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 Equinox on January 21st, 2013, 3:30 pm

simonshack wrote:
Equinox wrote: Ok mate, I back-archived and re-loaded. ;)



Woah - well done, Equi ! :lol: "And then there were ten..."


Ok so that was 10 collapse shots from the same area.. And here is the 9 impact shots from the same area. That makes 19 right? It's hard to keep up!!!
19 shots all from the same area? :o :lol:

Image

and also-

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby anonjedi2 on January 21st, 2013, 11:53 pm

simonshack wrote:
Also, dear Skeptrick - can you see any problems at all with these two images?
Image


Hi Simon,

If it's not too much trouble, can you point me to the original Reisman photos?
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 698
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on January 22nd, 2013, 3:45 am

anonjedi2 wrote: I mean no disrespect. I am sure if I posted some pictures and images without sources, I'd be asked to do the same. :)


Source of "BEN REISMAN" imagery: http://vimeo.com/28895309
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby anonjedi2 on January 22nd, 2013, 3:57 am

Thank you, Simon. Much appreciated.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 698
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby Equinox on January 22nd, 2013, 10:55 am

The Ben Reisman, shot was archived and sourced linked twice on the previous page here- viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&start=420#p2379707
just inbox me here or on SC on facebook for source info.
I do have a lot of it backed up, Its all there, including 70 videos that are now hidden on youtube (the real bad fake ones) I Backed it all up on my hard drive, before they were gone from the public's eye. That's how I can find 55 shots (complete) without the plane in them. :D
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby cam251 on April 5th, 2013, 10:51 pm

Here is a video I've found of what looks to be some rare footage that I haven't seen before or uncut footage from previous years.

The video is entitled
Strange 9/11 Coincidences and Rare Footage

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6H48lHcGHU
Why I'm posting this is because I've seen a few of these clips before but with these it appears to be more footage showing then what we saw from officially released footage.
I just found this video, the music gets annoying, but it was interesting for me..
There are many reasons to believe that this "person" is a shill..
I do not see him referring to the planes as missiles so he must not believe in media fakery
He doesn't show any footage of the "planes" hitting other than impact, but is ok with showing collapses just fine
He includes loud music over the original audio so it might hide audio slip ups that he doesnt us to hear (aswell as him cutting certain audio out)
And saying that the US tested a suicide plane test into the world trade center 2 days before just to make people believe that media fakery "doesnt exist"

I question where this person found all of this.


*******
Admin notice (simonshack): Dear cam251, ALL of the imagery included in this video is part of the now age-old Made-for-TV 9/11 Hollywood movie. There is not one single clip or frame I haven't seen or analyzed before. If you have any specific questions regarding any particular clip, please let me know.
cam251
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 6:54 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 18th, 2013, 9:51 pm

*


THE THORNY QUESTION OF PERSPECTIVES

Do perspectives matter? Are they a useful tool to determine whether given videos are fabricated / tampered with or not? I would say, from personal experience, that the question of perpectives is perhaps the trickiest avenue of imagery analysis. This, due to the fairly advanced state (even prior to 2001) of 3D-imaging softwares, capable of simulating a given scenery from apparently different viewing angles/vantage points. It is a tough and delicate issue - if you see what I mean.

However, there are instances (with regards to the 9/11 imagery) in which the question of perspectives can be effectively used to make a compelling case, easily understandable to the layman (in the field of video and photography). In fact, I trust that even Jim Fetzer will effortlessly comprehend the following exposé which, I hope, will also help clarify to many other inquisitive minds my oft misunderstood case regarding the "retargeted" / rotated (think CAD) templates used to produce the 9/11 imagery. To this end, I will use two recently released (2010) videos from the NIST-FOIA image pool:

"THE SIFF-POST WTC1 COLLAPSE CLIP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=oW18Pj-3gHc

"THE SCARBOROUGH WTC1 COLLAPSE CLIP"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJI3E7gIvrE

So here we go.

