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 brianv on May 22nd, 2011, 5:12 pm

Heiwa wrote:
lozac boris wrote:How did the towers fell then, and where are all the Manhattan residents that day, where at least one would see the 'real' falling?

The towers fell from bottom up, i.e. the strongest part (bottom) was destroyed first so that the weakest (top) part could fall down and destroy itself against bottom rubble and ground. It took about 20 seconds and most Manhattan residents could not see how the bottom was destroyed but maybe saw the tops fall.
Evidently the (weak) tops could not fall down first and be crushing the (stronger) bottoms on the way down, because it is physically impossible. What was shown 'live on TV' was just a stupid animation. You can in fact fly in 1000 planes into the tops of towers and the the only part that will be damaged is the top. It is basic. Osama didn't grasp it, nor GWB/Condi/Obama = stupid people become terrorists or politicians. Or train drivers?


There is no conclusive proof that the towers fell at all. And possibly not at all for the same reason that they didnt use remote controlled airplanes... Unacceptable Risk. The "basins" in which the towers were built to keep the Hudson at bay could have been seriously damaged by either a top down or bottom up collapse of the two 1/2million ton towers crashing into them; possibly causing severe flooding of the whole island of Manhattan. My best guess would be - a slow casual gutting of the buildings took place over the years all that was left were the outer walls; which could quite easily been "craned" to earth.

Fake a couple of videos and throw up a smokescreen versus 19 arab hijackers with plastic knives hijacking ex-military pilots and subduing the entire airplane, with no flying experience and no navigation; finding their targets and flying into the buildings twice in New York, which then explode and fall in the most preposterous fashion? No Contest!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Heiwa on May 22nd, 2011, 6:58 pm

brianv wrote:[here is no conclusive proof that the towers fell at all.

The towers were just simply destroyed, when the terrorists were running their show 'live on TV' in USA and, later, on various footage (videos, photos) handed out to media and public. The latter was told by the media and US authorities the USA had been attacked!
Which was true! However, USA blamed the wrong terrorists. Why the towers fell NIST & Bazant have explained scientifically - the weak/light tops of the towers got loose and crushed the strong/heavy bottoms of the towers into rubble (steel wall panels and dust). The Americans actually believe that stupid nonsense.
Sometimes I wonder where the floors went? Out of the windows?
The real terrorists are thus still around and you wonder what they will do or destroy next? The show must go on, you know!
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby simonshack on May 22nd, 2011, 7:06 pm

brianv wrote:
Heiwa wrote:
lozac boris wrote: My best guess would be - a slow casual gutting of the buildings took place over the years all that was left were the outer walls; which could quite easily been "craned" to earth.


Dearest Brian,

You know that I have never indulged in hypotheses regarding the demo-technicalities of the 110-story WTC towers. But I'll do so now, just for the hell of it - and maybe Heiwa or any qualified engineers on board might give an opinion on my following wild guess:

So, we have two 110-story steel boxes to bring down - and we have roughly 90 minutes time to do that. I'd just knock them down in three sections, 37 stories each (perhaps in one go, perhaps not). Whatever rubble 'spilled' upon the surrounding Silverstein-owned buildings would not be a cause for concern - as they too were part of the demolition plan (WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC7,) while some other collateral damage actually occured (a tiny Greek orthodox church was crushed, and holes were punched in the Deutsche Bank and the WFC).

The rubble area is obviously cordoned-off and off-limits early in the morning - and the rubble scooped away in military fashion. As for the eternal eyewitness issue, there seem to be a good few remembering that the area was unaccessible - and that hundreds of trucks whisked away the rubble in record time. Yet, the much publicized facts/news stories that the 'crime scene evidence' was hastily whisked away to the Freshkill landfill (and the "WTC steel sold to China" - or whatever) hasn't caused much public outrage, has it?

I believe all these endless discourses of "how did they do it" are hampered by a psychological factor induced by the fact that these two towers were soooo very big and tall. Well, once you get to terms with the fact that they were just three 37-story 'meccano' frameworks on top of each other, we can easier envision how taking them down them within a short timeframe was not such an incredible feat, after all.

