CGI collapse footage

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.org
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Anders » November 11th, 2016, 1:29 pm wrote:
reel.deal » April 1st, 2012, 11:38 pm wrote:Image

aswell as the see-through tower TM, 1 other thing also fUCt about this tape...

Millenium Hilton in Scott Myers view is closer to Myers than the Towers.
Millenium Hilton fireballs reflection explodes right > left ?!?!?!?
Millenium Hilton fireballs reflection explodes INWARDS; towards the WTC;
WorldTradeCenter Twin Tower2 explosion explodes OUTWARDS; away from WTC...
MILLENIUM HILTON FIREBALL MIRROR REFLECTION - EXPLOSION WRONG WAY ROUND !!!
no ?!?!?!?

:blink:
I think the plane is computer graphics fakery but that the fireball explosion was real. What in the quoted image indicates that the fireball is fakery?
So, what do you make of the following imagery?

Image

The footage is real, except for the ghost (digital) "people" inserted?

Come on now.

It's like you aren't familiar at all with the comprehensive research on this site, or you are trolling. It's not as if we are unfamiliar with half-ass attempts to save and/or excuse the media concerning its obvious (and significant) role in the 9/11 scam.

The timing is certainly curious with this Trump "election", along with jabber about "reopening" the 9/11 investigation.

I'm not trying to be hostile. Others here can verify that I go out of my way to extend the benefit of the doubt to new members. But I'm seriously hesitant to do that here.

Your posts thus far indicate an attempt to re-muddy the waters that have already been cleared up rather neatly over the years on this forum.
Vera Obscurata
Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:39 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Vera Obscurata »

SacredCowSlayer » November 11th, 2016, 10:34 pm wrote: So, what do you make of the following imagery?

Image
On top of the two arrows that certainly indicate impossibilities, I have two other observations:
1 - the 1 frame ghost shadow at the left of the blue box/container at the right, just after the "break" makes no sense
2 - the "helmet" that is indicated with the second arrow does not leave any shadow at the moment it is swung up and forwards
I'm not trying to be hostile. Others here can verify that I go out of my way to extend the benefit of the doubt to new members.
True.
Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Anders »

SacredCowSlayer » November 12th, 2016, 5:34 am wrote:
So, what do you make of the following imagery?

Image

The footage is real, except for the ghost (digital) "people" inserted?
The scene could have been made with green screen technology. At least the people are actors I believe.


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

The dust cloud may be real though. I have an idea that they had stacked cement bags inside the facades of the twin towers so that when they came down, the powder cement turned into huge dust clouds.
Kham
Admin
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by Kham »

Anders,

Do you have any examples of cement bags making hours of smoke in the air?

And how many bags of cement were laid around the Kingdome when it was demolished by CDI to make the giant dust loud?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZvvHlvj1hg

None. Does one need bags of heavy cement to make dust in a implosion? The implosion itself does quite a fantastic job of providing the dust. After 5 minutes all the dust would have settled. Any smoke/dust/obscurant left after 5 minutes must then be artificial.

Am I the only one getting tired of Anders throwing speculations out like fastballs, waiting for one of us to grab a bat and take a swing at it.
CluedIn
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by CluedIn »

Kham » November 12th, 2016, 11:35 am wrote:
Am I the only one getting tired of Anders throwing speculations out like fastballs, waiting for one of us to grab a bat and take a swing at it.
Agreed, Kham. Ludicrous posts.
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Kham » November 12th, 2016, 11:35 am wrote:
Am I the only one getting tired of Anders throwing speculations out like fastballs, waiting for one of us to grab a bat and take a swing at it.
Certainly not. And fastballs? More like screwballs.

Frankly I enjoy watching Simon launch loonar lAnders into the vacuum. :lol:
Perhaps this one is on deck.
Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by Anders »

Kham » November 12th, 2016, 5:35 pm wrote: Do you have any examples of cement bags making hours of smoke in the air?
Except for the WTC collapses that would be difficult to find I assume. Ok, you mean that the dust clouds were simulated somehow. It seems to me that all the dust cloud imagery shown is difficult to simulate.
Kham
Admin
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by Kham »

Dearest Anders,
Ok, you mean that the dust clouds were simulated somehow.


No, I do not mean dust clouds were simulated, I never posted that. You are the one going in that direction.
It seems to me that all the dust cloud imagery shown is difficult to simulate.
And do you have any resources to back up this statement?
Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by Anders »

Kham » November 12th, 2016, 8:04 pm wrote:Dearest Anders,
Ok, you mean that the dust clouds were simulated somehow.


