9/11 SIMCITY

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
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7095
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:37 am

SmokingGunII wrote: We can see from the CP image (showing the side of the mysterious building) that it is shot from much further west. Thus, the antenna falling backwards would appear to fall west is consistent.

Fake but not impossible.
Dear Smoking Gun,

"Much further West"? Well, let's stay serious, my friend: If it's the same 'mysterious building' on both shots, the 2 cameramen still have it clearly framed in the (left) foreground of their shots. So they must be filming, in any event, from the same street. So how much "further West" can that be? And would that slight vantage point difference explain the different antenna angles/tilts?

But hey, are you familiar with Manhattan? If so, please help me understand where these shots were taken from. Keep in mind that the 'mystery building' appears taller than the twin towers themselves... :P

Last, but not least: how did Mr.Sauret keep both the mystery building AND the WTC in perfect focus?

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Heiwa » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:36 am

simonshack wrote:The "ETIENNE SAURET" WTC1 collapse clip:Image
NIST suggests that fire/heat weakened the steel columns in perimeter walls and the inner core so that the top part C above the fire zone (filled with smoke) could drop down on the bottom part A below the fire zone (not filled with smoke) and crush A into rubble B. Top part C should therefore be intact all the time while crushing down A.
It is not seen on the faked Sauret video. Top C apparently disappears (or is smashed to pieces?) and is replaced by smoke puffing out in all directions. It is physically impossible. Prove me wrong and I pay you € 1 million!! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm or http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm .

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Heiwa » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:51 am

I have described the faked, animated destruction of WTC1 at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and below; Pictures are copied from faked video available on Internet:
Image
Fig. A1 - The upper part C (floors 97-110 + mast) rests on the lower part! Destruction has not started. At right insert is shown upper part in original position. The smoke doesn't look very convincing! So much smoke from a little office fire?
Image
Fig. A2 - Destruction and collision (sic) have started!! The upper part C (floors 97-110 + mast) (95% air) is destroyed (using Photoshop!), while roof line and mast move down 5 floors or 18-19 meters. It, the upper part, should however remain intact and not get smaller and it should now crush down WTC 1 lower structure according US authorities! The animators are doing a lousy job! They add ejected, false smoke to cover up their mistakes, Hollywood style!
Image
Fig. A3 - The upper part C (floors 97-110 + mast) is completely destroyed,i.e. removed by Photoshop, but mast can still be seen. Debris is ejected sideways at high velocity. This is obvious fake animation - top Photoshopped and more smoke added! Why would debris be ejected sideways?
Image
Fig. A4 - The WTC 1 lower structure top part explodes in a cascade of debris! The upper part C and mast is fully destroyed or removed and cannot produce the destruction of the lower part. What we see! It looks as if a bomb has gone off inside WTC 1 blowing debris sideways. No upper part C is crushing down anything here, i.e. what you see is a Photoshopped, Hollywood animation.
Image
Fig. A5 - More debris is thrown out sideways (more bombs go off!) and false smoke is ejected upwards! Evidently not a result of the upper part C being intact and crushing down lower structure as per US authorities. It, the upper part, has already disappeared or gone up in Photoshopped smoke. The animators add more smoke for effect!
Image
Fig. A6 - There is no sign of an intact upper part crushing WTC 1! Why does US authorities suggest that a skyscraper can be destroyed by a small top upper part one-way crushing down (sic) much stronger, bigger structure below by gravity and fire up top? Anybody can see on animated photos above that WTC1 is blown apart from top down and that the upper part is blown apart first. It cannot happen in reality, i.e. what we see is an animation, Hollywood style. It was also shown 'live on TV' in USA on all five major TV channels. Imagine that! Faked footage was shown live on TV on 911! I pay anybody €uro 1M proving me wrong!
Last edited by Heiwa on Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:32 pm

simonshack wrote:
SmokingGunII wrote: We can see from the CP image (showing the side of the mysterious building) that it is shot from much further west. Thus, the antenna falling backwards would appear to fall west is consistent.

