9/11 SIMCITY
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Agh, I probably wasn't clear in what I meant, because I was referring to the video source. I couldn't find the shot with both pillars of the Verrazano Bridge in the footage hosted on http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive, because ABC kept switching "cameras" at the tail-end of the zoom-out. I needed the "raw" footage (for a rebuttal to a hilarious argument), which, fortunately, I found a short while ago.
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Quick question about this gif:
I've looked I don't know how many times and I can't see "the man in the black box", it just appears to be slightly blurred tree greenery - what am I failing to see and can it be highlighted?
I've looked I don't know how many times and I can't see "the man in the black box", it just appears to be slightly blurred tree greenery - what am I failing to see and can it be highlighted?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Yeah, I quite agree that the "man in black box" point wasn't much of a point...I actually meant to remove it from the SC website some time ago - and forgot about it. Have done so today, though.- so thanks for reminding me, Seth!Seth wrote:
I've looked I don't know how many times and I can't see "the man in the black box", it just appears to be slightly blurred tree greenery - what am I failing to see and can it be highlighted?
More about this at my SYNTHETIC CROWDS page on the SC website:
http://septemberclues.org/synthetic_crowds.htm
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Memories....
TWO OF A KIND (1)
SOURCE—
Plane photo-- http://rvision.daydreamlabs.com/user/50 ... 6778578227
Explosion Photo-- -- http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/2nd- ... -south.jpg
More info--
TWO OF A KIND (1)
photos credited to William Nunez (director/writer/producer) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0638035/
source of image: http://rvision.daydreamlabs.com/user/50 ... 6778578227
Some "9/11 eyewitness" apparently captured this wonderful, lucky shot. He snapped a pic JUST as "Flight 175" emerged from that building. That's Poolitzer Prize material, folks!
This other shot also depicts "Flight 175 - as it explodes". Hence, it is evidently (and supposedly) immediately successive to the shot.
This "William Nunez" claims he snapped these pictures with a $15 disposable Kodak camera.)
This claim is completely unbelievable. This claim is offensive to any photographer's intelligence.
SOURCE—
Plane photo-- http://rvision.daydreamlabs.com/user/50 ... 6778578227
Explosion Photo-- -- http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/2nd- ... -south.jpg
More info--
Bond analyst Will Nuñez had gone to his corner newsstand and bought a $14.99 disposable Kodak, hoping to record the smoking tower out his office window "for history's sake," he says. "I remembered an incident back in the thirties when a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and I was always impressed by photos in encyclopedias." Instead, from his perch on the thirty-second floor of One State Street Plaza, he captured the plane's breathtaking blur out his office window, quite unintentionally. In his shot, a colleague, standing before a vast picture window, looks on in silhouette, next to an innocuous baseball trophy, its tiny batter poised on a two-handled loving cup. The plane had streaked by with such speed, Nuñez had not even realized he had caught it on film until he finally got around to developing the roll a week or two later.
- David Friend, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 13.
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
CRASH PHYSICS
Hereby, I challenge any engineer specialized in crash physics to explain what we see in the 4 below videos.
How does this aluminum airliner penetrate the steel structure of the WTC without a single part shearing off?
PLEASE VIEW GIFS HERE--
SHOT 1: Credited to "Michael Hezarkhani"---
SHOT 2: Credited to "Luc Courchesne"---
SHOT 3: Credited to "Evan Fairbanks"---
SHOT 4: Credited to "Jennifer Spell"---
To be sure, this is a still completely unresolved issue to this day. NOT ONE individual contending that these are REAL videos has ever tackled this basic issue in any sort of scientific, peer-reviewed manner. Peer-reviewed? Yes well, that is a common requirement for any thesis/analysis to be deemed valid by our planet's scientific community.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Fairbanks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udVbDzN9Cgc#t=6m2s
Jenifer Spell - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cUfTOaUGw
Luc Courchesne- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMzmFaifzh0
Michael Hezarkhani- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU&fmt=22
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
I mentioned the other day how huge the research is, and from now on I want to post on a level that reflects that. Enjoy-
CNN BACKGROUND ERASED
SOURCED- 9/11 Television Archives.