No, I do not mean dust clouds were simulated, I never posted that. You are the one going in that direction.
It seems to me that all the dust cloud imagery shown is difficult to simulate.
And do you have any resources to back up this statement?
For example, the dust in this video is difficult to simulate with computer graphics:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by simonshack »

Anders » November 12th, 2016, 7:48 pm wrote: For example, the dust in this video is difficult to simulate with computer graphics:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU
Anders,

the problem with that 'video' is that it was released only in 2010 - a full NINE years after September 11, 2001.

That's right: that 'video' was released in 2010 along with a huge, 4.7 giga batch (which I immediately downloaded for analysis) of short '9/11 video-clips' which, according to the official story, had been kept in a drawer in the NIST offices - for all of 9 friggin' years! As the story went, ABC (yes, ABC TV!) had filed a FOIA against NIST - asking them to release this batch of "never-before-seen-high-resolution imagery of 9/11." The dog-and-pony show doesn't get sillier than that: ABC TV is, of course, at the very forefront of the 9/11 TV imagery scam. For ABC TV to accuse NIST of hiding / sitting on some "never-seen-before" high-resolution footage of the event - is perhaps the most intelligence-insulting 9/11 bullshit tale of them all.
Anders
Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by Anders »

simonshack » November 12th, 2016, 10:24 pm wrote: the problem with that 'video' is that it was released only in 2010 - a full NINE years after September 11, 2001.
But one fact is that both towers did come straight down into their own footprints. So I wonder, why the need for any fakery at all regarding the collapses of the towers? Lots of dust or little dust, it doesn't make much difference; two huge skyscrapers like that coming crashing down is surely terrifying enough.
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Anders » November 12th, 2016, 4:40 pm wrote:
simonshack » November 12th, 2016, 10:24 pm wrote: the problem with that 'video' is that it was released only in 2010 - a full NINE years after September 11, 2001.
But one fact is that both towers did come straight down into their own footprints. So I wonder, why the need for any fakery at all regarding the collapses of the towers? Lots of dust or little dust, it doesn't make much difference; two huge skyscrapers like that coming crashing down is surely terrifying enough.
Okay I guess I'll need to say this again, but in another way.

Seriously, all this material has been covered extensively on this forum.

Perhaps you should go back to the VERY beginning (http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477), and come back AFTER you've at least become familiar with the basics. You obviously have NO grasp of this topic.

And that is a best case scenario, with me trying my best to give you some benefit of the doubt.

If you continue with this same garbage I'll just assume you're deliberately being obtuse.

See you in a couple of months. Happy reading.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by simonshack »

Anders wrote: But one fact is that both towers did come straight down into their own footprints.

So I wonder, why the need for any fakery at all regarding the collapses of the towers? .
You are severely misinformed, Anders:

It is a fact that as many as 9 buildings at the WTC complex were totally wiped off the map that day. The towers certainly did NOT collapse in their footprint - as shown on TV. This fact alone invalidates ALL of the available / purported 9/11 collapse imagery - which indeed show a neat (and surreal) top-down collapse of the towers into their own footprint - which could not possibly justify the total destruction of several other buildings of the WTC complex - or "severe damage to more than a dozen other adjacent structures".

Don't believe me? Well, here's from Wickypedia :
"The collapse of the Twin Towers destroyed the rest of the complex, and debris from the collapsing towers severely damaged or destroyed more than a dozen other adjacent and nearby structures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_ ... ade_Center
The "controlled" demolition of the Twin Towers was, most likely, a total disaster - since it damaged as many as 9 buildings beyond repair. What we see in the available 'collapse imagery', however, is in total conflict with such an outcome. There's no way that 9 buildings would have suffered complete destruction by the volatile, "pulverized matter" (i.e. the dusty 'mushroom / pyroclastic' cloud) depicted in the available Twin Towers' collapse "footage"(all of which we have thoroughly analyzed over the years - and conclusively shown / demonstrated to be CGI creations).
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

That is a good point, Simon.

If that is the case, it would definitely behoove us to know more about the buildings that were damaged and learn if their owners were warned ahead of time. Did we ever hear of the evacuation of the buildings surrounding the WTC block?
biggesthoax
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by biggesthoax »

simonshack » May 18th, 2013, 9:51 pm wrote:*


THE THORNY QUESTION OF PERSPECTIVES

Do perspectives matter? Are they a useful tool to determine whether given videos are fabricated / tampered with or not? I would say, from personal experience, that the question of perpectives is perhaps the trickiest avenue of imagery analysis. This, due to the fairly advanced state (even prior to 2001) of 3D-imaging softwares, capable of simulating a given scenery from apparently different viewing angles/vantage points. It is a tough and delicate issue - if you see what I mean.

