CGI collapse footage

[Human]

"NIST legitimately debunked conventional explosives due to the insufficient decibel levels recorded and observed."

Thanks for making me spit my coffee all over my keyboard, I love laughter to start my day.

"They can further be debunked by the duration and nature of under-rubble hot-spots not requiring oxygen and smoldering for many weeks"

Which you gave no evidence of, but, I am sure NIST, 9/11 commission report or maybe Dr Wood's will be happy to send you some "official" documentation showing this?

Bye Bye!

[simonshack]

I can see where this thread is going.

Tut,tut, Mr Elf - I beat you to that line a few posts ago, you copycat you!

And my predictions were evidently confirmed, as I read this line of yours :

I seemed to have struck a nerve. Evidentally, if I have to reference any imagery whatsoever to make a point, you are going to pull the ploy "all imagery is faked, so you can't use it to prove squat."

'Evidentally' (as you say), the nerve you struck is located in your own mouth - and you now finally spat out the true objective of your visit to this gracious forum: to ultimately characterize our entire 9/11 research (which, of course, focuses on the news media's crucial role in the scam) as some sort of sinister 'ploy'. Your initial, seemingly humble attitude (repeatedly describing yourself as the easily duped sort) clearly paved the way for this cheap 'cliffhanger finale'.

As a self-professed "champion of most of the research of Mr. Shack and company", it seems to me that you either:
1: Have a poor understanding of it. (And that's being quite kind with you.)
2: Say so to sound friendly - only to get a foot in the door and attempt a few (lame) backstabs at it.

Even if some image editor took some liberty with some flag poles or Coke trucks or heroic firemen for better framing in a publication, (...)

I was expecting that one from you - sooner or later: yeah, we're all senselessly wasting our time here - picking on innocent, cosmetic editing "for better framing in publications". Rrright ! Thanks for the hearty laugh.

But the most alarming red flag as to your real agenda, Mr. Elf, got deployed when I read these lines of yours:

Our beloved corporate media was complicit in the cover-up. Being found guilty of this lesser charge won't rock their worlds too much. They change corporate names and logos and continue to milk profits of the media-addicted masses.

A friendly reminder for you: they also sack inept, dopey employees/gatekeepers before they start becoming a liability for their damage control operations.

No sense me continuing with this line of thought here.

Well said - you beat me to that line, Herr Eleven. Goodbye now.

[nonhocapito]

thank you for pulling the plug Simon! Reading Elf's posts was starting to feel like reading a discussion from 6 or 7 years ago. Frankly exhausting. "People flying in the helicopters" "the observable evidence" "energy sink" "pulverized concrete" "nano-thermite"... the whole truther repertoire... personally I feel like having left those categories and ideas behind light years ago... who wants to go back?

[simonshack]

I sometimes wonder - after almost half-a-decade of analyzing the 9/11 imagery, just why it took such a long time or me (or anyone) to notice the atrocious crassness of it. There are mysteries aplenty in this world, but this particular mystery (why I didn't fully grasp the evident bogusness of the entire pool of 9/11 imagery) has had me scratching my head for a long while. I now realize that this was all part of the 9/11 plotters' plan.

Back in 2007, I made my very first 9/11 imagery analysis: The Grand TV Illusion. Of course, I wasn't quite content with it: the poor quality video resolution at hand left me wondering if I had pushed too far my interpretation of the given visuals. Perhaps I was just looking at standard video artifacts - caused by digital conversions/compressions?

Luckily, in 2010, the very stupid 9/11 perpetrators decided to release higher-resolution versions of their horrid digital animations. The below HQ frame of this CNN shot is from the NIST-FOIA batch of imagery released in 2010. (Huh? Have you ever asked yourself why NIST would have been sitting on/archiving this 9/11 image pool ? Wouldn't the TV networks have that material stored in their archives? )

Anyways, the below image was supposedly shot from a "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building... How anyone can still believe these are real/genuine images by a broadcast-quality CNN camera is quite beyond me. Note the <<<clear masking line>>> around WTC1:
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88I0jZ8xYo


Here's a frame of the collapse of WTC2 - supposedly from the same "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building". All I have done here is to apply a brightness/contrast filter to highlight the absurd, pitch black cartoon-outlines around the buildings (and other problems):
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKyHn8pxGo


The 2 above images naturally lead to the following simple and logical conclusion:

NOT ONLY WAS THE IMAGERY OF AN AIRPLANE IMPACTING THE WTC SHOWN ON TV a digital animation, ALSO THE WTC COLLAPSES were digital animations.