Fake but not impossible.
Dear Smoking Gun,

"Much further West"? Well, let's stay serious, my friend: If it's the same 'mysterious building' on both shots, the 2 cameramen still have it clearly framed in the (left) foreground of their shots. So they must be filming, in any event, from the same street. So how much "further West" can that be? And would that slight vantage point difference explain the different antenna angles/tilts?

But hey, are you familiar with Manhattan? If so, please help me understand where these shots were taken from. Keep in mind that the 'mystery building' appears taller than the twin towers themselves... :P

Last, but not least: how did Mr.Sauret keep both the mystery building AND the WTC in perfect focus?

Simon

With reference to your first paragraph - I would be quite confident in saying that the two cameraman (if they exist) would not be in the same street. The tower is in the far distance, which means that any change of perspective from the viewpoint would make little difference to the perspective of the tower, but objects nearby, such as the mysterious building would show noticable differences.

Am I familair with Manhattan? well, I've only been there once but have know most of it intimately thorugh my research over the years. This is why I ask the question for somebody to identify the "mysterious" building for me. I can't. And I have no idea how far from WTC it is supposed to be. You appear to have the same problem. :)

Finally, I very much doubt Suaret's footage is genuine but it is certainly possible to have near and far objects in focus even with a telephoto lens, distorting perspective.

http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... sions.html



As I said. If anyone can identify the mysterious building, I would be very appreciative. Or perhaps we should ask Etienne where he was positioned when he shot his footage?

reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by reel.deal » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:45 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:30 am, edited 3 times in total.

SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:21 pm

Great find, RD. :)

I have added Suaret's location to my basic 3d of Manhattan, which I created originally to question the Naudet vantage point and have since added more of the camera witness locations. Anyway, below is the result from Sauret (I have given him an eye level of 20m and added the height of 101 AofA which is 92m). As I would expect, whether the footage is tampered with or not, the angles all hold out. The other reddish building is B7.

Not sure what the metal pole could be at that height, though?

Image

reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by reel.deal » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:04 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:30 am, edited 6 times in total.

Guerrero
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:05 am

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Guerrero » Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:00 am

simonshack wrote:
DHD wrote:Is this Ozzybinoswald helping things by posting below the video: http://www.youtube.com/user/simonshack# ... NwAxJ92vlE that "Simon Shack is a high-level infiltrator shill." ???

Simon- You may want to remove Ozzy's not so helpful comment from your youtube page entitled "911 Honor the Vicsims".

Am I wrong, or does Ozzy not seem to be helping the cause?
Wrong? No - you are right.
Please note that the Honor the Vicsims page is NOT my page - it's that of "11september2009" - AKA - ozzybinoswald - AKA - the high-level infiltrator-shill of September Clues... <_<
that's funny, in that not so funny kind of way. In a forum i used to post on, there was a user that used Oswald in his name, they do not share the exact same user name, but the Oswald part made my eyes brighten...reason is...I always suspected that user was a shill. He seemed to always pipe in and post contrary posts that fit the "official" story lines whenever I made a post pointing out evidence that the govt's official story on 9/11 was a load a bullshit. He also showed up whenever I made a post siding with the Palestinian cause or calling out Zionism for the racist ideology that it is.

I called him a shill and of course he denied. Like a shill would admit to it. :lol: :lol: :lol: I just have a gut feeling it's the same dude, but maybe shills just like to use the name "Oswald"? :huh:

Edited to add:
However, if it is indeed the same shill, I am probably responsible for him finding this site since I was trying to engage folks over there in a 9/11 discussion and posted links to this site to encourage them to move outside ALL of the false frameworks they've been trapped in. Unfortunately, only a few people engaged.
On the bright side, I am really glad to have finally found a site/forum where the administrator doesn't tolerate shills. B)

[ADMIN: Correction - we don't tolerate shills we know about. It's hard to detect 'false friends' and turncoats sometimes. And discussions all over the Internet are quickly controlled by such types so we must expect them to show up here too. -hp]
Last edited by Guerrero on Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: about shills ...

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7095
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:06 pm

*
Well, folks...

