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 pov603 on September 7th, 2011, 10:22 am

Not wishing to get drawn into a discussion about how many 'beams' there were, as, as the footage was faked it doesn't matter does it?

Anyway, if you are referring to vertical members of the building, on the facade or otherwise, they should be referred to as columns.
Beams are generally taken [in the construction industry] to be horizontal members.

I know it is semantics but please correct me if i am wrong on any of my assumptions.

I shall try and get some construction info on the facades and their construction/make-up.

All we need to know is that they were substantial members and were integral in keeping the building open-plan but with a very strong set of core columns and all designed to withstand impact from a jet liner [707 at the time].

Modern buildings now mostly contain flimsy aluminium/glass facades which most people are familiar with yet they do not contemplate how heavy and substantial the 'facade' was on WTC1 & WTC2.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Jonathan on September 7th, 2011, 2:40 pm

guest wrote:... I'm saying that probably all of your 'evidence' could be debunked just as i did with a few minutes in photoshop. ...

The fact is: you didn't ;)
You believe you did - but the difference between the two is vast.

Blurry or not - you don't blur 59 columns into 39 - or vice versa.
Since both videos are supposed to be authentic, I see a contradiction there.
It really does not matter whether one is real or not - since they are both sold as real we are lied to at least once.
Why should I believe someone I caught lying to me on anything again?
and: "we" don't need to know why or how mistakes where made to point them out.
The "mistake" is fact, all else is almost pure speculation.

Why don't you give it a try and debunk another?

The conclusion of fakery is not based on this one single comparison, btw.
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: July 26th, 2011, 9:17 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby pov603 on September 7th, 2011, 4:34 pm

guest wrote:
Jonathan wrote:Since both videos are supposed to be authentic, I see a contradiction there


How so? One was recorded with a better camera then the other, wheres the contradiction?


@guest
I am fairly new to this forum and one of the things that I have found refreshing with it is the level of detail that most of the posters go into to determine if [in their opinion] some of the photos/videos posted as 'evidence' of an attack by terrorists is real or 'questionable'. Most of that looked at is questionable.

The number of columns depicted on both videos/pictures is contradictory. There may be a rational explanation [as you claim] but please offer something in support of your claim ie types of cameras used produce different details of images [Nikon vs Canon etc] and especially if it is based on your experience for which you can produce supporting evidence.
Remember that the burden of proof lies with the supplier of this information in the first place [the person who posts the picture]. If this is found to be questionable [however that is determined] it is up to someone [such as yourself] to add weight to the evidence first proposed, not write-off the questions it has raised as a consequence of it being provided ie zooms on 'jumpers', speeds of planes, shadows of objects and people, building layouts/vantages, outlines etc.

If you have something in support of the original photos/videos please 'bring it to the table' [so to speak].
Ultimately it is not what you know it is what you can prove. At the moment, based on a lot of the analyses carried out here on 'random' photos/videos [i use random in the sense of everywhere you look the photos/videos (t)rolled out as evidence show signs of tampering or not depicting what they purport to depict], someone in power wants the 'gen-pop' to follow a line which is contrary to rational or considered thought.

Don't take my word for it, look through the forum in general, see which ones you cannot offer explanation for or better still offer up something to support those items we seem to throw up as being in contradiction. If you believe you can produce something that can stand up to scrutiny [the door swings both ways], provide it.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby simonshack on September 21st, 2011, 6:41 pm

*

BREAKING NEWS !!! 21/09/2011 - 14:56:54
stop press***stop press***stop press***stop press***stop press***stop press***stop press***stop press***


New theory on Twin Towers' collapse


A Norwegian - Christian Simensen - finally solves the 'how-did-they-collapse' puzzle! :lol: :D :P
With a name like that - there can be no doubt that Mr. Christ-ian Sim-ensen must be a faithful christian abiding to God's laws of physics.

"Explosions triggered by molten aircraft metal reacting with water from sprinkler systems may have felled the Twin Towers after the 9/11 attacks, according to a new theory."

Image
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/new-th ... 21426.html

10 years on - and the bullcrap never stops. But why now throw Norwegians into the stenchy broth? Why? Why? :huh: :rolleyes:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 12:58 am

The amazing thing is that he based his entire theory on that singular Richard Drew photo that he insisted was legitimate and genuine because of Drews stellar "reputation" and the fact that it was published in the LA Times and subsequently picked up by several other papers - I had to laugh. For anyones interest here's my thread on it that was "split" off..........btw I was Banned :) http://letsrollforums.com/picture-real- ... 23540.html
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby nonhocapito on October 18th, 2011, 2:18 am

hey rd, I think this is the post you were looking for: http://letsrollforums.com/hollow-towers ... post204460

colts88 wrote:Look at that picture. That is from 1973 and the South Tower has the same crane on it as your picture.
You right, they were hollow in this picture.....BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS HAD JUST OPENED AND THERE WERE NO TENANTS.


D.Duck wrote:Colt, I would say that picture represent how the towers looked like 9/11-2001 and I really dont care when it was taken.


:huh: :P
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 12:35 pm

Photographer Bill Biggart’s belongings were found in the rubble after 9/11. Miraculously the images stored in the camera(s) were still intact. Could he still be alive?

Image

"I'm O.K.," he said. "I'm with the firemen." They then found Bill Biggart’s body four days later on September 15, still among the firefighters: "After four days, Biggart’s body was pulled from the rubble, and identified by his fingerprints. The medical examiner said it was not suitable for viewing. But his clothes were all recovered, and all his belongings, down to the $26 in his wallet; the only sign that he’d been at the scene of one of the world’s great conflagrations was a burned edge on his press card. As for his equipment, the three camera bodies were mostly intact, although the lenses had been smashed or sheared off, and the backs had blown off the two film cameras, destroying whatever images might have been in them at the end. But seven rolls of exposed film had been recovered, and the microdisk was still in the back of his digital camera."

