Simon I found something Interesting!

[Brutal Metal]

Last nite I made a bunch of comments on 911 YouTube Jumper vids stating they were Fake, DAMM I'm pissing a lot of people off, their calling me FAGGOT, Douche, Etc.. Oh well!! Don't plan on stopping any time soon!!

[Piper]

One if the clips I used in analyzing the OH GOD! woman's voice also comes from "102 Minutes That Changed America". It seems messing around with the audio was a common occurrence for this 'documentary'.

9/11 Audio Fakery: "tinacart" Revisited

[reel.deal]

.

[Maat]

Speaking of voice actresses, I discovered 'Screaming Mimi' isn't the only one they've used more than once.

I don't have a DVD Recorder, unfortunately, but I had the TV on the National Geographic channel the other week when they were showing their latest "Giuliani's 9-11" crap , which I couldn't really watch (for my stomach's sake), but wanted to listen while I was doing other things, catching a few scenes here and there, alert for any research clues.

Well, I noticed they had apparently been busy creating new faked shots of "victims" in the "plane holes", as there was one I had never seen before ? but the surprise was hearing a second or two of a familiar soft-sounding female "Oh my God!" voice-over on some other tower film clip. It was unmistakably the voice of Bri of the "Bob & Bri ? What We Saw" video!
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk

So, I watched it again to double check. As most of you already know, it's a very slick production with some fairly convincing audio, which it should be, they had 5 years to perfect it ? but still fake. Anyway, apart from the critical frames of the 2nd "hit" explosion having been cut from the footage at around 11:38, I noticed it also has some glaring cgi bloopers especially with shadows (shadows seem to be all perp film fakers' Achilles Heel, don't they).

The big blunder around 14:07 has shadows on buildings from a moving smoke/dust cloud as static, 'painted' and then not in sync with the smoke.

Also, the last few minutes showing zoom shots (from their South-West-facing apartment window?) of people moving below has more serious problems with shadow directions. First from those on dust-covered ground, with shadows pointing toward the camera (ghost people as well!), then cuts to people on the dock, presumably at the same time of day, who have their shadows pointing at right angles away from the camera!
Must still use the same guys who did the Moon :P

Think one of you Video Wizards might be able to make a detailed video analysis of the "Bob & Bri" footage your next project, or Simon? :D
Because it's one of the most insidiously convincing of the "amateur" fakes, it really needs to be fully debunked and exposed with expert precision.

They have an email listed at the end: "Video recorded 9-11-2001 wtcbpc@gmail.com"

[simonshack]

Think one of you Video Wizards might be able to make a detailed video analysis of the "Bob & Bri" footage your next project, or Simon? :D
Because it's one of the most insidiously convincing of the "amateur" fakes, it really needs to be fully debunked and exposed with expert precision.

Ma-at,

I'm done with that part- thank you very much !
Anyone is free to do more detailed analyses of "Bob & Bri" (or of any other version of the 'Playstation-grade' 9/11 animations).
I am quite content with what we have on "Bob & Bri" already. "What do we have?" - you may ask. More than enough. In fact, these 3 clues should suffice:

We have a History Channel version of "Bob & Bri's apartment view" - complete with a grey WTC7 :rolleyes: and a lone, "flexible" background building:



The History Channel also has another "peek-out-the window" version of the Bob & Bri master 3D model, complete with reddish wall (WTC7 still grey) and an optically impossible lens flare which persists when "camera" turns back inside the apartment.


It is just a DIGITAL CITYSCAPE. Hello, I thought this was clear to everyone by now! :blink:

[hoi.polloi]

lol Maat! :lol:

You find Bob & Bri convincing?

You're in the wrong activist community, my man. Try something that requires a bit weaker perceptive abilities.

On this site you need to be able to distinguish for yourself between blatant propaganda like that horribly acted, obviously staged, computer-layered hoax and real video.

I have suspended you for 24 hours so you can study these things a little more closely.

View this:

http://septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

and click through the pages here:

http://septemberclues.info/simulated_sceneries.htm

If you need more time away from the forum to get your bearings straight, just let me know.

[Brutal Metal]

Hey Simon and Hoi what do you think of those two college roomates footage from their apartment that was shown on History channel? Those girls seemed to have a perfect view of the towers as well? It wasn't taken at a certain angle it was "Dead On" straight and the height aspect made it seem like their apartment was a 100 story skyscraper cause you could tell the camera wasn't angled upward? I guess everyone lived on the same floor of the same building?? haha!! Her interview seemed convincing like all the others...

[D.Duck]

One if the clips I used in analyzing the OH GOD! woman's voice also comes from "102 Minutes That Changed America". It seems messing around with the audio was a common occurrence for this 'documentary'.

9/11 Audio Fakery: "tinacart" Revisited

Piper,

I am sure you know that Mike Herzakhani is in the Tina Cart clip saying " The World Trade Center just fell"

Mike is also in another video with the " oh,my God " woman where he says
" oh,my God , the plane just hit the building" and " it just run into the other tower" and I am not talking about his famous "ferry boat" performance where he had Carmen Taylor in his lap.

