9/11 and SEPTEMBER CLUES

[HonestlyNow]

If the images of the damage to the tower are provably false, then there's no reason to use them as a basis for a theory on what they used to create the gash. I believe they're real . . .

Just to be clear, what are you saying, exactly?
That the tower damage images are not provably false?
And the reason they weren't faked is so that just in case a random camera shot got through, it would be consistent with the story and also with people's eyewitness memories?

Can a missile (or other implement) be so perfect in creating damage, that the "real photographs" would match perfectly with the previously created cgi collapse images?

Psychology has proven that people's memories can be quite unreliable. Any errant photograph of the real event can be (and probably has been) easily confiscated.

What a waste of a missile. (Like they care.)

[Heiwa]

yanke 451: That all videos of the WTC destructions are Computer Generated Image, CGI, animations is easy to show by just looking at the smaller upper part C of WTC 1 colliding with/dropping on (?) the bigger lower part A on 911 as described on photos below (origin of photos is Internet videos and reliability cannot be guaranteed; footage is obviously manipulated). Top C is supposed to be intact and crush the bottom part A from above … by gravity:

Photo 1 - The upper part C (floors 97-110 + mast) rests on the lower part A! CGI destruction has not started. At right insert is shown upper part C in original position.

Photo 2 – CGI Destruction and collision (sic) have started!! The upper part C (floors 97-110 + mast) (95% air) is destroyed (using Photoshop!), while roof line and mast move down 5 floors or 18-19 meters. It, the upper part C, should however remain intact and not get smaller and it should now crush down intact, strong WTC 1 lower structure part A according US authorities! The animators are doing a lousy job!

Photo 3 - The upper part C (floors 97-110 + mast) is completely CGI destroyed, i.e. removed by Photoshop, but mast can still be seen. Debris is ejected sideways at high velocity. This is obvious fake animation – top C is Photoshopped away and smoke added!

Photo 4 - The WTC 1 lower, intact, strong structure top part explodes (LOL) in a cascade of debris! The upper part C and mast is fully CGI destroyed or removed and cannot produce what we see! It looks as if a bomb has gone off inside WTC 1 blowing debris sideways. No upper part C is crushing down anything here, i.e. what you see is a Photoshopped CGI animation.

Photo 5 - More debris is thrown out sideways (more bombs go off!) and smoke is ejected upwards! Evidently not a result of the upper part C being intact and crushing down lower structure as per US authorities. It, the upper part C, has already disappeared or gone up in Photoshopped CGI smoke. The animators add more CGI smoke for effect!

Photo 6 - There is no sign of an intact upper part C crushing WTC 1! Why does US authorities suggest that a skyscraper can be destroyed by a small top upper part C one-way crushing down (sic) much stronger, bigger structure below by gravity and fire up top? Anybody can see on the CGI animated photos above that WTC1 is CGI blown apart from top down in a simple animation and that the upper part C is blown apart first. It cannot happen in reality, i.e. what we see is an animation, Hollywood style. It was also shown 'live on TV' in USA on all five major TV channels. Imagine that! Fake footage was shown live on TV on 911!
How were the towers really destroyed? From bottom up using conventional means is my suggestion.

[yankee451]

Hi Heiwa,

Just to clarify, I'm not disputing the CGI collapses, the stamped smoke or the other clear evidence of tampering, in fact I'm not disputing anything, I'm only trying to answer how they cut the hole. I'm talking about the available videos and images of the plane-shaped gashes after the impact and before the collapse. The damage appears consistent from photo to photo, video to video, it appears to me they were real depictions of a physical gash regardless how much of the rest of the video had been tampered with.

Yank

[simonshack]

*

THE "PLANE GASHES"

As seen on the Naudet brother's feature movie, "9/11":



As seen on the History Channel:


As seen on an alleged "amateur" video:


I don't know about you - but to me they all look like (poor and contradictory) computer graphic creations.

[yankee451]

Thanks,

Yes I am aware of the differences in the directions of the gashes, are they a CGI model or are they simply layering footage of a real gash?

If they created a CGI model of the gash for the TV, what did the locals see?

A different gash? No gash? Was it hidden by a smokescreen? How far out would the EMP knock out the TV? Far enough out so someone on a hilltop in New Jersey with a working TV and a telescope couldn't see?

I believe they used the real gash just in case a few real cameras caught some pictures they would only match what was in the public domain; also so folks with a working TV who could also still see the towers with their own two eyes saw damage consistent with the official story. To me this is the only way it can be explained.

They then spread it about later as "amateur" and obviously altered footage so the whole lot can be discredited.

[simonshack]

A different gash? No gash? Was it hidden by a smokescreen?