CNN- 29.10 mins - http://archive.org/details/cnn200109110 ... art=1739.5
(hyper link straight too footage)
CNN BACKGROUND ERASED
SOURCED- 9/11 Television Archives.
CNN- 29.10 mins - http://archive.org/details/cnn200109110 ... art=1739.5
(hyper link straight too footage)
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
I like this fake, photoshopped, CGI photo rubbish a lot:
A plane has apparenly penetrated the south face of WTC2 and stopped and exploded inside WTC2 producing a FIREBALL penetrating the east/right face of WTC2 and also backwards through the already damaged south face. Doesn't it look terrible. OMG!
We cannot see if the FIREBALL also penetrated the WTC2 west/left face of WTC2 (facing NJ) or the WTC2 north/opposite the south face (facing uptown).
So I asked Google images/photos to show me some early close up pictures/photos/images of these faces after the alleged plane landing.
Result?
ZERO!
The stupid terrorist photoshoppers, CGI-makers forgot to make them.
A plane has apparenly penetrated the south face of WTC2 and stopped and exploded inside WTC2 producing a FIREBALL penetrating the east/right face of WTC2 and also backwards through the already damaged south face. Doesn't it look terrible. OMG!
We cannot see if the FIREBALL also penetrated the WTC2 west/left face of WTC2 (facing NJ) or the WTC2 north/opposite the south face (facing uptown).
So I asked Google images/photos to show me some early close up pictures/photos/images of these faces after the alleged plane landing.
Result?
ZERO!
The stupid terrorist photoshoppers, CGI-makers forgot to make them.
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Heiwa wrote:I like this fake, photoshopped, CGI photo rubbish a lot:
I hear you and feel the same. You made a good point in regards to the buildings. I have never seen them before.
SYNCHRONISED LIVE.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4VH7SmIZg
Using the above video as a reference.
Here is where the mainstream media were running the same footage on “rival” networks.
Max props for the research Simon, It's gold.
ABC AND CBS 1.21-
ABC- 23.37- http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1379.5
CBS-23.47- http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110 ... art=1379.5
ABC AND CBS AND NBC - 2.03
ABC- 25.07 - http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1499.5
CBS-25- 17 - http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110 ... art=1499.5
NBC- 25.17 - http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110 ... art=1499.5
ABC AND CBS AND NBC- 2.24
ABC- 25.49- http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1499.5
CBS-25- 59 - http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110 ... art=1499.5
NBC- 25.59 - http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110 ... art=1499.5
ABC AND CBS AND FOX- 2.33
ABC-26.01 - http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1559.5
CBS- 26.11- http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110 ... art=1439.5
FOX- 26.04 - http://archive.org/details/fox520010911 ... art=1559.5
ABC AND FOX- 2.49
ABC- 26.42- http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1559.5
FOX- 26.47- http://archive.org/details/fox520010911 ... art=1559.5
ABC AND CBS AND FOX- 3.24
ABC-27.46 – http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1619.5
FOX 27..52- http://archive.org/details/fox520010911 ... art=1559.5
NBC- 28.20- http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110 ... art=1679.5
CBS AND NBC AND FOX – 3.34
CBS- 28.14- http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110 ... art=1679.5
FOX- 28.13- http://archive.org/details/fox520010911 ... art=1679.5
NBC- 28.18- http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110 ... art=1679.5
FOX CBS AND NBC AND FOX 3.36
ABC- 28.13 http://archive.org/details/abc200109110 ... art=1679.5
CBS- 28.16- http://archive.org/details/cbs200109110 ... art=1679.5
FOX- 28.15- http://archive.org/details/fox520010911 ... art=1679.5
NBC- 28.20- http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110 ... art=1679.5
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
*
AN OSCARM NOMINEE
for "most ridiculous clip of 9/11"
This is what was (supposedly) aired on New York Tv station "NY1" on 9/11:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919UzVAfCuI
Here is another cropped/enlarged version of it, posted on the Youtube channel of that "CTV911" planehugger-cum- 9/11-imagery-archivist, who once actually registered here to troll around (can't remember the screen name he used on the forum). He calls the clip "2nd plane in view for 25 seconds"
I feel almost silly to even analyze this painfully poor CGI - but here we go. All I've done is to enlarge (equally) two frames (separated by 9 seconds) extracted from the clip - and applied some contrast - in order to somewhat better distinguish the "airplane pixels" from the "sky pixels". I will spare you any further comments ...