The "SIFF-POST shot" (allegedly filmed by either 'Andrew Siff' or 'Jason Post') shows a piece of DEBRIS falling between the collapsing WTC1 - and WTC7. My 100% marking shows how much of the NY BANK façade is visible:

Image

The "SCARBOROUGH shot" (allegedly filmed by Jeff Scarborough, brother of NBC anchorman Chuck Scarborough) also shows this DEBRIS between WTC1 and WTC7. My 50% marking shows how much of the NY BANK façade is visible:
Image

It should be immediately apparent to any attentive observer that, given the considerable lateral displacement of these two alleged videographers, the DEBRIS could not have been visible to both, in such near-identical fashion. If the SIFF-POST video is true, then the SCARBOROUGH video is false - or vice versa. More logically, we may well conclude that both are fake / i.e. computer animated.

THE "TELEPATHIC" ZOOM OUTS
But it gets 'better': most 'coincidentally', both videos feature a zoom out motion - shortly after the DEBRIS disappears from view ! Yes, we are asked to believe that BOTH videographers zoomed out almost in synch (within 1sec of each other)- both revealing their very different vantage points on either side of the street. Imagine that!...
Image
Image

Here we see the alleged SIFF-POST vantage point- after the zoom out:
Image
Here we see the alleged SCARBOROUGH vantage point - after the zoom out:
Image
^^^ Note: the two above frames are meant to depict the exact same moment in time ^^^


In short, the backdrop layer featuring the WTC1 collapse animation has been inserted into these two shots - without properly / realistically accounting for the considerable lateral displacement of the two alleged videographers. Add to this that WTC7 was a reddish-brown building - much like the building seen at far left in these images. There is only ONE way to explain why the WTC7 is depicted here as a greyish building : WE ARE LOOKING AT FAKE IMAGERY.

I rest my case: ALL of the existing 9/11 imagery is fake / computer-animated.
The only remaining problem is: most people don't believe this can be done.
Apparently, most people think that Hollywood movie-tech cannot be sold as news.

******
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS POST - DO NOT MISS THIS VIDEO:
Jeff Scarborough's "SEPTEMBERS CAMERA" - "Buy my book!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gv3M_xioLM

Jeff Scarborough interviewed on his brother's TV show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdj8qdRIq18
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 19th, 2013, 9:04 pm

simonshack wrote:I would say, from personal experience, that the question of perpectives is perhaps the trickiest avenue of imagery analysis. This, due to the fairly advanced state (even prior to 2001) of 3D-imaging softwares, capable of simulating a given scenery from apparently different viewing angles/vantage points. It is a tough and delicate issue - if you see what I mean.


I agree with you here. In fact, 3D-imaging is a rather old technique, and its mathematical foundations go back a very long way indeed. But the math isn't all that difficult. It's important to keep this in mind. There's no reason to assume that any 3D software will produce any significant perspective errors on its own, if it is fed correctly with model and camera position data.

simonshack wrote:It should be immediately apparent to any attentive observer that, given the considerable lateral displacement of these two alleged videographers, the DEBRIS could not have been visible to both, in such near-identical fashion.


Sorry, Simon, but I beg to differ here. The lateral displacement may not be that "considerable" if you take into account the distance from the towers. If you look closely enough, you will notice that the debris position is not FULLY identical.

If you like, use as an extreme example the position of two stars in the sky relative to a third star. If you look at these stars it does not matter if you are located in Italy or in Spain, although the lateral displacement may be "considerable".

Unless you can prove your assumption conclusively by using geometrical equations (giving all the relevant distances), I'm not inclined to think that these videos have a perspective issue. Also, take into account that the relative position of WTC7 and the pyramid-like building in front of it are different in both shots. So where would you think the "backdrop" starts?

BTW, I think the same way about the infamous Verazzano Bridge video. Mathematically the perspective is correct. Still I fully agree that all those videos are fakes for a couple of reasons. Just remember, you can't beat the software or any of those guys on the math. If the model is good and the camera position is chosen correctly, the perspective will be calculated just fine.

Probably the biggest possible source of errors is the composition of the final video, that means: if it's not fully made up of CGI but contains further green screen / actor / real life stuff. That's where we should put our focus, and I think we already came up with a few good examples.