[Heiwa]

NOT ONLY WAS THE IMAGERY OF AN AIRPLANE IMPACTING THE WTC SHOWN ON TV a digital animation, ALSO THE WTC COLLAPSES were digital animations.

I happen to know a little about (1) ship collisions and (2) structural damage analysis and (1) in most cases the smaller ship bounces against the bigger one (and does not disappear into the bigger ship) and (2) a small, weak, top part C of any structure cannot crush down by gravity the bigger, stronger bottom part A of same structure that carries C ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm ). So any footage of collisions, where the small weak objects disappear into the big strong objects, or collapses, where the small, weak tops crush down the big strong bottoms, are fake. Basic!

[Q_prime]

Now, what about that chalk-white smoke seen in many 9/11 images? Since when does a kerosene/or office fire produce chalk-white smoke? Even this alleged satellite image (from Judy Wood's website) shows chalk-white smoke:

Which of the two above images are we supposed to believe in? Would it be logical to believe in one of the two?

Look! that white smoke was left by Neo flying away from the city. Reference to the ending scene of The Matrix.

[hoi.polloi]

tons of images

Rhetoric.

[simonshack]

tons of images

Rhetoric.

*

ABOUT THE PROGRESSIVE RELEASE OF WTC COLLAPSE IMAGERY : the "NIST-FOIA Cumulus" batch

I consider the point I am about to make extremely important - for the historical record of the 9/11 TV FAKERY research. As someone who has closely monitored, compiled and researched the 9/11 imagery for about half a decade, I wish to make it very clear that the bulk of higher-resolution imagery we have today was certainly NOT available to the public as I started my September Clues research - around 2006. The sharper imagery we have today has been trickling out year after year - as if their authors (photographers and videographers) had jealously kept them in their drawers for many years. This, of course, doesn't make any sense.

For instance, I clearly remember (back in 2006/2007) having great problems finding images/footage of the WTC1 collapse. (Today, of course, you will find tons of WTC1 collapse imagery, with a few search clicks - and faster than you can say "WTC1 collapse imagery"). Now, those who weren't investigating 9/11 at the time will only have to take my word for it; this is certainly unfortunate, but please think about it: how could I possibly have documented such a fact at the time? Even if I had been smart enough to anticipate that we would eventually be flooded with new, fresh, high-res 9/11 imagery, how could I have recorded any proof of the scarcity of such crucial 9/11 imagery back then?

Today, however, I was fortunate enough to bump into this old (April 4, 2007) web page. Its (sadly anonymous) author makes some rather good points about the seismic data and so forth. At one stage, this 9/11 researcher states this particularly interesting thing:

Internet searches disclosed no videos of WTC1's collapse, a somewhat disconcerting situation in that probably hundreds of video cameras were focused on that tower after the collapse of WTC2.

http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/fallrates.html

Disconcerting indeed! Here's a 9/11 researcher who, in 2007, wasn't able to find ANY imagery of the WTC1 collapse! (At the time, I had myself been able to find only a mere handful of dreadfully blurry, low-resolution video clips - all credited to Steven Rosenbaum's sinister "Camera Planet" collection...)
This sadly anonymous researcher (who focuses on the seismic data and its curious discrepancies with the officially released 9/11 data by NIST) then goes on to formulate a most logical-sounding conclusion, this time on the subject of the WTC7 collapse:

Some who have studied internet videos conclude that WTC7 fell in almost free-fall time. This is odd, considering the seismic results. Such a disparity raises the possibility of tampering with either the seismic or the video evidence.

NIST: At the forefront of the 9/11 IMAGERY COVERUP!

