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
The entire pool of 9/11 imagery was crafted by the planners of the 9/11 hoax. The TV imagery was, as demonstrated, entirely computer-generated - i.e. entirely fake. And so was ALSO the so-called "amateur" footage and pictures released later on. I personally suspect a man called Steven Rosenbaum - and his "CAMERA PLANET company" to have manufactured most - if not all - of the 9/11 "amateur" videos.
This is the sort of video quality that the CAMERA PLANET "9/11 amateur imagery" proposed until circa 2008/9 :
Here's a prime example of the sort of video clips we have - supposedly filmed by some "amateur" videographer: September 11th 2001 Second Plane Crash WNBC Dub9_01
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PpQSLI8VCE
Did you notice those doves flying by ?
Now, take your video camera, hold it steady towards a distant scenery - until a bird flies in front of your lens - and see if you can capture sharp, sequential frames such as these on film. Good luck!
Next, let's have a look at this 2001 video frame credited to "Mr. Clifton Cloud", who allegedly captured the crashing "FLIGHT 175" from a Manhattan rooftop. Today, a 15-year-old can tell this is cheap computer imagery - not a real cityscape. Here you can watch the full Clifton Cloud sequence: http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF ... 0zoom1.gif
Here's the infamous closeup shot credited to "EVAN FAIRBANKS". Not a splinter of the 'aircraft' shears off as it hits the WTC!
Here's the miraculous zoom-in shot (credited to "Jennifer Spell"), capturing "FLIGHT 175 striking the WTC":
In 2010, a large pool of never-seen-before 9/11 video clips emerged on the internet - credited to a bunch of authors ranging from street-level shots by "amateur-videographers" to aerial shots by "military or police choppers". As the (official) story goes, this never-seen-before material was finally released to the public 9 years after 9/11, we are told, thanks to a FOIA act filed by the ABC News Corporation!...
The general quality/resolution of this new, 2010 NIST/FOIA imagery was significantly superior to any previously available 9/11 imagery - something which no observant, experienced 9/11 researcher failed to notice. This was, clearly, a case of history repeating itself - and immediately brought to mind the ridiculously crisp & glossy Apollo imagery which emerged out of the blue, decades after NASA's phony moon landings. Evidently, these new 9/11 video clips were nothing but an upgraded batch of re-polished, re-hashed and re-processed "3D" computer renderings. Luckily, the higher resolution of these clips actually helps us detect and highlight in even more compelling manner the phony nature of the 9/11 imagery.
Let's take a look at one of these 2010 NIST Cumulus clips - credited to one "Jim Huibregtse" (no need to watch all of it):
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJXNdhkhCY
Here I have looped the "Huibregtse" video between 0:58 and 1:09. We have a zoom-out motion followed by a zoom-in motion. Focus your eyes on the top of WTC7 (the building seen emerging at bottom of screen). Watch how it's height appears to grow during the zoom-out motion - yet remains rock static during the zoom-in motion. You just can't have it both ways. Not in the real world.
Speaking of the real world - since when does charcoal black jet fuel smoke turn chalk white - in the matter of seconds?
And is Mr. Huibretgse's video camera for real? How can it first capture (early on in the video) WTC7 with all its windows and stripes - and later on in the video, barely capture a greyish, washed-out WTC7 façade with hardly any detail at all? (And no, less direct sunlight will not cause any decent camera to go 'contrast-blind' - ONLY poor renderings of digital imaging softwares will. )
ISAAC'S OBLIQUE FREE-FALL TO HIS (VIRTUAL) DEATH
But the best part of "Jim Huibregtse's" clip is when it shows a supposed 'suicide jumper' (which we shall call "ISAAC") tumbling down the tower façade - causing poor Sir Isaac Newton to, once again, spin in his grave. ISAAC's trajectory can be traced in three easy steps: A - B - C.
Here is "A" - just as ISAAC initiates his (supposedly) gravity-driven fall :
Here is "C" - soon before ISAAC disappears from view: (what a remarkable shadow!)