On a side note, there's a free software called "Terragen Classic" which can do simple modeling and rendering of landscapes. After playing around with it for a few minutes or hours you can make your own perspective experiments. This will help you understand the math. I did that to simulate the Verrazano Bridge case, to make sure I'm not mistaken there. Please let me know if you're interested in further information.

rusty
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby idschmyd on May 20th, 2013, 2:57 am

Woah Rusty! Where to begin? Perhaps here:

“Please let me know if you're interested in further information.” Where did you learn your underhandedly condescending ‘Bbc’ style?

“If you look closely enough, you will notice that the debris position is not FULLY identical.” And if you look closely enough you’ll find Simon specifically avoids saying it is absolutely identical. It is astonishingly close, though – it may be identical but the image quality makes a pixel count pointless.

"Also, take into account that the relative position of WTC7 and the pyramid-like building in front of it are different in both shots. So where would you think the "backdrop" starts?" Not sure what relative positions have to do with the question. It’s obvious where it begins, isn’t it? About where the colour washes out beyond the reddish buildings.

The ‘star’ analogy is good for explaining the subject, but the distances are way off; my best estimate is that we’re talking about less than a mile, not billions of them!

“Still I fully agree that all those videos are fakes” Which?
“…for a couple of reasons.” Which?

“…you can't beat the software or any of those guys on the math.”
You mean the underpaid under-trained labour with the computer game software? Perhaps maths just isn’t their strong suit.


What’s with the black oval on the lamppost in the image above showing the vantage point for SIFF? I can’t see it in the video.

I popped out of smokes, by the way, but always a regular reader of this most excellent site.
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 20th, 2013, 6:33 pm

*
Idschmyd, so good to 'hear' from you - I've been sincerely missing your consistently most excellent contributions. :)


°°°°°°°°°°

MIND THE GAP

Rusty,

Today, I made a very simple experiment. I went out in my garden and snapped two photos of the view from my house. I moved laterally for exactly 15m between the two shots.

Here's the first picture. The yellow house is approx 600m away from my camera (I have checked it in Google maps). The tree, as you can see, is slightly nearer. We can see a distinct GAP between the two:

Image

Here's the second picture. As you can see, my 15m lateral displacement (to my left) has caused that GAP to disappear:
Image

Now, the distance from-cameras-to-WTC1 in the two clips analyzed in my last post above is also approx 600m. The lateral displacement between "SIFF-POST" and "SCARBOROUGH" would have been - at the very least - 15m (but that's a quite conservative estimate). Yet, as you can see, the GAP between WTC7 and WTC1 seems to have barely changed - if at all:

Image
Image

The reason I brought up the question of perspectives (which I think everyone has basic notions of from school - art/geometry classes) is because the 9/11 imagery has often been shown to be flawed, from the incoherent "airplane" trajectories to the very Manhattan architecture and street views. Yes, theoretically and in 'normal' illustrative circumstances (architectural / industrial design and such), pre-2001 3D softwares should have been able to simulate realistic renditions of intricate objects /environments.

The thing is, the 9/11 animations required a complex mixture (tower collapses + smoke effects + running people, etc) of 3D-CGI renderings and separately captured, 'green-screened' imagery. These various techniques and image layers had to be combined in post-production, thus introducing a human - and therefore, fallible - factor. No amount of maths would have made up for the difficulty, for instance, to insert at perfection a given 3D-CGI tower-collapse-rendering into numerous POVs of street-scenery foregrounds. Having said that, it is quite possible such perfection can be achieved today - as recent Hollywood productions suggest - but was evidently still unattainable twelve years ago. This would, of course, also go to explain why the perps felt it necessary to release a whole new batch of slicker, higher-res 9/11 imagery in 2010...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby beyondafringe on May 20th, 2013, 7:14 pm

Rusty,

You should run those two "garden shots" through a tamper test, then post the results, regardless of their veracity affirming nature.

So impartiality can be seen in action, and comedic potential.