Now, I trust everyone is fully aware of the central role played by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) in covering up the 9/11 scam. Clearly, NIST's ridiculous/outlandish 'scientific conclusions' as to the physics of the WTC collapses are just a propagandistic diversion aimed at focusing people's outrage/attention on the collapse physics (AS SEEN ON TV). In this way, NIST feeds their phony opponents (such as A&E for 9/11 Truth) with fodder for constant, circular controversy - aiming to uphold an endless dog-and-pony show for another 50 years. Of course, there is no more WTC rubble to analyze: it was all quickly removed. Any "explosive evidence" anyone might come up with(Nano-Thermite/Nukes/DEW and whatnot) is bound to remain dust in the wind. What evidence remains? What demonstrable, verifiable and repeatable proof are we left with - to expose 9/11 for being the hoax that it was? As far as I can tell, all we have left is the demonstrable, verifiable and repeatable evidence of image fakery.

Naturally, there follows that NIST is also in charge of covering up the 9/11 image fakery; in fact, this is probably today on the very top of their agenda.

To be sure, in 2010 we (the public) were treated to a FOIA act (allegedly filed by ABC news!!! ) which reportedly forced NIST to release a vast amount (4.7gigabytes) of new, fresh, NEVER-SEEN-BEFORE high-resolution imagery (the "NIST-FOIA Cumulus" batch). In this Daily Mail article dated February 11, 2010, we were informed that NIST actually "collected images from amateur, professional and freelance photographers as part of its investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Centre" :

(the "BARE-FACED LIES" caption is mine, of course.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -News.html

An example of recently released (2010) "NEVER-SEEN-BEFORE (entirely phony) 9/11 footage:

Uploaded on Youtube by "STEVE VIGILANTE": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwKQXsXJDX4
Video description:
[i]"Some footage I shot on 9-11-01. This is never before seen footage and has never been released. I chose to upload it because I feel it has historical importance. Like many New Yorkers I know some of the people who have passed and I know many people who have lost a loved one. Some of the footage is considered graphic as is some of the language. Unfortunately, this is a day I will never forget. May God Bless those who we lost on that terrible day."

What a big, fat joke this all is.

[nonhocapito]

So true, Simon.

And it is so funny to see that in the same years all these sit-coms and movies have been "re-mastered" and turned into "HD", extra sharp, high quality pictures.

But, what a joke! How can the 9/11 amateur videos follow the same laws of products filmed in studio? This is laughable! It is like an admission of artificiality!

You'll forgive me if I post a stupid example:

Here is a remastered "HD" version of an early episode of Friends. This image is cropped, the original is way larger:



Here is the previous DVD version (slightly less cropped). In this one, it is even impossible to make out the little 11/9 hint on the fridge!



We can only conclude that, obviously, the tv show was filmed in the best quality available, and then downgraded according to the different supports.

Now, how is it possible for the 9/11 imagery to follow a similar process of enhancement? Suppose you have a bad quality video taken with a camera 10 years ago: are we expected to believe one could turn it into a high definition product like the one we see above? Unlikely! Conversely, suppose the newsmedia had the best quality available of those videos from day one. That's the stuff that makes journalism relevant. Imagine the details they could have shown. Why showing the atrociously bad, short, repetitive clips instead?

Luckily, though, even the "high-quality" new remastered material defecated by NIST eventually can be tore apart and exposed as inconsistent, manipulated... Which is not surprising, considering that it comes from the same sick minds.

[MrSinclair]

This constant release of "new" material is so ridiculous. Can any rational individual imagine somebody having compelling footage and not sharing and uploading it immediately? This would not be the case of course and it only points toward the artificial nature of the footage and thus the event.

I spent 10 years mostly studying and reading truther material. I bought in to all of that and stayed in an emotional haze that never once considered the idea that nobody died. Now I take great pleasure in reviewing the event with a clear mind and no emotion and it is all so obvious.

Years wasted on Webster Tarpley, Loose Change, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense etc. I've never seen Rense post anything addressing the views held here but he had Judy Woods on his radio program and I wasted a couple of hours trying to make sense of that crap. Simon et al, I am very grateful to you for opening my eyes. Thanks to you and this site I can now seem even more insane to family and friends than when I held the typical "9/11 was an inside job" view.