*******************
Now, how can we have these two "amateur images"? One showing 59 beams - and the other only 39 beams?

ImageImage

Please note that the 39 beams are also SKEWED in relation to the WTC frame !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby brianv on May 22nd, 2011, 7:21 pm

Like Simon, I have no outright theories of anything "building removal" related, we did not see the how, therefore we are left to speculate. I'm all for the "keep it simple stupid" approach. And that is not meant disparagingly. Ray beams from outer space and noveau engineering terms do not do it for me!

I have no problems with this hypothesis. Sounds good in fact!

ps damn that 3 embedded replies capping!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby nonhocapito on May 22nd, 2011, 8:48 pm

lozac boris wrote:
simonshack wrote:I dearly hope you are not going to post only questions on this forum.


Well i can't provide anything worthy, there's just so many questions, but you guys act like everything you believe is true. :) While 'normal' people (the one's that believe the official story and get on with their lives) think that these theories of yours are nonsense, and can you really blame them :)
Take that Cop car picture, you will find conspiracy everywhere with that thinking, because you try so hard to find it. Car doors are destroyed for no reason, omg, conspiracy! You see what's wrong with that? :) Some buldozer could destroy the door while moving it.
That's what bothers me, i really wanna know the thruth and i'm sure boards like this will help when we finally get to that point. But you just can't rediculle people who don't believe some of the theories.

Posted my introduction.. ;)

lozac boris: if you think the cop car door detail is meaningless, don't focus on that detail. Drop the cop car already.
Many details start to matter only long after the big picture sinks in. And you are obviously very far from seeing the big picture. That's your task now.

Have you read the septemberclues.info website? Have you browsed the relevant threads on this forum, regarding 9/11 and 7/7? Most of your questions have been answered there, plus there's much material of which you just have no idea about. It is hard to find time for it, but there is no other way around it. You gotta give it time. I see that you try to be respectful while being in complete denial. Try instead to be more humble and give a serious look to the research. Try to see how so many pieces fall into place then. I promise you, you will feel much more capable to provide worthy material to the research, once you will understand it. Media fakery is like a big shiny cloak drawn up everywhere, every moment, all around us, so there's never really lack of material, you see.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Heiwa on May 31st, 2011, 8:18 pm

Below is conversation with structural design expert Vitaliy whose daughter witnessed a plane hitting WTC1 North Tower on 911:

Heiwa wrote:Vitaliy,
just study http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm , describe the structure (elements/joints, etc) top of which destroys the bottom part by gravity and record it on a video and €1 million is yours.
To avoid problems study http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm carefully.

I look forward to your entry of the Heiwa Challenge. cc has so far failed completely. I wonder why? Dave Thomas is a very nice guy.

kind regards

Anders

PS Re your daughter - did she really see a plane colliding with WTC1 North Tower??

PPS According to my axiom planes colliding with tops of anything will never damage the bottoms of anything. OK?




> Message du 31/05/11 20:04
> De : "Vitaliy Feygin"
> A : "Anders BJORKMAN"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: Global collapse of structures (top crushing bottom by gravity)

I already told you. Put your money on Escrow account, and I will gladly prove not only my point but what was done by the top experts in the industry. I am not going to continue that discussion for free. 1 hr of my work is quite expensive to spend it on that crap. May be you are not complete idiot, but you sure look like one when you make your statements.

Mr. Anders, second part of my article that will be published in July shows classical formula for dynamic impact. Though, formula can not be used for instant load application, it is perfect for pan cake effect. I can not spend my time filling the gaps in your education. I am teaching graduate students and solve complicated problems. Trust me, I had fare share of highly demanding jobs. Some of my designs are not open to the public. I do not want to insult you, but your statements and the manner you pose your statement betray the person with very poor education.

You would not pass my exams, for sure. All of my students know the basics you don't.



Heiwa wrote:On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Anders BJORKMAN <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr> wrote:


Vitaly,

You hold a Doctorate degree in structural engineering? Very good. Just describe any structure A, top C of which can crush A into rubble B by gravity - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm - and earn € 1 000 000:-. Just drop C on A and POUFF, POUFF. What impact load/force can C apply on A so that A is destroyed? What does Timoshenko have to say about it?

"After first floor collapsed it was progressive collapse based on dynamic of progressive gravity force integrated over discrete distances." Progressive collapse from the top - by dynamic progressive gravity force? LOL!