However, there are instances (with regards to the 9/11 imagery) in which the question of perspectives can be effectively used to make a compelling case, easily understandable to the layman (in the field of video and photography). In fact, I trust that even Jim Fetzer will effortlessly comprehend the following exposé which, I hope, will also help clarify to many other inquisitive minds my oft misunderstood case regarding the "retargeted" / rotated (think CAD) templates used to produce the 9/11 imagery. To this end, I will use two recently released (2010) videos from the NIST-FOIA image pool:

"THE SIFF-POST WTC1 COLLAPSE CLIP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=oW18Pj-3gHc

"THE SCARBOROUGH WTC1 COLLAPSE CLIP"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJI3E7gIvrE

So here we go.

The "SIFF-POST shot" (allegedly filmed by either 'Andrew Siff' or 'Jason Post') shows a piece of DEBRIS falling between the collapsing WTC1 - and WTC7. My 100% marking shows how much of the NY BANK façade is visible:

Image

The "SCARBOROUGH shot" (allegedly filmed by Jeff Scarborough, brother of NBC anchorman Chuck Scarborough) also shows this DEBRIS between WTC1 and WTC7. My 50% marking shows how much of the NY BANK façade is visible:
Image

It should be immediately apparent to any attentive observer that, given the considerable lateral displacement of these two alleged videographers, the DEBRIS could not have been visible to both, in such near-identical fashion. If the SIFF-POST video is true, then the SCARBOROUGH video is false - or vice versa. More logically, we may well conclude that both are fake / i.e. computer animated.

THE "TELEPATHIC" ZOOM OUTS
But it gets 'better': most 'coincidentally', both videos feature a zoom out motion - shortly after the DEBRIS disappears from view ! Yes, we are asked to believe that BOTH videographers zoomed out almost in synch (within 1sec of each other)- both revealing their very different vantage points on either side of the street. Imagine that!...
Image
Image

Here we see the alleged SIFF-POST vantage point- after the zoom out:
Image
Here we see the alleged SCARBOROUGH vantage point - after the zoom out:
Image
^^^ Note: the two above frames are meant to depict the exact same moment in time ^^^


In short, the backdrop layer featuring the WTC1 collapse animation has been inserted into these two shots - without properly / realistically accounting for the considerable lateral displacement of the two alleged videographers. Add to this that WTC7 was a reddish-brown building - much like the building seen at far left in these images. There is only ONE way to explain why the WTC7 is depicted here as a greyish building : WE ARE LOOKING AT FAKE IMAGERY.

I rest my case: ALL of the existing 9/11 imagery is fake / computer-animated.
The only remaining problem is: most people don't believe this can be done.
Apparently, most people think that Hollywood movie-tech cannot be sold as news.

******
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS POST - DO NOT MISS THIS VIDEO:
Jeff Scarborough's "SEPTEMBERS CAMERA" - "Buy my book!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gv3M_xioLM

Jeff Scarborough interviewed on his brother's TV show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdj8qdRIq18
Morning all, I am an architect by trade and very good in ArchiCAD and also photoshop, plus an avid photographer and understand the logic behind structures and what should look right in images.

Now I have began building the Manhattan skyline in Archicad and have solved a puzzle of what you guys have been trying to work out with regards to the SIFF-POST and SCARBOROUGH images showing the facade debris shooting off the building. as shown above

I have made the entire scenery in ArchiCAD and added cameras at their exact locations and viola :)
It is 110% catagoric proof that the videos are impossible. please see images and you will see. I have added all building at the exact height and location (some of the shapes I havent made correctly yet as I made them boxes for now) and you will see what happens to the debris. its moves massively! it cannot be in that place on both images. I am going to begin doing the same for most of the photos and lets see what we get...
Image

Here you can see I have added the locations of the cameras correctly

Image

Here is the Siffpost one (see how the debris is almost the same location as in the video/image)

Image

Here is the Scarborough one (see how much the debris moves, this can not be possible to be in the exact location on both videos/images) impossible...
Also a few more things to point out. see below image that I found of the World Trade Towers and surroundings. you can see clearly that St Johns university is there in the photo but where is it in either the SIFF-POST or Scarborough videos??? it should be a third of the way up the building behind it as shown in my render. but nothing whatsoever. so what they are saying is a building that was there before 9/11 and was there afterwards was missing for the day?

Image

Let me know what you think?
Post Reply