THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by starfish prime » Sat May 21, 2016 5:57 pm

CluedIn wrote: At 9 second mark Towers are solid white - no windows

At the 35 second mark the camera pans up and the Towers slowly fade INTO view.

Notice the temperature on a clock is 69 - It was a crisp fall day 9/11/01 and would not have been 69 degrees that early.

People on the ground look non-chalant, lighting cigarettes, smiling at the camera - knowing there is a camera to look at. Nobody is covered in ash. The footage of the people on the ground are very crisp and clear - too clear for 2001 cameras.

At the 4 minute mark Ambulance #3 is driving down the road and a slight plume of smoke rises from the street - then the air is clear. Also a movie poster shown for movie called "Don't Say A Word".

The obligatory "Oh My God" heard throughout.
And the inevitable jump cut at the moment the plane supposedly hits...
simonshack wrote:Dear Starfish Prime,

That is by no means a 'new' 9/11 clip. Well, it is actually only six years old or so, since it was a clip included in the infamous "NIST-FOIA Cumulus" batch (all of 4.7 gigabytes of it) of 'never-seen-before-9/11-imagery' released back in 2010 (allegedly / officially due to a FOIA filed by ABC Television... I kid you not!)
Thank you, Simon. I figured you guys must have already torn this clip apart.
brianv wrote:Video? You are having a laugh. A question SP - do those "images" look anything like reality to you?

"Ohmygod" is a Sample.
I think you are reading a bit too much into the word "video," which I only meant in the sense of "moving images that are seen in a recording or broadcast." I assume this was created using 'virtual reality' software.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Sat May 21, 2016 6:07 pm

I think we need to be more cautious when using the term "video" to describe some crap knocked up with TV news studio backdrops. And I think you're giving them far too much credit - Virtual Reality indeed? It looks nothing like reality. Virtual crap.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sat May 21, 2016 9:55 pm

brianv wrote:I think we need to be more cautious when using the term "video" to describe some crap knocked up with TV news studio backdrops. And I think you're giving them far too much credit - Virtual Reality indeed? It looks nothing like reality. Virtual crap.
Dear Brian, I hear you - but don't be so harsh with people not knowing how to call / define whatever fake imagery being produced (on a daily basis) to fool the entire world with. Have we not been battling with this 'semantic' problem for well over a decade now? As you may have noticed, my way of circumventing this problem nowadays is just to call any given piece of suspect 'video footage', quite generically - a clip.

However, dear Starfish Prime, the above clip of the alleged "WTC strike" certainly cannot be defined as a 'Virtual Reality production'. It is just plain old / crass CGI (Computer-Generated-Imagery). It is now high time for everyone to realize how regularly plain old CGI technology is being exploited by the powers that be - in order to shape our worldviews and psyches - by hypnotizing the public via entirely fake / staged events. Alas, even though Hollywood movies are chock-full of CGI, most people still believe that they can easily tell the difference between a REAL video and a professional CGI production. This really is a major hurdle for most people to overcome. Unfortunately, MOST people would still say today :

"How could all the 9/11 tower-collapse imagery possibly be CGI??? It looks pretty damn real to me!"

Of course, the very word "CGI" has been ridiculed all over the internets in later years - and expectedly so (it has now almost become a synonym of "conspiracy theorist"). Image fakery - mostly CGI - is the PRIME tool of mass deception used by the Nutwork (i.e. the "powers that be") - yet most people don't seem to comprehend this simple fact. I personally rate this widespread intellectual deficiency (not being aware of what can be done with CGI technology) as the NUMBER 1 problem of modern society. As we have comprehensively demonstrated on this forum over the years, image fakery has been used to fool people into believing in all sorts of terror attacks, the "atomic bomb" and - last but not least - the "space race". That's right: image fakery has dumbed down this entire world. We simply cannot allow ourselves anymore to underestimate the manipulative power of fake imagery - in ALL of its forms.

Mind you, before modern CGI technology came into being, there were already many other ways to produce imagery which looked realistic enough to fool / mesmerize the contemporary viewers / audiences of their time. For instance (and returning to the 'semantic' theme), how exactly would you define this imagery - produced back in 1898 by George Meliès?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oFnOAnL8Ss

A (real) movie? A (real) video? A CGI animation? A cartoon?

None of the above words apply. It simply is the product of a clever 'imagery magician' - back in 1898.
Just imagine what 'imagery magicians' are able to do today.