I am also an expert structural engineer having designed/built/operated the biggest, most complicated moving steel structures
in the world subject to all sorts of static/dynamic loads for more than 40 years. I am quite famous actually having analysed 200+ big accidents with these structures colliding with each other (and never a smaller weaker part managed to crush a bigger stronger part, etc, etc.) So I am not an idiot. You have misunderstood the situation.

So what is the mooring load that you apply to a pier? You know - get the design loads right and you are halfway there.

kind regards

Anders


> Message du 30/05/11 23:35
> De : "Vitaliy Feygin"
> A : "Anders BJORKMAN"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: Global collapse of structures (top crushing bottom by gravity)

Mr. Anders, unlike you I know Timoshenko in and out. I also hold Doctorate degree in structural engineering.
You probably picked up my name from my latest publication. I advice you to follow my publications to learn something, if you can.

Second part of my article will explain you what impact force is. It is not a simple gravity force. It is dynamic force based on acceleration. Classical formula for suddenly applied load gives you the force that is twice the static gravity force. In the case under discussion that force was close to 10 times static gravity force, based on equation that equates kinetic and potential energy. We are not talking about ramped impact, if you know what it is. After first floor collapsed it was progressive collapse based on dynamic of progressive gravity force integrated over discrete distances. However, your opus indicates that you do not have even rudimentary knowledge in basic calculus.

On top of that all bolted connections were overheated, and steel of the bolts was beyond plastic limit, when steel yields without increase in stress.

Now, you are not 100% no -planer. You are 100% dead brainer.
My daughter was at 200 ft from the Tower when first plane struck it, and she saw that plane herself.

I do not want to know your axiom. There are many idiots with axioms, and there are many more who will believe you. However, non of them is allowed to practice engineering in USA.

In US you would not have a privilege to be tried for truth distortion. You would be recognized as incompetent to stand the trial.

I do not know why I explain that to you. You are a brain dead jerk, and you do not have money to bet. But if you put your check in escrow, I will surely take it away from you.

There will be many more competent engineers who will gladly stay in line to take this money from the fool like you.




Heiwa wrote:On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Anders BJORKMAN <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Vitaly, PE, SE

Thanks for reply. No, I am not a 'truther' or whatever, I am a 100% no-planer, i.e. crushing planes into tops of structures/towers will only damage the top of the structure/tower! Nothing will happen to the bottom of the structure/tower. It, the bottom, is undamaged and will remain undamaged. Timoshenko says so!

An undamaged bottom structure cannot ever be crushed down from above by a small top of same structure. It is called The Björkman Axiom. Google will explain!

It is like a ship. Pour water on its deckhouse from the top ... and it doesn't sink. Make a hole in the bottom of the hull ... it sinks. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm

Your daughter saw a small, weak top of a tower crushing down the much bigger, stronger bottom of same tower? Amazing! But sorry, your daughter just watched TV. She was fooled.

But as I always say: Earn € 1 000 000:- proving me wrong. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Have a go. Show that you have brains. Try to apply Timoshenko.

kind regards

Anders


> Message du 30/05/11 19:58
> De : "Vitaliy Feygin"
> A : "Anders BJORKMAN"
> Objet : Re: Global collapse of structures (top crushing bottom by gravity)

Mr. Anders,

It looks like you are one of the "truthers" who will go at length to distort the facts.

What happened on 9-11 is called pan cake effect. However, nobody will be able to explain you the basics of the structural mechanic or structural dynamic. You simply will not listen.

You might pay for one page of STRUCTURE magazine, advertising your arrogance and ignorance.

However, before you spend your money, I advice you to familiarize yourself with "Structural dynamic" written by Stephan Timoshenko more than 50 years ago.

The event that idiots like you call a "stupid animation" was experienced by my daughter who was next to Twin Towers on 9-11-2001, the day I was visiting fender manufacturing facility in IOWA. My daughter found me at the plant. Her voice was trembling. I will remember that day forever.

You found a wrong person for your preaching. Unlike you, I have seen and experienced that event. I also have done very simplistic analyses checking structure collapse. You need only half a brain to do that analysis. However, I believe, you have enough brain to make completely stupid statements.

People like you are completely ignorant of the fact that the first manual on progressive collapse was developed by British Government.

I do not know you and do not want to hear from you again.