Personally, I don't quite believe this story. Why? What firemen? Where are they - who were they? Where's the 'heroic story' that should be told here? This should have been a very big human interest story and there is none to be told - why? The entire account of "343" is suspicious. Remember all the Simon Shack VicSim research? Think about it OK!
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby nonhocapito on October 18th, 2011, 8:05 pm

Of course the story is bogus. For what is worth, I don't think any of these characters are real. You shouldn't try to separate true from false before asking yourself if everything can be false.
With 9/11, when there is no particular requirement for truth (like with public figures) expect to find yourself in 100% artificial environments.
There was no Bill Biggart as there is no Andrea Booher or Lou Angeli or Sonnenfeld or all the others whose pictures are obviously, like you say, staged and faked. So I wouldn't worry about who really took a picture or who is still alive.
They're sim-photographers and sim-cameramen. Doesn't it make the most sense?
As with the steel riders, I'd say photoshop, considering the pictures are most likely entirely artificial... and I don't think whistle-blowers are really necessary to explain the sloppiness and absurdity we face in this story. They probably thought people falling with the rubble was going to be a credible detail.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 8:44 pm

nonhocapito wrote:...........of course the story is bogus. For what is worth, I don't think any of these characters are real. You shouldn't try to separate true from false before asking yourself if [i]everything can be false. With 9/11, when there is no particular requirement for truth (like with public figures) expect to find yourself in 100% artificial environments.


Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with all you are saying. And I already take the position that everything is false, but when I present things like this I would rather give the reader the opportunity to ask questions he/she might otherwise not have thought of before - without imposing too strongly my own POV. So much of my line of questioning and presentation of pictorial evidence is often intended to probe and to persuade those who would hold to the official government position rather than to impose my will on them.
Last edited by Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 10:05 pm

Brutal Metal wrote:NO Bodies were pulled from the rubble 4 days later, that's TOTAL BS!


We know that! But, how did you come to that conclusion? I would like some input. Please tell us what you think. Did you investigate this story?

What about the absence of credible evidence as to the "SUPPOSED" firemen he was "SUPPOSED" to have been found with - all dead of course. For example, what 'company' (engine etc.) were they from, and were they all from the same 'company' - how many were there - what were their names - what were their individual stories and what do their families have to say about being found dead with the famous 9/11 photographer?
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby simonshack on October 18th, 2011, 10:35 pm

Ugo_da_Lugo wrote:
Brutal Metal wrote:NO Bodies were pulled from the rubble 4 days later, that's TOTAL BS!


We know that!
But, how did you come to that conclusion? I would like some input. Please tell us what you think. Did you investigate this story?


Dear Ugo,

We have actually investigated that. Here are a couple of relevant forum links you might like to check out:

THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

Victims Comp Fund Only Has 59 People Who Are Listed In SSDI: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=735


And here are some portraits of the "dead FIREFIGHTERS": (from: http://septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.htm )
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

You be the judge. Are all these credible, authentic firefighters? Or are they perhaps morphed/digital fabrications?

What's your take, Ugo?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 10:51 pm

Simon........I am being misunderstood here. Please understand that I am not in any need of convincing on the point of the "vic-simed" firemen. I have done extensive research on the topic of faked firemens deaths and have always maintained that the "343" is a blatant lie.

I am speaking here to the facts of the SUPPOSED finding of Bill Biggart along with several other firemen, which I have deduced is not true.

So my take is that the images of the several firemen you presented here are ALL faked in the same manner as the so-called "victims" of false front companies such as Cantor Fitzgerald were also faked. Not just the firemen presented in your recent posting ...........but every single fireman story is a LIE!

A recent poster said "Its all BS" but we already know that - and to me its not enough to say "its all BS".............I was asking him if he had investigated the story about Biggert having been found with several firemen. I wanted to know how he came to his "BS" conclusion - that's all.
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Ugo_da_Lugo on October 18th, 2011, 11:49 pm

reel.deal wrote:... i'm not a researcher, i just search for fakery in imagery, ........... i find its the faked imagery that is the most immediate and obvious key to fakery.


I agree and I much prefer searching rather than re-searching...........for me its all in the images which really speak for themselves. I am an artist so the visual is the best way for me to present the ideas behind all the fakery - after all - the treachery that was 9/11 was accomplished through visual trickery and manipulation.
Ugo_da_Lugo
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: March 28th, 2010, 12:11 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby fbenario on October 19th, 2011, 1:21 am

reel.deal wrote:I long ago past caring what anyone thinks; i dont even care what i think; i love having my preconceptions completely blown & overturned. its a waste of time trying to tell people i know how much bullshit rules our lives, its a paradigm shift too frightening to envision. people have their personal reality & view of the world, they really dont want it pointed out their comfort zone is a non-existant illusion.
...
i just hate bullshit, & the inequality and cruelties of this world.
...
a duty to the future, to integrity, and to freedom, of every kind

I agree with every word, and couldn't have said it better myself. My philosophy, also.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Brutal Metal on October 19th, 2011, 7:30 am

I conclude that no firemen perished as a result of those 3 buildings falling so that means the story you describe is BS to ME, anyone else can reach their own opinion... We all know what mine is since I made this little nugget here :D
http://youtu.be/lUcT57AEFsw
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

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