And here is ISAAC's full trajectory. My red line represents how a body - attracted by Earth's gravity - would fall on a perfectly windless day. Thanks to the WTC's vertical beams (and knowing that there were 59 of them for a total tower-width of 208 feet) we can compute ISAAC's sideways-drift speed in this 5-sec long shot. Please check the maths for yourself if you will : I get an approximate figure of 10 ft per second - or 6,81 mph.
So, you may ask: "what was the average wind speed on 9/11?" According to this weather chart (see below), the recorded wind speeds of those early morning hours fluctuated between a minimum of 6,9mph and a maximum of 10,4mph. No need to be a rocket scientist to know that a free-falling human body won't drift sideways at a rate of 7mph ... due to a 10mph breeze! It just won't happen- in the real world. We ain't kites, you know !
AND HERE IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT "ISAAC THE JUMPER" IS NOTHING BUT A COMPUTER ANIMATION:
We now have multiple, incontrovertible evidence that the Naudet's "1st hit" footage is a complete fraud (i.e. entirely composited / fabricated entirely in a studio). Here I have listed a few of the numerous problems with that (in)famous video. Note that this the one-and-only existing "video" purportedly depicting "Flight 11" - a phantom American Airlines flight which was not even scheduled to fly that day. But let's see why the Naudet footage of "Flight11 striking WTC1" simply cannot be a real and authentic video clip :
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
Here is more proof of the digital nature of the Naudet's "FLIGHT 11" clip. Can anyone provide any rational explanation for this?:
Also, Can anyone provide rational / convincing answers to these 5 questions?
1: The window washer machine on top of WTC2 (at left) is nowhere to be seen in ANY of the other existing 9/11 imagery. 2: What is this smoke puffing out of the top floors of WTC1 - only 3,5 seconds after the "FLIGHT11 strike" ??? 3: What is this fireball exiting the South side of WTC1 - WAY below the level of "FLIGHT11's" entry hole? 4: Why can't we see the right wing's gash /entry hole - which successively becomes clearly visible? 5: What explosive forces could possibly have caused that puff of smoke emerging out of the West side of WTC1?
Here follows more evidence that the NAUDET brothers "FLIGHT11" clip is a fraud:
How can this fireman have a shadow in a shaded area...unless there were 2 suns shining in New York that day ?
Now, some have argued that this shadow is possible: as the argument goes, the pink Post Office buiding across the street reflects / bounces off enough light to produce that shadow. Now, just to get a better view of the Lispenard st/Church st intersection, here are two Google Earth images - evidently captured on a sunny Manhattan morning (reasonably similar to the morning of September 11, 2001) :
Now, does this girl project a shadow - in her shaded area? ( "X" is the location of the fireman in the Naudet video)
The Naudet brothers' movie "911" was entirely "made in Hollywood" - in the sense that it was produced with heavy use of 3D animation software (just as ALL the 9/11 imagery released to the public). Here we have another proof of this fact - as we compare the Naudet images ("FLIGHT 11 crash") with the images released in 2010 - credited to one "Steve Vigilante":
LEFT: "Original Naudet images"_____________________________RIGHT: "New 2010 Steve Vigilante video:
The red-versus-white discrepancies observed above cannot be ascribed to any chromatic distortion or white-balance issues: if this were the case, you would not have only HALF the building in chromatic conflict with the other. Of course, the simple fact that someone releases on Youtube in 2010 a "never-seen-before" 9/11 video supposedly shot from a virtually identical angle as the Naudet brothers is outrageously stupid.
I also think it is highly doubtful that someone painted this white stripe during the time supposedly elapsed between the Naudet image and the Vigilante image. And no, it is not any sort of reflection (bricks tend to reflect very poorly): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwKQXsXJDX4
The Naudet brothers' movie "9/11" was, in fact, the 'mothership' of the phony 9/11 image pool. Here's a shot featured in the beginning of their crass propaganda movie ( yes, I have flipped the shot 90° on its side - but don't accuse me of playing deceptive games with your mind!):
Do you really think it is just coincidental that the Naudet brothers captured a night shot of the WTC towers PRIOR TO 9/11 - with the office lights spelling out a "9/11" pattern ? Can you really believe that this was just pure, coincidental happenstance? If you can, there is very little I can do to help you exit the 9/11 Matrix. Good luck to you and your life on this planet. Perhaps ignoring these facts will make your life a happier one!