And remember, THIS is what was shown on CNN that day...
AN OSCARM NOMINEE
for "most ridiculous clip of 9/11"
This is what was (supposedly) aired on New York Tv station "NY1" on 9/11:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919UzVAfCuI
Here is another cropped/enlarged version of it, posted on the Youtube channel of that "CTV911" planehugger-cum- 9/11-imagery-archivist, who once actually registered here to troll around (can't remember the screen name he used on the forum). He calls the clip "2nd plane in view for 25 seconds"
I feel almost silly to even analyze this painfully poor CGI - but here we go. All I've done is to enlarge (equally) two frames (separated by 9 seconds) extracted from the clip - and applied some contrast - in order to somewhat better distinguish the "airplane pixels" from the "sky pixels". I will spare you any further comments ...
And remember, THIS is what was shown on CNN that day...
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Plane hugging archivists are a dime a dozen! and waste a lot of time gaining the footage, yet still spend no time finding any real evidence.
They have nothing on this humble no-planer archivist. Hahaaha
These hyper-links are the best, with them you can just jump straight to the point in the 9/11 TV archives where the fraud is.
ARCHIVED
CNN- 29.00 - http://archive.org/details/cnn200109110 ... start=1739
They have nothing on this humble no-planer archivist. Hahaaha
These hyper-links are the best, with them you can just jump straight to the point in the 9/11 TV archives where the fraud is.
ARCHIVED
CNN- 29.00 - http://archive.org/details/cnn200109110 ... start=1739
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
I don't currently have the ability to us "grab it" software to graphically show something (windows update/software problems) - but I came across something I think is interesting and if someone could
1) Tell which network is broadcasting it
2) Show graphically what is being represented (gifs or stills)
3) Show me if I have any errors.
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htAFmcYB ... re=related
Anomaly 1: Zoom out of 2 towers starts @ 2:20. In this zoom out there appears to be not 2, but 3 WTC towers. One in the middle, one to the left of it, and one in the background to the right. This can be seen again for a few seconds @ 5:04 and @ 9:05
Anomaly 2: @ 3:48 - Where is the Empire State Building?
1) Tell which network is broadcasting it
2) Show graphically what is being represented (gifs or stills)
3) Show me if I have any errors.
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htAFmcYB ... re=related
Anomaly 1: Zoom out of 2 towers starts @ 2:20. In this zoom out there appears to be not 2, but 3 WTC towers. One in the middle, one to the left of it, and one in the background to the right. This can be seen again for a few seconds @ 5:04 and @ 9:05
Anomaly 2: @ 3:48 - Where is the Empire State Building?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Seth,
The broadcast you linked to is from NBC with Matt Lauer and Couric. No, we don't see 3 towers - the 'third tower' you refer to is just (meant to be) the West façade of WTC1, but given the piss-poor quality of these 9/11 broascasts I can understand why people sometimes 'get fooled' into seeing strange things here and there! I'd suggest you spend more time familiarizing yourself with the (horrid) 9/11 CGI imagery before submitting further erroneous / faulty observations.
However, I will gladly explain why the ESB (Empire State Building) isn't seen in that shot - as it gives me the opportunity to further illustrate once again the sheer silliness of the various 9/11 Manhattan "aerial views"(both on LIVE TV and in successively released, supposed "amateur imagery").
Here is the view from that NBC broadcast you linked to. It is supposedly a TV chopper shot, apparently from somewhere NW uptown.
