 2010, 12:28 PM wrote: I am not too sure about it be?ng impossible. The sunlight is reflected by the building across the street, which is causing the shadow of the fireman being faced the opposite direction. He is not in direct sunlight, so the shadow should be caused by a reflection.

I think you should not use this one as proof, because people will debunk it easily. Just my humble opinion ;)
As I tried to think of what sort of counter-argument anyone might have about this fireman's shadow, I forced myself to imagine what you just wrote, Mr. fakers911: "I bet someone will come up with the idea that the building in the background is bouncing light back on the fireman..." :rolleyes:

Well, I won't just laugh this away: I invite you to prove your contention in any way you wish. Be my guest. But if you fail, I invite you to retract your suggestion to "not use this as proof".

Remember: you would have to prove that a sunlit, yellow, concrete wall reflects sufficient light to make people standing on the other side of a street (in a shaded area) cast a clear shadow towards the sun. Good luck.
You might have a good point there. I have no time to really think about that now, since I have to go outside in a minute. But hey.. the sun is shining today in Holland, so I might be able to test this live. :)

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Unread post by Dcopymope » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:35 pm

simonshack 4 Oct 17 2010, 11:51 AM wrote: *

THE TELL-TALE SHADOWS

I have taken a better look lately at the shadows in the 9/11 street imagery. It appears to be the way to go in order to establish - in the simplest and most conclusive manner - the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 street sceneries.

For instance, the most (in)famous Naudet "1st hit" clip can be definitively exposed as an entirely artificial, goofily crafted "3D" composite:

Image

The implications of this incontrovertible proof are:

- The entire Naudet scenery is an advanced 3D "virtual reality" composite and was never actually filmed in that Church st/Lispenard street intersection. It cannot even have been shot in advance on a different morning (with successive CGI insertion of "airplane crash"), since the lighting is physically impossible.

- We can now be certain - beyond any shadow of doubt - that the "virtual reality" compositing technology was available in 2001, since this clip was shown within 24 hours of the event. This should now be acknowledged as a fact beyond debate - and I hope this will always be kept in mind by all those who patiently contribute to the 9/11 imagery analyses.

The recently released "New footage of 9/11" is in fact not new at all ( I have seen most of it before in various TV documentaries of recent years) but have only been re-rendered in higher definition. Their dreadfully contrived audio tracks are as bas as ever - so don't get fooled by their 'slicker' image resolution.
I think the animators added too many light sources, making it look more like it was shot in a studio or a film scene than a real outside environment. If the forgery crew wanted the light & shadow effects to look as believable as possible they should have used the fairly new High Dynamic Range tool that is used in virtually every video game and 3d movie today. You would assume that the black ops centers would have all these tools before it became available on the market as they always do when it comes to technology and science, but I guess that isn’t the case with 9/11.


High dynamic range rendering

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv » Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:48 pm

I still say "Naudet" was created in some sort of Mock Up studio......like this one!!!!!

Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsfzAvOrjrc

Video was done in the late 80's or 90's.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:42 pm

fakers911 4 Oct 17 2010, 01:16 PM wrote:
You might have a good point there. I have no time to really think about that now, since I have to go outside in a minute. But hey.. the sun is shining today in Holland, so I might be able to test this live. :)
Fakers911,

I do find your contention ('sunlight-reflecting building') quite absurd and irrational. Yet, please rest assured that I do appreciate your request for caution when making our points and stating that they represent "incontrovertible proof" - as I just did. However, I will stand by this statement and provide more elements to consolidate my conclusion. Please let me know if the following demonstration meets with your satisfaction.

Here's the Lispenard/Church intersection as seen on Google Street View:

Image

Let us first determine that the fireman was (meant to be) in a shaded area. Well, there should be no doubt about that - as pointed out by the yellow arrows.
The red "X" shows his exact position in the Naudet clip.

Now, what you basically were saying was that - perhaps - the wall of the US Post Office (the pink/...or yellow building in the background) might have reflected/bounced the sunlight back towards the fireman (at a distance of roughly 5 car-lanes), thus making him cast a clear shadow, almost in the opposite direction of the sunlight.


So here's another Google Street View shot. The "X" is were the fireman stood on 9/11. The yellow arrow points to a person slightly more distant from the manhole. Does that person cast any sort of shadow? It seems not. Does this settle the matter for you?

Image

I will anticipate the only possible counter-argument you may put forward: "But we don't know at what time of day the Google Street View shot was made."
Allright, so let us both travel to Manhattan on September 11, 2011 for a final verification, at the intersection of Lispenard/Church at 8:46AM. Ok? ;)
http://www.septemberclues.info

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:53 pm

Is that a new building above and behind the tall windowed building to the right?

Image

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:10 pm

brianv 4 Oct 17 2010, 03:53 PM wrote: Is that a new building above and behind the tall windowed building to the right?
It does look like a new building under construction, yes.
The long, tall-windowed one on the right is a US Post Office building.
http://www.septemberclues.info

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:18 pm

SmokingGunII @ Oct 17 2010, 12:19 PM wrote: Slam dunk, Simon!

Thanks, Smokey - much appreciated

It's always nice to get some kudos every now and then - given the growing horde of monkeys employed to sabotage our efforts...
http://www.septemberclues.info

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:02 pm

Interesting. US Post Office?

That would be federally guarded and have security cameras mounted plentifully. Good place to have more built-in control.

They probably took over the whole area, but just saying if you're going to choose a location for the conservative Fed to attack liberal New York with a psyop, you might want to choose a place where the Fed is already in place.

nonhocapito
Administrator
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:31 pm

brianv 4 Oct 17 2010, 02:48 PM wrote: I still say "Naudet" was created in some sort of Mock Up studio......like this one!!!!!

Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsfzAvOrjrc

Video was done in the late 80's or 90's.
Whoa.. how did you run into this brianv?
I mean right there they have the same EXACT shot, same angle, same position, roughly same sunlight as the Naudet video, in a video made in the 90s? (This is a 1995 song = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_ ... nd_song%29 )

This cannot be a coincidence, ergo the producer or director of this video must be involved in the Naudet production as well.

I will note that the first two verses of this song (and the refrain) are the following:

New York, New York big city of dreams
And everything in New York ain't always what it seems
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/tha-dogg-pou ... -york.html

Also, at 1:30 in the same video a tall building is kicked down.
Image
and you can see by the buildings on the left that they are made the same way most of 9/11 images are, occasionally missing textures etc

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Unread post by brianv » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:06 pm

nonhocapito 4 Oct 17 2010, 07:31 PM wrote:
brianv 4 Oct 17 2010, 02:48 PM wrote: I still say "Naudet" was created in some sort of Mock Up studio......like this one!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsfzAvOrjrc

Video was done in the late 80's or 90's.
Whoa.. how did you run into this brianv?
I mean right there they have the same EXACT shot, same angle, same position, roughly same sunlight as the Naudet video, in a video made in the 90s? (This is a 1995 song = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_ ... nd_song%29 ).....
I "ran into" it a few years back when I was active on Youtube. Pretty similar aren't they? Location, texture, lighting etc..

Post Reply