As amply demonstrated by now throughout our longstanding, methodical CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE research, NONE of the 9/11 imagery is authentic - and this includes all the existing WTC collapse imagery. However, when detecting inconsistencies between two given images, it is only deontologically correct to conclude with this 'cautious / conservative' verdict:
STEVE ROSENBAUM is now a 'curator' at the National 9/11 Museum & Memorial !
Watch Steve Rosenbaum talk about "trust, curation, relevant content, health food" and whatnot:
...and about "THE FACTS" of 9/11 :
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bomAlFwKqt8
Read about Steve Rosenbaum's (and his camera crew's) "harrowing day" on September 11, 2001 : http://www.beliefnet.com/9_11Anniversar ... y.aspx?p=6 (You've gotta love the name of the site carrying that article..."beliefnet.com"... )
Wow. The perps just keep churning out more and more variants of their old "FLIGHT 175" templates.
Two brand new "amateur still pictures" have recently emerged (credited to "John Sullivan" and "Jane Barrer") - but they are clearly only slight variations of the old "Sean Adair" shot (as featured in September Clues). Why I have never seen these fabulous, Pulitzer-worthy shots by Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. Barrer until today is quite a ...ehrm... 'mystery' to me!
But of course, you are all free to believe that Sean Adair, John Sullivan and Jane Barrer JUST HAPPENED TO COINCIDENTALLY CAPTURE this 550mph airliner - ONE second or so before it struck WTC2 - from slightly different vantage points!
************* NOTE: Yes, I have cropped and overlaid these three shots, using the twin towers as a reference frame. But that is all that I've done. The original Sullivan and Barrer images can be found here, on this shameless and pathetic planehugger site: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html
Note: (I have just moved this old post over from page 1 of this thread today - September 28, 2014)
RENDERING GLITCHES
The animation software(s) used to produce the fraudulent 9/11 imagery seems to have been affected with a peculiar rendering bug - causing frames to 'shear' in a manner not ascribable to any known video artifacts. To be sure, this 'pixel shearing phenomenon' can be observed in various clips supposedly shot by various cameras - both in the available "amateur footage" and the "TV broadcast footage". We may therefore rule out the hypothesis that this was due to a disfunction of any one given camera or some sort of video format conversion / compression or the like. It appears to be a recurring, 'exclusive and proprietary' glitch of the 9/11 image pool. Here are a couple of examples :
source: RICK SIEGEL's "amateur video": source: ABC7 Live 9/11 broadcast:
In fact, even NIST's newly released (mid- 2010) "high-definition 9/11 footage" contains many anomalous frames - reminiscent of the above 'phenomenon'. Here is a series of frames extracted from the (in)famous "EVAN FAIRBANKS" video clip. As Evan runs away from the WTC (having just captured "the Flight 175 crash"), he first keeps the camera tilted up towards some buildings:
Evan then runs around a street corner and, seemingly, decides to drop the camera on the ground to capture scenes of panicking people 'running for their life' among heaps of flying paperwork and debris (?) strewn on the tarmac:
Here's a series of 4 sequential 'distorted people'. Note that the 'pixel shearing' (for lack of a better term) does not always span the entire length of the video frame. It mostly appears to affect the people only - but not the backdrop scenery:
Here's another sequential series of glitches. The last frame at bottom right features a man in yellow shirt 'losing' his lower leg only (no 'videotape-tracking' involved whatsoever): this rules out any tentative counter-arguments suggesting that these glitches are any sort of standard video artifacts caused by tape tracking/misalignment issues.
And a man walks away - with a badly upset stomach...
Undeniably, the difficulty of exposing the fraudulent 9/11 imagery pool and its digitally animated graphics resides in the fact that it was most likely produced with non-consumer softwares; as we are left unable to compare the bugs and flaws of those softwares with any known image-processing tools, we can only speculate as to the origin of the observable aberrations. Conversely, the uniqueness of these aberrations represent the most compelling evidence that something is very wrong with the proposed images of 9/11.