If there were still any doubts about the entire 9/11 image pool being digitally manipulated, here's a comparison between two street views (a still credited to "Bill Biggart - and a frame extracted from a Camera Planet video). I will not use circles or arrows here to highlight the obvious problems with these two views - everyone can figure them out for themselves:

Image

Or. if you prefer - the two views at same size, side by side:
Image

A pre-emptive warning to any 'aspiring debunker' bringing up 'focal distortion' issues: give it up ! :P

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Heiwa » Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:33 am

I assume WTC1/2 is badly copied/pasted into the ’Bill Biggart’ photo above (a little too much to the right). ‘Bill Biggart’ has also managed to take a photo of the WTC2 ‘collapse’ from top down with bits & pieces flying about. As no building ever collapses from top down, taking a photo of same is impossible, so you wonder how ‘Bill B’ did it. Stupidly ‘Bill B’ tried to take a photo of the WTC1 ‘collapse’ from below and got caught and cannot reply to anything. Like his widow that runs ‘Bill B’s’ website, easy to find. The widow Wendy Doremus doesn’t reply to e-mail at wkdoremus@yahoo.com . Try yourself! Only his ‘photos’ survived, LOL!

brianv
Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by brianv » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:38 am

reel.deal wrote:...'bandwidth exceeded' ? :P phat-tousness !
ok, imageshack stopped gifs, & now photobucket put limilters on... :P
wheres next ? ...any suggestions welcome ! :)
( ...its hard tryin' to keep it ! ) reel ... =)

Yes, I've noticed that imageshack have withdrawn certain services and have used http://imgur.com/ a few times since, it's part of that error level analysis site that we discussed previously!

brianv
Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by brianv » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:21 am

reel.deal wrote:cheers geezer ! ...appreciated, dude... will try to 'tidy up' the 'mess' sometime soon... :mellow:
:rolleyes:
I'm somewhere in the middle so I imagine it would be something like cheeriated dudzer actually! :P

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Equinox » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:12 pm

reel.deal wrote:cheers geezer ! ...appreciated, dude... will try to 'tidy up' the 'mess' sometime soon... :mellow:
:rolleyes:
No expert here, but prehaps you really have gone past your bandwith, on Photobucket. It is not like you had your photobucket account deleted... Maybe just upgrade 2 pro to save the absoloute hassle of transfering everything onto, another site. Just an idea. :D

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Equinox » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:10 pm

Just like the running scene in the Naudet Movie..
Image
can finaly see what this is ... the whole left arm of the grey head man has a virtual reality flaw down his left arm, it remains straight... Like this


Image

Extremophile
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

Unread post by Extremophile » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:33 pm

SmokingGunII wrote:Great find, RD. :)

I have added Suaret's location to my basic 3d of Manhattan, which I created originally to question the Naudet vantage point and have since added more of the camera witness locations. Anyway, below is the result from Sauret (I have given him an eye level of 20m and added the height of 101 AofA which is 92m). As I would expect, whether the footage is tampered with or not, the angles all hold out. The other reddish building is B7.

Not sure what the metal pole could be at that height, though?
I also did an attempt to recreate the camera viewpoint from Sauret. Used google earth with added WTC model (see http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... 50da48dd6f ) and had to hide the current 'WTC7' and the "freedom tower" (which is under construction).

The viewpoint is from the "SOHO terrace". Elevation at eye level i used is 32 meters. Used the date of 11-09-2011 and time 10:15 am. This is after the south tower was already down; and I used a still from Sauret's "wtc - the first 24 hours" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-2FkC0VkM for overlay. So it's not totally "realistic" ( :lol: what is? ) since you can see the south tower through the transparant overlay.
I removed the building that is in front of the 101 Avenue of the Americas, since i'm not sure if that is a new construction or not (a hotel named "The Hampton Inn" at 54 Watts Street, opened in april 2008).
If it's the same building that was there in 2001 it can't be responsible for the metal pole though.
As SmokingGunII said: the angles hold out, but the pole is still a vague one.

Image


This is also from Etienne Sauret around 9:03 am, just before the 2nd hit. A still from "wtc - the first 24 hours", but I can't figure out yet where this vantage point was with the green roof lining. It must be from a lower point than the soho terrace... perhaps behind glass? I'll examine this further in the future..

Image

Post Reply