With no respect,

Vitaly Feygin, P.E., S.E.


Mr. Anders, please do not bother answering me. You do not have arguments, just because you do not have basic knowledge




Heiwa wrote:On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Anders BJORKMAN <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

FYI - What do YOU think.
Anders


> Message du 29/05/11 19:04
> > > > De : "Anders BJORKMAN"
> > > > A : webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org, graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org, accounts@STRUCTUREmag.org, publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org, execdir@NCSEA.com, CASE@STRUCTUREmag.org, SEI@STRUCTUREmag.org, sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
> > > > Copie à : "BJORKMAN"
> > > > Objet : Global collapse of structures (top crushing bottom by gravity)
> > > >
> > > >
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
> > > Jeanne M. Vogelzang
> > > Executive Director
> > > execdir@NCSEA.com

Council of American Structural Engineers
> > > Heather Talbert
> > > Coalitions Director
> > > CASE@STRUCTUREmag.org

Structural Engineering Institute
> > > James A. Rossberg, P.E.
> > > Manager
> > > SEI@STRUCTUREmag.org

Eastern Sales: Chuck Minor
> > > sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

Western Sales: Dick Railton
> > > 951-587-2982
> > > sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

Publisher/Editor: Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
> > > publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Associate Editor: Nikki M. Alger
> > > accounts@STRUCTUREmag.org

Graphic Design Specialist: Robert Fullmer
> > > graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

Web Developer: William Radig
> > > webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org


Ladies and gentlemen,

Re subject it seems most Americans believe that any structure A can be destroyed from top down (global collapse) by gravity, when a small top piece C of A (C=1/10A) is dropped on remainder of A (i.e. 0.9A).

Reason why most Americans believe that C can crush down A from top by gravity is that something like it was shown ‘live on TV’ on 9 11 2001. But it was a stupid animation that was run to confuse GWB & Co.

Evidently you agree with me that it is impossible that top C can crush bottom A by gravity under any circumstances? Why don’t you publish some articles in your publication or arrange conferences about it?

Inspiration is found at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm .

If you think I am wrong I’ll pay you € 1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .

Best regards

Anders Björkman, M.Sc
Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea

PS - I might advertise about the Challenge in your Magazine. What is cost of 1/1 page?





Vitaly is evidently mad but maybe his daughter can clarify matters?


>
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby nonhocapito on May 31st, 2011, 9:17 pm

Wow Heiwa, hat tip to you--
Mr Feygin surely likes to insult using the word "brain"... but he doesn't sound like a particularly smart person, considering that his arguments are all mixed up together, structural engineering, his daughter, calculus and whatnot.
Please keep us updated on the discussion... BTW this seems to be the daughter if you need to contact her: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1197709390
Feygin can be consulted here: http://www.berthowe.com/structural-engineers.php but I am not inquiring on the prices because I don't want to be called a half brain.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Heiwa on June 1st, 2011, 3:33 am

Feygin update: Office overlooking WTC with daughter looking out, uncle Nobel prize winner, etc, etc...



Heiwa wrote:Vitaliy,


Amazing! Your daughter saw both planes penetrating the tops of the towers!
However - you can fly as many planes you like into the weak tops of towers and nothing, incl progressive collapse will ever happen to the much stronger, intact bottom parts of same towers. The Björkman Axiom! Google on it.
But ... as I always say ... earn € 1 million proving me wrong at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .

Anyone explaining 'progressive collapse" of a structure (top down destruction by gravity) on TV is a terrorist. The phenomenom does not exist.

Kind regards

Anders



Vitaliy's reply:
> Message du 31/05/11 22:23
> De : "Vitaliy Feygin"
> A : "Anders BJORKMAN"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: Global collapse of structures (top crushing bottom by gravity)

First: My daughter actually have seen both planes. She also ran into my office opposite to Trade Center and placed a call to me from my own office on Courtland Street. My office windows overlooked Twin Towers. She saw people jumping out of the windows and she ,saw footprint of the plane on the building wall. Enough about that.