They sure had some nice script writers

I just wanted to point it out as a side note.


D.Duck


EDIT: I found the link, enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJig1wj7oLI

[simonshack]

Hey Simon and Hoi what do you think of those two college roomates footage from their apartment that was shown on History channel?

Oh yes, that one...The one with the screaming college girls which then pick up stuff from their drawers and run into the elevator.

Well - I just hope no one will contend that these are real images. However, let's now pretend that they ARE real images. That video features 2 "jumpers".

So, this is the first jumper. Let's call him "JIM". Note Jim's shadow on the WTC:



This is the second jumper. Let's call him "BOB". Note Bob's shadow on the WTC:


Now, if these were real images we would have to believe that BOB was an olympic long-jump champion. As you can see, the two jumpers' distance from the tower fa?ade is vastly different (at a ratio of about 1 to 3). So, if JIM was falling down at, say, 3 meters from the WTC fa?ade - then BOB was falling down at 9 meters from the WTC fa?ade. It is up to you to believe if this is possible in the real world.

Of course, the usual 'debunker' might say: Those are not shadows! What we see are 2 pairs of persons (4 in all) jumping at the same time from different heights! :lol:

[Brutal Metal]

That's correct Simon the girls that ran to the elavator after rummaging through drawers in their apartment.. Nice analysis I figured you already de-bunked this simulated footage, Nice Job!!

[Maat]

lol Maat! :lol:

You find Bob & Bri convincing?

You're in the wrong activist community, my man. Try something that requires a bit weaker perceptive abilities.

On this site you need to be able to distinguish for yourself between blatant propaganda like that horribly acted, obviously staged, computer-layered hoax and real video.

I have suspended you for 24 hours so you can study these things a little more closely.

Hoi,

My apologies for any misunderstanding caused, I really thought I'd made it clear in what I wrote here (and previously) that of course I know it's all fake, but that it is the most insidiously convincing of all the "amateur" fakes ? because of the (relatively) better acting, to those still unsure ? and by contrast, especially compared to the more unsophisticated, ridiculous cartoon parodies (like the TinaCart garbage etc.).

I naturally assumed it was understood here that the "Bob & Bri" movie was obviously produced as an attempt at 'damage control' for maximum psychological effect: to suck doubters back in by sounding more "natural" (than the other disasters) from a normal-sounding "family" atmosphere, thus evoking a powerful emotional-reality connection/response to override the visual unreality.

Simon,

I honestly didn't mean to imply the vid frames you cited were inadequate in any way, on the contrary (I have watched hundreds of video fakery analyses over the last few months, and most of yours already of course). I was actually focusing on the specific changing shadow direction evidence so exemplified in "Bob & Bri" because I thought it could help more regular people (not just video buffs) recognize the distant 'sim-people' in that one are also cgi and why.

In particular, as you said so aptly on another shot of buildings, "the sun doesn't lie, bad people do", so applying that to the cgi "people" would help to bring it into a more relatable, personal reference frame for some where buildings wouldn't, e.g. We all know what our own and others' shadows look like on the ground at any time of day. Does that make sense?

I probably I didn't explain it well before, but since I understand the focus and intent of this research is to awaken as many as possible I was simply thinking from the perspective of how it takes different proof triggers for different people to really see it. :)

The lady Ma'at, at your service ;)

[nonhocapito]

My apologies for any misunderstanding caused...

I honestly didn't mean to imply...

...at your service

I must admit I don't enjoy how we are constantly brought to apologies as soon as we state something even slightly ambiguous. Every other day on this forum there is a drama that ends up with someone banned or suspended or coming back apologizing in a way or another (I did so myself a few times). I imagine this is the result of years of dealing with trolls and agents, still it can be tiring for everybody, no? Can't we let people follow their lines of thought a little longer? Or at least intimidate them less? Who wants to read apologies in a discussion forum?

[simonshack]

We all know what our own and others' shadows look like on the ground at any time of day. Does that make sense?

Yes, Ma'at

it certainly makes sense. ;)

[Maat]

We all know what our own and others' shadows look like on the ground at any time of day. Does that make sense?

Yes, Ma'at

it certainly makes sense. ;)

So you see what I mean about how the 2 back-to-back "people" scenes in "Bob & Bri" are so perfect to demonstrate the impossible shadow changes from perpendicular to right angles within minutes? :)

[fred]

Ah, but there's a simple explanation for this, and one that will surely help me win a ticket to Mars. Everyone knows that when you've been drinking, your face looks different and you walk differently. It's the same with shadows. The man with the long shadow must be drunk. ;)

The interactions between the crosswalk and the painted-on shadows are particularly amusing. I never knew that the edges of shadows should be so much darker than the center of shadows. (man at far left)



(pardon, just added "man at far left" - hope you don't mind, Fred!)
simon :)