Not that what was aired on TV on 9/11 was quite as compelling as the above 1898 'clip' by Georges Meliès !

Image
"WTC2 collapse" - as aired on NBC television - "live" on 9/11

It still makes me gasp in awe how most people continue to define the 9/11 imagery as "REAL / AUTHENTIC NEWS FOOTAGE"...
One of my current personal battles is, in fact, to keep myself from calling / defining all such people "terminally stupid" or "demented".
Who knows? Maybe Georges Meliès actually meant to depict - in an allegorical way - such headless people.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Sun May 22, 2016 11:27 am

I didn't mean to be harsh, it just irks me somewhat to hear the likes of this... Image...referred to as "video".

^And I rest my case. Virtual Crap knocked up in a TV studio, I bet even the clowns who made it now cringe at it's appearance. The fake zooms and tilts hints at this being a photograph originally. Virtual Dub.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun May 22, 2016 2:24 pm

simonshack wrote:It still makes me gasp in awe how most people continue to define the 9/11 imagery as "REAL / AUTHENTIC NEWS FOOTAGE"...
We humans are hard-wired to naturally believe in the reality of what we see. Life would be a living hell without this "architectural arrangement". Therefore, unfortunately, CGI will always be effective, no matter how exhaustively MSM imagery magic is exposed.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun May 22, 2016 4:14 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
simonshack wrote:It still makes me gasp in awe how most people continue to define the 9/11 imagery as "REAL / AUTHENTIC NEWS FOOTAGE"...
We humans are hard-wired to naturally believe in the reality of what we see. Life would be a living hell without this "architectural arrangement". Therefore, unfortunately, CGI will always be effective, no matter how exhaustively MSM imagery magic is exposed.
That's true to some extent. Yes.

I have been doing some yoga sorta stretches lately. And I stood on one leg with my head back, looking up at a ceiling. When I thought I could close my eyes, I would do so and quickly lose more balance.

When my eyes were open, I couldn't even notice the default corrective measures my body was doing to keep me balanced on one leg. Yet I could tell that simply seeing the ceiling was what oriented me.

The truth is that it's more about which senses taken together you exercise which gain strength together. Doing too much of one thing can eventually weaken that thing or make you too reliant on it or both. As a writer and/or visual artist that can get too wrapped up in visual work for long periods of time, I need to take physical breaks — bike, jog — sit quietly in nature and do nothing but observe and listen, or even nap, and things like that.

Being in a culture that is largely sedentary while it's contrarily rocketing its ass to and fro, afraid of smells and touch more than cultures that must use those for survival, and a culture which is practically deafened by constant airline noise, traffic noise, burping exhaust pipes, flashing screens and so on, we become extremely reliant on our visual input and loud noises. The scary "smart phone" era is one where this very unsubtle, overt, control-freak marketed handheld device is what is supposed to fill in any need for the "subtle"/quiet aspects of our lives.

This, however, also means (especially in Capitalistic environment where visuals aren't "protected") everything is competing for immediate, human (i.e.; based on our languages) visual attention. "Survival" nowadays tends to mean either the navigation of the visual environment to help us build a working visual map of necessities and dangers or it means a slightly crazed person with alternative views hoarding guns. The present dominant cult is pitting these tendencies against one another and reaping the cream off the top of the fray.

Perhaps, as people knowledgeable about these things, we might benefit from sharing with others more sensitive observations. Non-visual input. Non-music audio input. Everyone learns differently, really, don't they?

See how fast the subject changes when in an urban environment and you try to focus on subtle things besides blaring music and memories of the latest visual explosion fest stuck in your head. Most people are swirling around in a loud, vivid, visual landscape and other kinds of inputs are too effacing of that culture, embarrassing or difficult.

I may sound like an old man but I am starting to understand all the old people's complaints that the world has gotten really loud and intense. Not sure that's an evil grandiose design or just a change. Human nature is to be drawn to stimulation, no? We are addicts. And our culture is largely the experience of a perpetual visual fatigue.

And then you have this other funny situation; people who really finally take time to relax and look at something with fresh eyes don't want to examine something "icky" like 9/11. To them, sensitive observations are a treat rather than a constant indulgence.