There was an excellent program on Discovery channel where couple guys who I know presented the model of progressive collapse. Take your own British Code for progressive collapse and study it. I have run my own very preliminary analysis based on a single sudden force application formula. Even without reduced (plastic strength of the bolted connections) the structure would experienced progressive collapse as one floor collapsing on the lower floor produced the force about 20 times higher than ultimate resistance of the bolted connections. Than 2 combined floors hit lower floor and so on. I do not need to read the garbage from your heiwaco. tripod. These people are sick idiots who attract people with wild imagination, but little education.

We do not need wild conspiracy theory driven by left wing idiots. Enough is enough.

Mr. Anders, who are you to make axioms. One of the best modern scientist, Nobel Prize winner in Physic, who happened to be my uncle never stated that he derived axiom. But idiots like you do. That says a lot about your mental ability. You do not have basic knowledge.

Now, the very last statement: show me the money.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby 21stcenturybreakdown on June 11th, 2011, 10:33 pm

I don't think absolutely everyone who claimed to have seen planes or collapses are technically lying. I was in Lower Manhattan that morning, however I was not in a position to see anything much. Definitely wasn't mentally able to process much either, just absolute confusion and fear. I admit the repetitive tv coverage I saw over the following days had me convinced. That footage pretty much merged in to my own memories, becoming what I believed I'd seen or explaining what I didn't see.

I think this was used to great effect, people remember events differently. In the case of traumatic events it's often a blur, putting images of the event in to a witnesses mind afterward can and does change their view. That happened to me, I found myself thinking "Oh so that's what I must have seen/heard"
21stcenturybreakdown
Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Tufa on June 12th, 2011, 5:05 am

I would like to add that my opinion is much different from reel.deal. But I do honour and respect this view; very obviously a fake local reality could match the fake official version to lower discrepancies in case there is a Witness or an unofficial Photo.
reel.deal wrote:I think they slammed a couple of fast "plane-shape" GPS-missiles into the (deserted) WTC,
as part of the pyro-show. Personally i think there was so many people watching from Jersey etc, that there
had to be something similar looking to the "2nd hit" "plane".


My opinion is different, that The Real Event is much different from the TV version:
  • Manhattan + New Jersey TV version may be of a special edit; not identical to the official archive version.
  • Discovery of the event is delayed until after the "Second Plane", no flying object.
  • The weather and likely wind direction is different.
  • Both Towers fall at the same time. :blink:

The problem is that there is not much real evidence for anything, and there have not surfaced "private" photos. On the issue of private photos Simon have considered some technical obstacle for the absence of photos, while I have considered psychological issues. Again, the opinions differ much, but there is not much real evidence for either view.

The important thing is, that ANY additional small piece of the puzzle could quickly resolve these questions, to produce a set of Real photos of how the Real event/show did look, or to explain if and why we lack ordinary photos of the Towers.
If I compare the the JFK assassination; some witnesses that did see too much and don't lie; A photo that was not altered, it do make a difference!
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby 21stcenturybreakdown on June 12th, 2011, 7:09 am

reel.deal wrote:I reckon thats true. I think they slammed a couple of fast "plane-shape" GPS-missiles into the (deserted) WTC,
as part of the pyro-show. Personally i think there was so many people watching from Jersey etc, that there
had to be something similar looking to the "2nd hit" "plane". I think many more people would have spoken
out if there was NOTHING flying through the sky, and WTC-2 "just exploded" by itself; @ 9:03.
The "collapses" would also "look" similar to the (CGI)"videos", hell, they could even have had SAS/Navy SEALS
activating multiple smoke machines & industrial size fans, and throwing dummies out the windows, for the
horrified eyewitnesses, then absail down the liftshafts before the timed "collapses". While ALL the
9/11 imagery is so suspect, or even obviously fake, i'm sure the reality didnt look too different.
IMHO...


I'm with you on this one. There had to be enough of a show for witnesses, the towers were just too visible from so many vantage points. It would have been impossible to prevent everyone witnessing things. I think if many things were too radically different more people would be speaking out. An example from my own experience is of recognizing something had clearly happened to the towers, seeing the smoke pouring from the south sides. But I didn't see the south tower's plane shaped gash with my own eyes, that area seemed too smoky, obscured. Yet the fake footage and photos DO show it very clearly.
21stcenturybreakdown
Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby SmokingGunII on June 12th, 2011, 7:41 pm

I've long been of the opinion that only New Yorkers can help us fill in the "blanks". 21st Centuries accounts are helpful and I would urge them to ask as many their friends to report what they saw and heard on that day when they were on the streets and not what they saw on the TV.

