FAKING THE RUBBLE

[nonhocapito]

Since some real rubble actually must have been there after the towers were taken down, I don't know if we can yet say for sure that all the WTC rubble imagery is faked (although, now that I think about it, it would probably be needed to make the rubble consistent with the implosion pictures, where parts of steel are shown to be left standing, and all the rest pulverized etc)
Anyway sometimes the imagery of the rubble certainly looks weird and most times, where we have the "heroes" in pose, completely staged or photoshopped.

This one below comes from the FEMA photos in the "Kurt Sonnenfeld" zip file, and I think it represent the same scenery discussed above --from the side.
Could the black building part on the right be A1? It certainly isn't A2 (supposedly out of the picture to the right), but like reel.deel says I'm not sure that in those shots A1 is supposed to be A2.



Is this the same thing from yet another side? (talking about staged/photoshopped pictures) (also from the Sonnenfeld zip file):

[Dcopymope]

It looks as though the crowd of guys on the right was added into the picture, particularly the guys in what looks to me like military garb. They don’t look like they fit into the whole scenery at all. I don’t remember it ever being reported that the military was there. Maybe all of the pictures are just a bunch of different images of objects and people put together, like a collage.

[reel.deal]

It looks as though the crowd of guys on the right was added into the picture

;) there! thats better! ...fish-eye lensed!
its landscape not fish-eye... ok

[nonhocapito]

And I'll say one more thing: If you don't get this, you are not going to be a credible member of this forum.

I know you probably have discussed this a hundred times Simon, but some of us haven't yet (I haven't) and because one person cannot figure out everything by himself, and the material on this forum or elsewhere is quite vast to be taken all in (it must happen over time, over years of research), maybe there is no need to question the "credibility" of people for this (well, it's your call, of course).

Anyway, your arguments make perfect sense. I wanna expose my line of thought only because possibly it can be useful to others:
As we all have seen and discussed many times, a big part of the perpetrators' plan was to include elements to divert attention towards pre-cooked "conspiracy" interpretations, including some unspecified and unprovable form of controlled demolition as evidence for the "inside job". So, because the WTC crime scene is, among other things, the scene of a controlled demolition, one could think that this is where the two levels (reality and the conspiratorial diversion) could, at least in part, collimate. That's the misunderstanding.
I guess what's not considered enough is that you cannot use *just some* real imagery that might work to feed either the official or the conspiratorial stories. You cannot because you have to create a whole set and it has to be coherent in all its parts: the planners could not be sure that the result of the demolition would fit harmlessly in its entirety, not even for the purpose to feed the conspiratorial crowd. This, in my understanding, is why reality had to be avoided completely also in presenting "the rubble".

For example, pictures like this one:

have a hazy nature that is perfect to be fed to the "conspiracy" crowd (rather than to the "official story" crowd). Those craters in the buildings look weird and yet they don't provide any answer or give out any useful clue.
Conversely, the perpetrators of the plan couldn't be 100% sure that the real imagery of a high-grade explosive demolition rubble would maintain those two qualities (drive the "people with questions" nuts, without providing any useful clue). Being reality, it probably would have provided some clue.

By the way, here is a larger crop of those buffoons in pose:

What a photoshop disaster... other than looking cut-out and pasted: The neck of the guy to the left; the "smoke" he seems to have in front of his face, while he is obviously not smoking; the lines on half of the face of the guy to the right... etc.

[nonhocapito]

Since I am digging inside the "Kurt Sonnenfeld" folder, here is another picture that could use some discussion (or not).

Weird white spots on the face, as if to confuse/track the identity represented:

Rain drops on the lens or rather left-overs of some device used in some sort of software? I can't answer to this.

** EDIT: I still have to figure out the identity of this one. Although other names surface as chiefs of Battalion 52, some say this guy is one "Joseph Pfeifer", chief of Battalion 1 (read his testimony on this PDF). Which begs the question, why the wrong hat?
Joseph Pfeifer on 9/11:

(I'm not sure this is the same guy)

[Jazza]

The chief 52 on his helmet is a Photoshop mess. It's blurry, and the angle is just wrong.

[nonhocapito]

The chief 52 on his helmet is a Photoshop mess. It's blurry, and the angle is just wrong.

too right, i hadn't noticed



it is not centered either, even the way the whole plate sticks to the helmet seems wrong, at least in the upper part. Even accounting for "custom" plates it seems too large and of a too simple shape.

By the way, funny how vicsim Joseph Grzelak, "Battalion Chief", dies in tower one at 52 years old.

For your entertainment: in 2002 Grzelak got this message from his "daughter": http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/guestbo ... try=706054

It's been almost a year since that terrible day when you were taken from us.

and this letter from his "wife": http://www.silive.com/september11/advan ... zelak.html

It's hard to believe that a year has gone by since your tragic death

Poor sim.

[simonshack]

I know you probably have discussed this a hundred times Simon, but some of us haven't yet (I haven't) and because one person cannot figure out everything by himself, and the material on this forum or elsewhere is quite vast to be taken all in (it must happen over time, over years of research), maybe there is no need to question the "credibility" of people for this (well, it's your call, of course).

nonhocapito,

You're right - sorry for acting like a human being :P yesterday, pardon... I'll duly retract my undue statement and replace it with: "I'm glad we're more eyes looking at this ridiculous imagery to expose it ever more conclusively!"