[sublimity]

Great post, Nonho.

Even TV stations in Columbus, Ohio apparently, had HD cameras as far back as 1998. Hmm, I wonder why they waited until years after 9/11, to show the masses "High Definition"?;) I apologize if you have seen this before, but this video was taken in May of 1999, and features an actual, real HD NYC, including the WTC, over two years before "that fateful day": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFqmzqIn2_Y

I think this video really highlights how atrocious the renderings are, especially the "live footage" from that day.

[Equinox]

I sometimes wonder - after almost half-a-decade of analyzing the 9/11 imagery, just why it took such a long time or me (or anyone) to notice the atrocious crassness of it. There are mysteries aplenty in this world, but this particular mystery (why I didn't fully grasp the evident bogusness of the entire pool of 9/11 imagery) has had me scratching my head for a long while. I now realize that this was all part of the 9/11 plotters' plan.

Back in 2007, I made my very first 9/11 imagery analysis: The Grand TV Illusion. Of course, I wasn't quite content with it: the poor quality video resolution at hand left me wondering if I had pushed too far my interpretation of the given visuals. Perhaps I was just looking at standard video artifacts - caused by digital conversions/compressions?

Luckily, in 2010, the very stupid 9/11 perpetrators decided to release higher-resolution versions of their horrid digital animations. The below HQ frame of this CNN shot is from the NIST-FOIA batch of imagery released in 2010. (Huh? Have you ever asked yourself why NIST would have been sitting on/archiving this 9/11 image pool ? Wouldn't the TV networks have that material stored in their archives? )

Anyways, the below image was supposedly shot from a "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building... How anyone can still believe these are real/genuine images by a broadcast-quality CNN camera is quite beyond me. Note the <<<clear masking line>>> around WTC1:
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88I0jZ8xYo


Here's a frame of the collapse of WTC2 - supposedly from the same "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building". All I have done here is to apply a brightness/contrast filter to highlight the absurd, pitch black cartoon-outlines around the buildings (and other problems):
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKyHn8pxGo


The 2 above images naturally lead to the following simple and logical conclusion:

NOT ONLY WAS THE IMAGERY OF AN AIRPLANE IMPACTING THE WTC SHOWN ON TV a digital animation, ALSO THE WTC COLLAPSES were digital animations.

Originally sourced-- 9/11 TV Archives - CNN Sept. 11, 2001 9.29 am - 10.11 am@ 34.45 Minutes

Re- Released NisT --- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5 20





Originally sourced--- CNN Sept. 11, 2001 8.48 - 9.29am@ 22.08 Minutes



Re- Released--- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5, Clip 15


Sample---

[Equinox]

Quote from 2 of simonshacks posts...

Note the <<<clear masking line>>> around WTC1:
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88I0jZ8xYo




Also, do you also remember - by any chance - those thick black lines seen here around the towers? Could it be soot?

I have noticed these masking lines everywhere in the 9/11 TV Archives...

[MarioOnTheFly]

sorry, i've seen this picture has been posted earlier.


just had to comment on the http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/911-photo-thomas-hoepker-meaning

Rich's view of the picture was instantly disputed. Walter Sipser, identifying himself as the guy in shades at the right of the picture, said he and his girlfriend, apparently sunbathing on a wall, were in fact "in a profound state of shock and disbelief". Hoepker, they both complained, had photographed them without permission in a way that misrepresented their feelings and behaviour.

Profound state of shock and disbelief I am continuing to be shocked since I joined this forum. Only not so shocked as these guys.
State of the matter is far sicker than I had thought possible.

God help us all...

[Equinox]

sorry, i've seen this picture has been posted earlier.

No its a good thing to repost pictures and from before. Some times it helps a re-examination and things that have been missed may become relevant.

That picture you placed up, always makes me laugh. I mean honestly who would really believe people would be relaxing like that chilling whilst the trade centre is on fire. Its almost a joke these photo-shops.