Those of us who are sensitive to a variety of things — good and bad — we must be pretty lucky.

starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by starfish prime » Sun May 22, 2016 9:02 pm

Ok, sorry, I will try to choose my words more carefully in the future. I honestly did not realize "video" would be taken in any way other than what is meant by the "videos" section of Google. But, in retrospect, I can see how it might give the wrong impression. I am fine with using "clip" instead. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that that "amateur" clip from 2010 is better quality than the "professional" ones from 2001 (which are barely a step above ASCII art). If anything, it just reinforces the notion that they are all fake, unless we are to believe that the average person was walking around with better cameras than the news agencies.

And I just figured that it was constructed in a manner similar to, for example, the Naudet or "Straw Hat Man" clips, but with slightly improved rendering (at least I couldn't find any people walking through each other). The sky area including towers is clearly a separate layer. But did they just use footage taken at that location (possibly after the area had already been evacuated), replace the sky layer, and then insert witnessims (possibly using real actors for motion capture), ambulances and debris? Or would they create some kind of 3D map of the location in virtual space, via photogrammetry, with texture overlays, and then inhabit it (this is all i meant by "virtual reality" software)? I have no doubt that they could create whatever they wanted with CGI; I’m just trying to get a better grasp of what the actual process might have looked like.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Mon May 23, 2016 1:32 pm

starfish prime wrote: The sky area including towers is clearly a separate layer. But did they just use footage taken at that location (possibly after the area had already been evacuated), replace the sky layer, and then insert witnessims (possibly using real actors for motion capture), ambulances and debris?

I’m just trying to get a better grasp of what the actual process might have looked like.
Dear SP,

Let us firstly consider this: with zero budget constraints, the 9/11 perps had an unlimited range of image fakery techniques to their disposal - so we may only speculate as to which particular methods were used. However, what we can ascertain beyond reasonable doubt is whether or not, for instance, a given clip could possibly have been captured (as claimed) in the early morning hours in Manhattan - as I have done here.

Did they film their 'dramatic crowd/ street sceneries' on location (around the streets of Lower Manhattan), at any time before September 11 2001? Quite possibly. But if so, some of them (as I have demonstrated on a few occasions / i.e. for various "9/11 early-morning-street-action clips" - including the infamous Naudet 'footage') must have been filmed at the 'wrong' time of day. This fact alone (the Sun Never Lies) disqualifies the "9/11 street-action" clips from any claim to authenticity - as they cannot represent any sort of reality unfolding on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Yes, as you justly point out, "the sky area including towers is clearly a separate layer". See, one of the things that 'made life somewhat easier' for the image fakers / perps, is a well-known technical limitation of your standard / private camcorder or such like. We may call it (as does the author of the article linked below) "exposure lag". This brief 'lag' will occur whenever you pan your camera from a darker area to a brighter area (such as the daylit sky).

All about "exposure lag" :
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/ ... some-light


This "exposure lag" is what they try to simulate here, for instance
(presumably, in order to add a 'realistic touch' to their "9/11 street-action" clips) :
Image
source clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zov3msmY6MA

As I said, the very existence of this 'pesky exposure delay' may have 'made life somewhat easier' for them
- insofar as they obviously had to insert their "flamin' & smokin' towers" in the various "9/11 street-action" clips.

Here's a bonus 'street-action' clip for you ... :)
Image
Clip from "Independence Day" (1996)

starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by starfish prime » Tue May 24, 2016 4:00 am

simonshack wrote: Dear SP,

Let us firstly consider this: with zero budget constraints, the 9/11 perps had an unlimited range of image fakery techniques to their disposal - so we may only speculate as to which particular methods were used. However, what we can ascertain beyond reasonable doubt is whether or not, for instance, a given clip could possibly have been captured (as claimed) in the early morning hours in Manhattan - as I have done here.

Did they film their 'dramatic crowd/ street sceneries' on location (around the streets of Lower Manhattan), at any time before September 11 2001? Quite possibly. But if so, some of them (as I have demonstrated on a few occasions / i.e. for various "9/11 early-morning-street-action clips" - including the infamous Naudet 'footage') must have been filmed at the 'wrong' time of day. This fact alone (the Sun Never Lies) disqualifies the "9/11 street-action" clips from any claim to authenticity - as they cannot represent any sort of reality unfolding on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Yes, as you justly point out, "the sky area including towers is clearly a separate layer". See, one of the things that 'made life somewhat easier' for the image fakers / perps, is a well-known technical limitation of your standard / private camcorder or such like. We may call it (as does the author of the article linked below) "exposure lag". This brief 'lag' will occur whenever you pan your camera from a darker area to a brighter area (such as the daylit sky).