Now, here is a marvellous, supposed "amateur shot" purportedly captured by one "YURI FAKTOROVICH" who was, as the story goes, a Russian Cessna pilot who allegedly flew by Manhattan with his Cessna at around 9:03am - JUST as "Flight175" supposedly crashed into WTC2...
Here's a real photo taken from the WTC, looking uptown. I have playfully inserted "Yuri's Cessna" and "NBC's chopper4" at the approximate locations they were meant to be filming from. As you see, the ESB would be out of their viewing range. So, the 9/11 image fakery team obviously worked with some 3D imaging software - and tried as best they could to make it all look as credible as possible (well, sort of! To be sure, there's NO WAY for them to explain away the horrid 9/11 LIVE TV image quality - or the countless other aberrations pointed out by our imagery analyses):
The thing is - and as I've shown in the past - we are then asked to believe that NBC's "Chopper4" placed itself (and remained hovering there - for most of the morning, in fact) at the EXACT same aerial location where "YURI FAK(E)TOROVICH" snapped his marvellous Manhattan panorama !
You are of course free to believe in such wondrous coincidences and to think that "this is no proof of anything"... I prefer to conclude that the 9/11 fakery team were just a rather lazy, uncreative lot - who were content to play around with a mere few digitized panoramas of the Manhattan scenery, slapping together both their TV imagery and their "amateur" imagery with the same bunch of templates.
The broadcast you linked to is from NBC with Matt Lauer and Couric. No, we don't see 3 towers - the 'third tower' you refer to is just (meant to be) the West façade of WTC1, but given the piss-poor quality of these 9/11 broascasts I can understand why people sometimes 'get fooled' into seeing strange things here and there! I'd suggest you spend more time familiarizing yourself with the (horrid) 9/11 CGI imagery before submitting further erroneous / faulty observations.
However, I will gladly explain why the ESB (Empire State Building) isn't seen in that shot - as it gives me the opportunity to further illustrate once again the sheer silliness of the various 9/11 Manhattan "aerial views"(both on LIVE TV and in successively released, supposed "amateur imagery").
Here is the view from that NBC broadcast you linked to. It is supposedly a TV chopper shot, apparently from somewhere NW uptown.
Now, here is a marvellous, supposed "amateur shot" purportedly captured by one "YURI FAKTOROVICH" who was, as the story goes, a Russian Cessna pilot who allegedly flew by Manhattan with his Cessna at around 9:03am - JUST as "Flight175" supposedly crashed into WTC2...
Here's a real photo taken from the WTC, looking uptown. I have playfully inserted "Yuri's Cessna" and "NBC's chopper4" at the approximate locations they were meant to be filming from. As you see, the ESB would be out of their viewing range. So, the 9/11 image fakery team obviously worked with some 3D imaging software - and tried as best they could to make it all look as credible as possible (well, sort of! To be sure, there's NO WAY for them to explain away the horrid 9/11 LIVE TV image quality - or the countless other aberrations pointed out by our imagery analyses):
The thing is - and as I've shown in the past - we are then asked to believe that NBC's "Chopper4" placed itself (and remained hovering there - for most of the morning, in fact) at the EXACT same aerial location where "YURI FAK(E)TOROVICH" snapped his marvellous Manhattan panorama !
You are of course free to believe in such wondrous coincidences and to think that "this is no proof of anything"... I prefer to conclude that the 9/11 fakery team were just a rather lazy, uncreative lot - who were content to play around with a mere few digitized panoramas of the Manhattan scenery, slapping together both their TV imagery and their "amateur" imagery with the same bunch of templates.
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
But shouldn't the Empire State Building be seen somewhere left of Penn Plaza and Z on above lousy pic of Manhattan? I understand the picture is CGI but how could they miss copy/paste the Empire State Building into the rubbish?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: 9/11 SIMCITY
Don't think so, Heiwa. The ESB is correctly not seen - as it stands just beyond the left edge of this canvas.Heiwa wrote: But shouldn't the Empire State Building be seen somewhere left of Penn Plaza and Z on above lousy pic of Manhattan? I understand the picture is CGI but how could they miss copy/paste the Empire State Building into the rubbish?