In all seriousness, those could indeed be used as 'control' examples for comparison with the many manipulation riddled 'test positives' to be found in various threads.

I have to admit to not really understanding what I'm looking at when these scans are posted. I have read more than a little of this

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial.php but was either looking/starting in the wrong place or afflicted with some inability to comprehend.

Could not find an example of 'tested good/clean/tamper-free' image result.

I wanted to ask if a control/comparison image, one that passes muster and shows what a real photograph should look like after the forensics, was to be found?

Simon, it must be hard to stay indoors and ignore such a view calling. I suppose you may have a window, having had precious extra seconds to think about it.
beyondafringe
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: March 22nd, 2013, 12:22 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 20th, 2013, 8:13 pm

Hi Simon,

simonshack wrote:Now, the distance from-cameras-to-WTC1 in the two clips analyzed in my last post above is also approx 600m. The lateral displacement between "SIFF-POST" and "SCARBOROUGH" would have been - at the very least - 15m (but that's a quite conservative estimate). Yet, as you can see, the GAP between WTC7 and WTC1 seems to have barely changed - if at all:


If you take the width of WTC1 as a reference or maybe the width of the tip of that pointed building to the right, you will find that the gap in the second image is in fact smaller than in the first one. I guess about 20%.
Where did you get those 600m from? It would be helpful to have a map with WTC1, WTC7 and the rough location of both cameras. Then we could determine exactly what the difference in the gap should look like, in angular or relative terms.

Lovely view from your garden! If you can tell the camera angle of your shot, BTW, you can calculate the distance from the tree quite exactly using simple trigonometry. A rough guess would be about 400m.

idschmyd wrote:“Please let me know if you're interested in further information.” Where did you learn your underhandedly condescending ‘Bbc’ style?


I didn't mean to come across as overbearing, sorry if it sounded like that. All I wanted to say is that I have the "Verrazano Bridge Simulation" images and animations available, just in case you want to see them. I don't want to bother anyone with too much boring stuff if it's self-evident what I wanted to say anyway.

idschmyd wrote:“If you look closely enough, you will notice that the debris position is not FULLY identical.” And if you look closely enough you’ll find Simon specifically avoids saying it is absolutely identical. It is astonishingly close, though – it may be identical but the image quality makes a pixel count pointless.


I think that's an important point. For me it wasn't quite clear if Simon was implying that they were using an identical backdrop or rather one that's just "too similar" somehow.

idschmyd wrote:“Still I fully agree that all those videos are fakes” Which?


All of the 9/11 collapse videos I'd think, and probably most if not all of the videos showing the WTC that day. Huh?

idschmyd wrote:“…for a couple of reasons.” Which?


I think this forum is choke-full of plenty of stuff explaining why. In the Verrazano bridge case, it's just inconceivable that anyone would use that ridiculous zoom factor from a helicopter cam and still get smooth and crystal clear images. It's a snap in CGI software, though.

idschmyd wrote:“…you can't beat the software or any of those guys on the math.”
You mean the underpaid under-trained labour with the computer game software? Perhaps maths just isn’t their strong suit.


Even the early computer games got the perspective issues right. No problem here.
Of course, you need to select the camera position carefully, but that should be the simplest part. Even an underpaid producer can do this correctly, and if it doesn't work out anyway, his produce will suffer it's fate in the digital dustbin.

idschmyd wrote:What’s with the black oval on the lamppost in the image above showing the vantage point for SIFF? I can’t see it in the video.


You mean you can't see it in the Scarborough video? That would be because the Scarborough camera position is closer to the WTC than the black oval, isn't it?

rusty
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby rusty on May 20th, 2013, 10:15 pm

Here's a crude map I came up with, composed of an old WTC map and the current Google maps view of Manhattan:

Image

I think we can agree that both cameras were placed on West St., next to the (Scar?-)Borough of Manhattan Community College, the Siff-Post shot sitting behind and west from the Scarborough position. The 600m distance estimate from WTC1 is a pretty good guess, I think something between 600m and 700m probably. Distance between WTC7 and WTC1 is about 100m-150m.