All about "exposure lag" :
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/ ... some-light


This "exposure lag" is what they try to simulate here, for instance
(presumably, in order to add a 'realistic touch' to their "9/11 street-action" clips) :
[...]
As I said, the very existence of this 'pesky exposure delay' may have 'made life somewhat easier' for them
- insofar as they obviously had to insert their "flamin' & smokin' towers" in the various "9/11 street-action" clips.

Here's a bonus 'street-action' clip for you ... :)
Dear Simon,

Thank you for your elaboration! While simply presenting proof of the fakery (as you and the rest of Cluesforum have done so comprehensively) is the important part, I think having a reasonable guess as to how it was carried out can be useful in swaying those who stubbornly refuse to accept that such deception could have been possible. Your ideas about the disparate shadows arising from filming some of the “footage” at the wrong time, and their exploiting the “exposure lag,” make perfect sense.

It makes me wonder if some of those big blockbuster CGI films from the 1990s (Independence Day, The Matrix, etc.) were produced specifically with the intent of conditioning the populace to strongly associate these relatively-new (for the public) techniques with giant alien spacecraft, rolling walls of flame, “bullet time,” and other fantastical images that are very obviously not real, and are always used within the context of a professional feature film. So when the average person was confronted with "found footage," depicting a scene that did not exceed their believability threshold (lowered by the Hollywood "suspension of disbelief" programming), and complete with exposure delay, jerky camerawork, and such, their brain would simply turn off and accept it as real. This appears to have been effective even while these films were simultaneously serving a “predictive” function (the similarity between the attacks of “Independence Day” and 9/11, or the expiration date of Neo’s passport, for example). After all, many of the supposedly “pioneering” CGI films of Hollywood were also used to reinforce the reality of various other hoaxes also exposed on this forum (nuclear weapons in “Terminator 2“; dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park”; or the vicsim jumpers of “Titanic,” falling to their deaths 4 years before 9/11).

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Thu May 26, 2016 4:02 pm

Visit to Simon´s house

Earlier this month, my better half and I spent a wonderful week at Simon´s villa in Frascati.

Image

Frascati is a peaceful, hilly region, dotted with small vineyards and old family homes. The weather was chilly, but we kept warm with plenty of Italian coffee, spicy pasta prepared by our new-found friend Marco, and of course Simon and venerable Mama Kerstin´s munificent hospitality. Now I know where Simon got his musical talent from!

Mixing sightseeing in Rome with absorbing talks in Frascati, I had a glimpse of Simon´s groundbreaking astronomical studies into what seems to be a binary geocentrorbital system. Like many other CF members, I had been wondering why it was taking Simon so long to publish his long-promised model, but when I saw his 86-page preliminary summary I realized it is no small baby which is about to be delivered!

Simon´s life is not a bed of roses, and there is no supportive family, lavish sponsorship or Nobel prize around the corner. But it is not a sob story either. The simple life attracts sincere friends and homemade olive oil, and adversity is sometimes the best fuel for musical expression and original thinking.

-------------------------

Thanks for everything, Simon. Please consider being our guest here in Northeastern Brazil. I might just be able to find someone who can to teach you how to sleep in a hammock.

Image

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Thu May 26, 2016 6:16 pm

Flabbergasted wrote: Thanks for everything, Simon. Please consider being our guest here in Northeastern Brazil. I might just be able to find someone who can to teach you how to sleep in a hammock.
Dear Flabbergasted, it was a great pleasure to host you and your equally smart and open-minded ( :) ) better half. Thanks for your return-invite which, as finances allow, I will certainly take up. Meanwhile, I'll try my best this coming summer to self-teach myself how to sleep in that wonderful hammock you brought me !

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:25 am

Random thought for the day: it's entirely possible that the masterminds behind the hoax (and to some extent their followers and sycophants) have deluded themselves into believing they are actually performing a public service admirably/morally by forcing everyone to accept the negative consequences of their actions as if merely distantly observing themselves from afar (and affording to because of wealth, class or privilege that affords them even greater distance from the pain of their fellow beings).