Dear Yankee,

No actual smokescreen (covering the entire WTC façade) was needed initially, IMHO.
A random gash in WTC1 could just have been carved out with diagonally-placed charges.
Smoke would have gushed out from it - of course - (perhaps LOTS of smoke - generated by smoke machines).


(image digitally altered by myself - for demonstration purposes)

Now, imagine if I had somehow been able to capture the above ("damning") sight of the smoking WTC1 with my still camera.
What would that prove? Nothing. People would just say "Well, you just happened to shoot when more smoke was gushing out of the gash." As for video cameras (which can film continuously) - well, I stand by my belief that HERF jamming devices must have been in place to impede video cameras from functioning. Please read: http://septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm

Does this make sense?

[yankee451]

A different gash? No gash? Was it hidden by a smokescreen?

Dear Yankee,

No actual smokescreen (covering the entire WTC façade) was needed initially, IMHO.
A random gash in WTC1 could just have been carved out with diagonally-placed charges.
Smoke would have gushed out from it - of course.

Now, imagine if I had somehow been able to capture the above sight of the smoking WTC1 with my still camera.
What would that prove? Nothing. People would just say "Well, you just happened to shoot when more smoke was gushing out of the gash." As for video cameras (which can film continuously) - well I stand by my belief that HERF jamming devices must have been in place to impede video cameras from functioning. Please read: http://septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm

Does this make sense?

Sure but we're saying the same thing, except I think the gash is the real deal. The smoke was probably added for more drama, but even with an EMP you cannot guarantee someone, probably dozens of someones, knowing camera aficionados, wouldn't have an analogue camera which would not have been effected by an EMP.

Then, if they snapped a picture of the building, so what? They caught the building during the 100 minutes they were visible and they caught the same gash as on the TV. Why post it when so many are already there? And if you did, it would only reinforce what could already be seen.

The true believers of the world rely on the mass of witnesses as one of their arguments. Thousands of people watching, surely someone would talk they say.

Well, with thousands of people looking at the buildings, and then the TV and then the buildings, I can only say that a whole city would call bullshit right then and there if they didn't match.

So without a smoke screen and unless they laid down an EMP so large it took out much of the east coast (and every analogue camera), they had to count on witnesses comparing what they could see with their eyes, telescopes and telephoto lenses, with what they could see on the TV. Once the planes hit, they'd all see the same thing, with some embellishments for dramatic impact.

[fbenario]

I am a Moderator at the LetsRoll Forums and I understand there is some ongoing animosity between that forum and this. I only say this to acknowledge it, not to take sides. Between work, family and my obsession I don't have time for politics of any stripe so I really don't want to know why the Hatfields hate the McCoys. I am here as a researcher who believes each side has pieces to the puzzle which when combined show a near complete picture.

Differences between this forum and LetsRoll merely politics? Sorry, this is not just differing opinions. We offer evidence to support the conclusions we draw. If you're basing your conclusions on the crappy movie shown that morning, then you're misleading your readers.

[fbenario]

The true believers of the world rely on the mass of witnesses as one of their arguments. Thousands of people watching, surely someone would talk they say.

Well, with thousands of people looking at the buildings, and then the TV and then the buildings, I can only say that a whole city would call bullshit right then and there if they didn't match.

The bolded language is a ludicrous canard that has been thoroughly negated by now. Compartmentalization of the whole,blah blah blah. Anyone who actually knows anything concrete who talked would get a bullet in the head.

No, people wouldn't call bullshit. They are too gullible and bloodthirsty. Anyway, a smokescreen covered everything. No one would see anything. Why would the perps waste time gashing the building, when they knew no one would be able to see it?

[yankee451]

I am a Moderator at the LetsRoll Forums and I understand there is some ongoing animosity between that forum and this. I only say this to acknowledge it, not to take sides. Between work, family and my obsession I don't have time for politics of any stripe so I really don't want to know why the Hatfields hate the McCoys. I am here as a researcher who believes each side has pieces to the puzzle which when combined show a near complete picture.

Differences between this forum and LetsRoll merely politics? Sorry, this is not just differing opinions. We offer evidence to support the conclusions we draw. If you're basing your conclusions on the crappy movie shown that morning, then you're misleading your readers.

I don't represent LetsRoll anymore than they represent me. You may speak for this forum, but I only speak for myself.

What "crappy movie shown that morning" are you referring to?

[yankee451]

The true believers of the world rely on the mass of witnesses as one of their arguments. Thousands of people watching, surely someone would talk they say.

Well, with thousands of people looking at the buildings, and then the TV and then the buildings, I can only say that a whole city would call bullshit right then and there if they didn't match.

The bolded language is a ludicrous canard that has been thoroughly negated by now. Compartmentalization of the whole,blah blah blah. Anyone who actually knows anything concrete who talked would get a bullet in the head.