I painted the two "gap angles" between WTC7 and WTC1 for the two camera positions in red and green. Feel free to use your own, more precise guesses. But I think it's insignificant for the overall picture. The result will come up the same: The Scarborough gap is somewhat, but not much, smaller than the Siff-Post gap. About 20%, just as shown in the videos. Hope this makes my point clear.

rusty
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on May 20th, 2013, 11:20 pm

rusty wrote:Here's a crude map I came up with, composed of an old WTC map and the current


Rusty,

That's a pretty accurate map. Your approximate measurements are not far off - although I now have looked a bit closer into those Westside Highway/WTC Manhattan distances. The SIFF-POST/ SCARBOROUGH camera-to-WTC1 distance is more like 800m - while their approx distance to WTC7 is more like 680m.

I have also made a more thorough verification of the distances between my camera and the tree and yellow house in my "garden shots". Amazingly, it looks like they are pretty similar to the above-mentioned distances:

Image

Yet, when I moved only 15m to the left, that GAP completely disappeared.

So the mystery remains: do perspectives behave differently from one country to another? Are perspectives subject to some sort of cosmic refraction effect which varies according to the cities you happen to be filming in? ^_^


Disclaimer: I will perform a definitive check of the above "garden-shot" distances with my friend's home-built little GPS camera helicopter - weather permitting. Stay tuned.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby idschmyd on May 21st, 2013, 2:31 am

Hard work for fun, isn’t it?

If you take the width of WTC1 as a reference…. you will find that the gap in the second image is in fact smaller than in the first one. I guess about 20%.

The supposed difference in the distance from ‘camera’ to target between the two images is also important, isn’t it? Since it’s unknown, it makes an unknowable difference to the apparent size of buildings. Assuming Scarbs is supposed to be 50 metres closer to the Tower than Sniff, how should we size the Towers to then calculate the affect of a 15 metre lateral shift? Sizing the Towers equally does not seem to give me a 20% difference in the size of gap or debris. Far less. The distance from the west (left) edge of T7 to the west edge of the north face of T1 (!) is almost identical, and the debris is (almost?) identically sized and shaped. I’m just not getting the ‘20%’. I have to say that as yet the physical demo (Simon’s and a domestic event here) are compelling, despite the maths.

You ‘would say… all of the 9/11 collapse videos…’ are fakes, as well as ‘all of the videos showing the WTC that day.’ Agreed. Now the question what makes us think it. You say of the V. Bridge malarkey: ‘it's just inconceivable that anyone would use that ridiculous zoom factor from a helicopter cam and still get smooth and crystal clear images.’ You’re not suggesting this is the only reason, are you? I know bog-all about zoom-and-focus potential, but I’d cite among other things the bizarre colour balances and inconsistencies between the various composites, inconsistent bridge position between clips, and, yes, the way the bridge continues to circle the foreground after the ‘camera’ has apparently ceased moving. Not to mention the un-photographic look of it all – choose any clip.
You add, “It's a snap in CGI software, though.” I don’t know what this is, but the ‘though’ looks worryingly like plausible case for what you’ve just claimed is ‘just inconceivable’. Maybe I’m off base?

The ‘quality’ of the Sniff n Scab imagery above is far out. It’s tough to work out what ‘they’re’ suggesting with it. Camera tilt? I mean, look at the two images from Simon’s pad (he lives in a shed, but the view is class). See how the image is holistic – everything belongs, hangs together, every blade and rooftop. The crap on the previous page is all over the place. Their computer models simplify, omit, place stuff on layers, on planes. It works in degrees and notches. Human vision is incomparably fantastic; ‘virtual reality’ my arse. When did anyone look at a ‘9/11’ image and think how awesome it is? When can you ever gaze endlessly at images by this bunch and marvel at the reality it represents, at the depth, at the architectural details, at the leaves on the trees, the creases in faces? What a sad and weird little world these scumbags generated.
The black blob on the lamppost in the SIFF image… I’ve lost interest. But that chopper sounds fun!
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 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 0 guests