Like talking to someone austere and vain, they are fine at quoting passages at you, cowering behind the feigned comprehension of artistic pseudonym, but not so great at processing and accepting the thoughts of another person; that is, until the other is merely "awed" and basking in what they perceive as their own genius. Everything to a psychopath may only seem as some artistic dressing for them to abuse and freely comment on from a point of blind self-entitlement, privilege or other fancy completely disconnected from the reactions of those they are too fog brained to get into true intellectual discourse with.

Spamming or trolling or talking patronizingly and indirectly is, in such a person's rarefied mind, a replacement for any responsibility to work toward a true exchange, rather than what it may be in actuality: an expression of deep mistrust.

People who act entirely on an infinite paranoia or mistrust may have some kind of limited conceited artistry but little of what common sense we may call humanity. Hence, they may find what is in their mind "self-evident" to others, without a need for a truly engaging discussion or interaction — and in so doing believe they have done the right, proper and perfectly natural thing of remaining oblivious and aloof to the numerous ways their words may be interpreted when they don't even try to speak to you directly. The fault, they reason, is not in their impatience and romantic self-perception, but in the other's inability to simply read their mind the moment they produce an utterance or writing or computer-animated hoaxed video.

It may be a kind of common religion of many politicians, really.

The antidote is communication. True communication. Persistent communication. Listening, asking, paraphrasing, and time spent hearing and weighing all sides and opining on them in such a manner that anyone speaking the same language and who is listening can understand and weigh those sides for themselves. You know what communication is. These people have forgotten.

Or else, and this could very well be, they are too afraid to allow themselves the ability to recall a time they had once needed ideas from others for they came into the world as we all do — so dependent, so little and so fragile. And maybe in bitter, thankless subconscious recollection, they can only justify their existence by imposing dependency, being petty and exploiting weakness. Is there a way to inspire these people to reengage, or must they be thoroughly displaced from their ill-gained power?

I won't give up, but I cannot accept empty words, empty quotes, platitude poetry and token correspondence thrown at the image of us behind their eyeballs as the Doctrine of Discovery was mumbled to the wind to justify genocide. I will accept as a replacement true, humble, generous and very necessary real communication using common language (of written and spoken words and ideas) with respect for life's sanctity actually composed originally for me, addressed to me, my family, my friends, my community and all good communities of this world — and if this respectful request for a real initiation of dialogue is to myself as a representative of the respect for life, I expect the communicator to also represent themselves and not ever some passed-down message or incongruous non sequitur as if they alone have the ultimate stage and sole merited attention just because they represent the obsequious or obnoxious false elite.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:46 pm

An interesting bit of info.
Very large or sustained smoke screens are produced by a smoke generator. This machine heats a volatile material (typically oil or an oil based mixture) to evaporate it, then mixes the vapor with cool external air at a controlled rate so it condenses to a mist with a controlled droplet size. Cruder designs simply boiled waste oil over a heater, while more sophisticated ones sprayed a specially formulated oily composition ("fog oil") through nozzles onto a heated plate. Choice of a suitable oil, and careful control of cooling rate, can produce droplet sizes close to the ideal size for Mie scattering of visible light. This produces a very effective obscuration per weight of material used. This screen can then be sustained as long as the generator is supplied with oil, and—especially if a number of generators are used—the screen can build up to a considerable size. One 50 gallon drum of fog oil can obscure 60 miles (97 km) of land in 15 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:55 pm

pov603 wrote::) How apt that the following year, 2002, Mayor Bloomberg brought in a 'smoke-free' act in NY/Manhattan...law 47 [?]...



I will post url later as cannot do so for some reason at present.
It does so get in one's eyes. <_<

Equivoque
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:04 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Equivoque » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:24 pm

I would like to have your thoughts on the three following images that you can directly view here : http://wtc.com/about/buildings/2-world-trade-center, and more specifically on the text on them, and its possible meanings.

Image

The text is :
Such gliding wonders! Such sights and sounds!
Such join'd unended links, each hook'd to the next!
Each answering all, each sharing the earth
withall. Each of us inevitable; Each of us limitless
Each of us with his or her right upon the earth;Each
of us allow'd the eternal purports of the earth.
Each of us here as divinely as any is here.
Here are the second and third images :
http://wtc.com/upload/media/photos/2-wo ... by-BIG.jpg

http://wtc.com//upload/media/photos/2-w ... y-DBOX.jpg

I found a better version, allowing to clearly discern the punctuation and the letters.

Image

The text is :
Telling the stories that matter. Seeding ideas and stirring emotion. Capturing moments. Making sense of the world.

Post Reply