No, people wouldn't call bullshit. They are too gullible and bloodthirsty. Anyway, a smokescreen covered everything. No one would see anything. Why would the perps waste time gashing the building, when they knew no one would be able to see it?

I can tell you when Mount St. Helens blew, we all would have noticed if the TV didn't match the mountain.

To believe they can compartmentalize a couple major cities as they watched a "live" event unfold on TV and to wave away the analogue cameras and eye witness problem requires more than just saying folks are too gullible and bloodthirsty. I believe people are very trusting of authority but that you give authority more credit than they deserve, and the people less credit. But you still can't account for any unforeseen glitches like real pictures surfacing of the wrong gash...or no gash.

Using a real gash makes the issues of eye witnesses and analogue cameras go away.

If you're claiming all the photographic evidence is crap, then why have any gash at all...why would there be even a need for shaped charges?

I don't doubt the TV would work great for providing the power of suggestion to make people believe the gash was caused by a plane, but I do believe people would cry foul if the TV show didn't match what they could see with their own eyes.

[simonshack]

I believe people are very trusting of authority but that you give authority more credit than they deserve, and the people less credit.
(...)
I don't doubt the TV would work great for providing the power of suggestion to make people believe the gash was caused by a plane, but I do believe people would cry foul if the TV show didn't match what they could see with their own eyes.

Dear Yankee,


You wrote: " you give authority more credit than they deserve, and the people less credit."
I trust you will agree that no one here is giving 'authority more credit than they deserve' - quite the contrary: we are exposing precisely the incompetence of the 'authorities' behind this gigantic scam. To be sure, one of the very first question people have when confronted with our findings is: "How could they (the 'authorities') possibly pull off such an audacious hoax in such a sloppy, amateurish manner?" My best answer to this question would be: "WELL, THE HOAX WORKED - AND MOST PEOPLE FELL FOR IT." I also hope you'll agree that no 'credit' is deserved by either side: the public at large was fooled (EPIC FAIL!) by a - now flatly exposed - 'cheap' magician's trick (EPIC FAIL!) - supported by a powerful media machine.

You wrote: "I do believe people would cry foul if the TV show didn't match what they could see with their own eyes."
Well, the TV show itself (as demonstrated in September Clues) was replete with both visual and verbal inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities. It is indeed a very crappy movie. Yet, did anyone cry foul back in 2001? This, in spite of the TV show's recordings being replayed again and again? Still today, in fact, we have people viewing the TV show with their own eyes - who STILL won't bring themselves to cry foul. What to make of that? And with this in mind, how would any firsthand 9/11 witness armed merely with a visual recollection of what he/she saw on the day make any difference? Why would the perps worry about a 'damning testimony' - if many people STILL won't cry foul when they're presented with ridiculously incongruous footage up in their faces? If someone saw "something that didn't match with the TV show", as you say, this guy may stand on top of a hill for another hundred years, crying foul on the top of his lungs. Who would give a damn?

As for your musings that there must exist many real, analogically-captured pictures somewhere, I can only refer you to what our member Antipodean suggested to you :

Hi yank,
the best way of doing this (IMHO), would be to post some of the images that you believe to be real, and just go from there.

[yankee451]

Hi yank,
the best way of doing this (IMHO), would be to post some of the images that you believe to be real, and just go from there.

Thanks, but I am unable to upload any images.

If all the images are fraudulent, why are you speculating about shaped charges? For all you know no holes were created and they wrapped the towers with canvas.

However if the government realized the images in the public domain contained some evidence that shed light on how they did it, it would be very important to them to discredit all of the images. Does that make sense?

[HonestlyNow]

Thanks, but I am unable to upload any images.

Does that mean you know of images, and don't have the technological knowledge of how to upload them, or that you don't have any images to provide?

If you have them, you could at least provide a link to them.

[yankee451]

Thanks, but I am unable to upload any images.

Does that mean you know of images, and don't have the technological knowledge of how to upload them, or that you don't have any images to provide?

If you have them, you could at least provide a link to them.

This board is obviously idiot-proof...I don't see a link to use for uploading images so I linked a video which includes a couple of them. I am happy to link to other forums but I didn't want to be "spamish".

We all know there are very few images of the damage...fewer actually than the images of the "impacts", and I don't have any more than those that are available on the public domain.

My point is that even tampered-with images can contain real images, and those real images contain evidence into how the holes were created, therefore it is in the government's best interest to discredit all the available photographic evidence.

If, as everyone on this forum seems to believe, ALL the images are fraudulent and cannot be used as evidence for anything, then why speculate about holes and shaped-charges at all? Why speculate about anything? Without any photographic evidence we have nothing, right? Case closed.