I have also visited many rabbit holes, including once believeing the planes were remotely controlled. It didn't take me long to realise that their were no planes and I still doubt whether any missiles were employed - although I wouldn't rule it out completely.

Reel Deal's work on here is exemplary and his humour is similar to mine :D but I haven't read or seen enough credible documental evidence to suggest that people from Jersey saw anything at all. To me, the risk of using missiles was too high. Much easier to destroy the towers from inside and sell the cause of the explosion through TV.

What we do know is that Boeing's are not designed to fly at the speeds documented. Whether there were missiles or not is irrelevant.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby TruthOrDie on June 27th, 2011, 4:01 am

Something interesting caught my eye while watching TV the other night.. The imagery seemed quite familiar. This is my first post, I've been reading everything on here for a long time.

Image

Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Reminding people of the "past"?
TruthOrDie
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: June 27th, 2011, 3:57 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Foggbank on July 27th, 2011, 12:07 pm

This is why I think the collapse video looks like it does. This is an attempt at a unifying theory for Simon Shacks theories of 1. The 17 seconds,2. no planes,3.no real photography,4. empty towers and Tufas brilliant Full Speed 911 showing how models were used to base the animation on and lots of Shakespeare's "Me thinks they doth protest too much".(Tufa rules. Just sayin.) The towers were not called buildings because they were not buildings. A tower is described in the Websters dictionary I have as1.a high structure often part of another building.2.such a structure used as a fortress. Collapse is 1.to fall down or cave in.4.to fold together compactly. Strike is a stage term.To strike a set is to collapse it for removal. Strike one,tower 1,strike 2 tower 2. Miss Joody Woody used the very silly word dustification for a reason.

Dustification means anything prone to cause dust during the collapse. A very important factor for all materials remaining in the tower. The Twin Towers were 2 functioning sets with collapsible façades. The inner structure was basically scaffolding encased in little or no permanent cement, (which is prone to "Dustification") supporting the elevators that took people to the 4 lobbies, restaurants, any temporary floors using floor pans filled with plywood not cement and to the top observation deck.All the cement they did use had to be removed before collapse. Less steal was needed because there were very few real floors and the lightest materials were used. Most of the marble was probably fake. The towers were much lighter than they told us. They said they used a ridiculous amount of steel so I assume that they did not. Wood can be painted to look like steel.Joody Wood,get it?It is a joke. Fake wood.

All of the remodeling is to remove everything and replace it with light weight plastic replicas and Styrofoam props.No dust. The outer facade is like 4 venetian blinds per building.8 in all.The blinds were designed to turn horizontal one at a time starting from the top down.As the top flap turns horizontal it blows smoke based obscurant first downward then out hiding the flap below as it turn horizontal. Each flap falls one by one on a rail or guide wire to keep the stack straight till it hits bottom taking about 17 seconds and making very little noise besides a clacking sound as each flap hits the one below it creating the effect we see in the animation almost exactly so that everyone that was looking at the tower would see in real life what the video basically looked like and any one that filmed it would get a similar picture.

The element of surprise was essential to prevent any one being able to react fast enough to photograph it. No first strike by any plane or missile at all. No warning. Both towers went together as a unit. Once the façade was collapsed filling the area with safe to breath obscurants, the area could be safely evacuated before the other buildings that would make real, unhealthy dust were demolished. I do not believe that we will ever know exactly how they did it because I think they told us how in their own very silly way. Me thinks they did protest too much.This is my theory so far on the collapse animation.

James Fogg
Foggbank
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 8:09 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby fbenario on July 28th, 2011, 1:41 am

Foggbank wrote:This is why I think the collapse video looks like it does. This is an attempt at a unifying theory for Simon Shacks theories of 1. The 17 seconds,2. no planes,3.no real photography,4. empty towers ...

Very well thought-out, James. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and it appears to make as much sense as all the other demolition theories put forth.

I'd like to clarify for all our readers, however, that the 'unifying theory' of this forum is that we'll never know exactly how the towers were brought down, and we don't need to care, or prove, how it happened. Proving all the images/videos shown on 9/11 were faked is sufficient to convict the entire government and essentially every internet news site, whether mainstream or not.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

cron