[Tufa]

Super-thank you for this thread! I have been sitting around here -- since April 2009 --- and I am not professional at the Photoshop enough to analyse also the still pictures. This video comes to mind: WTC Ground Zero Fakekvideo

If we continue the thought, the "Rescue workers" that is supposed to be "hurt" and "dying" form the "poisonous dust" is almost surely also included in the lying also, and I'll bet we cannot contact a single "rescue worker" that actually in the physically true world was on the scene. :)

*******
Take a look on the pictures from the top of the thread. Look at the studio floor (or the "ground"). The WTC complex had the ground level 7 floors up, built of steel and concrete. Completely impossible all these pedestrians and trucks and whatever. Then we have the steel itself, that you can see in the pictures. It is not bent and demolished as it should be (ref: GRN movie; it is in Swedish). Not even consistent with a real controlled demolition of the WTC building. So, when you see the steel lying or sticking up, he picture is fake. It is not from the real rubble pile.
The red rusty appearance is also probably wrong; this would be easy to check?

Ref: public_images_WTC Photos.zip.torrent/FEMA_photos/ foto no 383,386, 389, 375, 381, 353.

[nonhocapito]

Yeah I'm loving this thread. OK, here is what I understand (apologies if I am stating the obvious).
The buffoons are posing-shopped in Church Street next to Liberty Street corner

roughly here in Google street view (notice the federal building in the back):

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&i ... 6,,0,-1.27

So in the WTC map, they're here


So the black building in the back would be building 5, the closest building 4.
The way I see it, the 2 white steel columns frames do not belong there. They would be "parts" of the south tower that "fell" right there above building 4 and "stood".

So this picture

would be taken from here (notice that we are in line with the sidewalk)

the black crushed thing being a piece of building 4

and this one presented by reel.deel

would be taken from here [EDIT: I corrected this one again: now I imagine it to be taken from Cortland street because of the various "street corner" elements, plus the visible edge of the building to the right]

which would mean that building 4 was sort of split in half by the debris of the south tower.
But how those huge heavy column frames got stuck like that? There is no reason that I can see except for the dramatic effect they convey :D

[nonhocapito]

Errata corige: I previously stated the the buffon to the left "wasn't obviously smoking". I now retract this since I noticed that he does have a cigarette



although between the wrong fingers (as a former smoker I remember that to rarely but occasionally happen). But noticing this, and appreciating yet another reflection, I also noticed how unbelievably small the yellow tape becomes as soon as it goes down the sidewalk. Gee. How high a sidewalk can be?

[Veritasirl]

From a quick glance at the photos in this thread two words sum up what wrong with them; Perspective and Photoshoppery.

[simonshack]

edit: it seems david copperfield turned up and actually sawed wtc 4 in half, then 'vanished' it, so have withdrawn my own 'mock-up' clone-stamp wtc4 version. oops! damn! i should have guessed...

Thanks, reel deal

That's just what had me worried for a minute:That image you had photoshopped yourself...

See, you are not really disallowed to do such things here - by all means (although I know Hoi Polloi hates them) but please understand that - in such instances - you MUST state very clearly that you are the author of the photoshoppery! :o

However, I must thank you for starting this thread. The Ground Zero rubble imagery was something which I kind of didn't 'dare' tackle - but it has always puzzled me no end. Your welcome input gave me the 'courage' to take a good look at it - and I feel it has been quite rewarding. I will soon post the results of these last days of efforts and musings dedicated to this whole issue.

I have been scouring through hundreds of Ground Zero pictures and - as they say - a picture says more than a thousand words... So just imagine what hundreds can do ! <_<

[fred]

There is all kinds of propaganda buried in the rubble, from the "Cross at Ground Zero" to the "missing rubble" that Ace Baker tried to use to sell Judy Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapon paper, to the "molten metal" and "cut beams" that Steven Jones used for his thermite assertions.



One can either believe the official story: that for some reason photography was officially prohibited and yet there were photographers climbing all over each other taking pictures--or one can look and see that the rubble photos are as controlled and fake as all of the other September 11 images.

While I am a "fan" or "believer" in exotic weapons, a bunch of fake photos does not an exotic weapon prove.

It's pretty obvious at this point, for anyone willing to look, that these "rubble" and "rescue" photographs are all part of the psyop.

While somebody may in fact have gotten injured on the job site, I tend to think that most of the "dying rescue worker" stories are propaganda as well.

Obviously there hasn't been a whole lot of actual work going on at Ground Zero, because almost a decade later it's still just a vacant lot.

One might think that covering the cross with graffiti would be a little gauche, but hey, a prop is a prop.



For those who haven't seen it. Here's a link to mega-shill Ace Baker's hunt the rubble page: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-co ... RHome.html
Oddly, for someone who made a whole career out of 9/11 it's still claiming that some 3000 people died in the towers. I guess since he tried to fake his suicide on Jim Fetzer's radio show he's not getting paid to keep his site up to date...

[simonshack]

It appears that NO PHOTOGRAPHY was allowed at Ground Zero, as of an official order signed by NY Major Giuliani. I am inclined to believe that this was actually the case (even though some may accuse me of choosing to believe only pictures that fit our theories...):



So, what sort of justification would such a menacing WARNING SIGN have? What kind of problem would anyone cause to anyone by snapping pictures of the premises of such a historically defining, public event? One official motivation given was that "it was a crime scene". Oh yeah - it sure was !...

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: If you have had your camera seized by the authorities around Ground Zero, please get in touch!