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
molodyets
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:01 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by molodyets »

Sometimes I'm in the musical mood for "whisper screaming" songs, as I like to call them. One such band is called Tactical Sekt. I've been listening to this song for several years, but only this morning looked at the official video. I think it's fitting for this topic.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53bGw77eR1Q
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by simonshack »

*

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING COLLAPSE: WHAT CAUSED IT?

Alright, folks - so just for fun let me ask everyone how they think that the Empire State Building was 'brought down' in 1996:

1: Was it military-grade thermite?

2: Was it "Mini nukes"?

3: Was it "DEW" weapons?

4: Was it special movie effects?

The ESB collapsing top-down (and horrified people running away on the streets below)

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kac6k22XFE

Next, how do you think that the WTC towers were brought down on September 11, 2001?

The WTC collapsing top-down (and horrified people running away on the streets below)
Image

1: Was it military-grade thermite?

2: Was it "Mini nukes"?

3: Was it "DEW" weapons?

4: Was it special movie effects?

*************************************************************

Ok, so for the newcomers to this forum who might not quite grasp the point of this brief 'thought-provoking' post of mine, let me explain :

For decades now, perhaps the foremost / most intense and controversial of all 9/11 debates has been: JUST HOW were the WTC towers brought down?

Of course, every single opinion and theory put forth by countless 9/11 "truther groups" concerning this particular matter has been based on the available VISUALS of the WTC collapses.

But what if ALL the available visuals (still pictures & motion pictures) depicting the WTC collapses were crafted with Hollywood techniques such as those used in the movie Independence Day (1996)? To be sure, no one has ever discussed about what sort of "super-weapons" might have caused the collapse of the Empire State Building - as depicted in that old Hollywood movie - since that would be the silliest / most idiotic debate imaginable!

Now, at this forum we have spent many years methodically examining and comparing the available imagery purportedly depicting the collapses of the Twin Towers - which both appear to magically 'dissolve' into fine dust in mid-air, well before hitting the ground. Of course, such a top-down collapse is a physical impossibility - under all known laws of physics and demolition tecniques - and this is why the use of all sorts of exotic, classified / secret weapons have been theorized by various "9/11 pundits". As we have shown in this forum, however, the problems with those "super-weapon" theories are multiple. Let's take a look at a few of them - with a lucid and rational outlook:

- No covert military operations would rely on any novel, untested weaponry to bring down large buildings in Manhattan. Only the most dependable demolition techniques - such as those used every day to bring down old buildings with - would have been chosen. Nothing is ever left to chance in any military operation - period.

- If the Twin towers had truly been 'dustified' mid-air (as depicted in the available collapse videos), this would completely fail to explain why as many as 7 other buildings were 'mortally wounded' - and were all ultimately fully demolished. Here's from the Wikipedia: "Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC), and 7 WTC were destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building (still popularly referred to as the Bankers Trust Building) on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished some years later, starting in 2007." Evidently, the Twin Towers were NOT pulverized mid-air - and did NOT collapse straight down into their own footprints as depicted on TV. Instead, the demolition job was clearly a very messy affair that caused massive 'collateral damage'.

- The extensive analyses (and cross-comparisons) of the available WTC collapse videos and stills performed and documented at this forum over the years have revealed innumerable inconsistencies and aberrations - of various nature - between the various versions of the same. Of course, if all this imagery had been authentic, no such discrepancies between photographic material meant to depict the very same event(s) would exist.

In conclusion, the WTC was - in all logic and likelihood - demolished with ultra-reliable conventional demolition charges; a simple military-grade smokescreen was raised around the WTC complex area before the detonations of the same, thus impeding ANY photographic depiction of the actual collapses.
jon909
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:00 am

The Joshua Good "amateur" footage

Unread post by jon909 »

I recently got into a debate with someone about 9/11 and they told me about Joshua Good's amateur footage (released in 2016).
I have never seen this footage before. And as someone who knows that all of the amateur footage is staged, I can't help but think maybe this one is real.

Perhaps it's because of the amount of people in it. Or because of how long it is (33 minutes).

What are your thoughts on this footage? Real? Fake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RuW0iM ... 0%BE%D0%B2
Macaria
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:43 pm

Re: The Joshua Good "amateur" footage

Unread post by Macaria »

Pardon?

It's real because there are many people and it runs for 33 minutes?
Don't you think you should have better reasons for thinking this real "being someone who knows that all of the amateur footage is staged"?

How can all the others be fake and one come out so many years later and be the real deal?

Anyways, for one thing, I did watch a bit and thought it impossible that people could distinguish a human falling from the building at the distance they were at.
Yep, they actually, really, truly filmed a guy fall from the towers (about 10:19).
It's real! :rolleyes:
jon909
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:00 am

Re: The Joshua Good "amateur" footage

Unread post by jon909 »

Macaria wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:53 am Pardon?

It's real because there are many people and it runs for 33 minutes?
It's just different than all the other "amateur videos" I've seen. That's why I said it might be real.
Prior to this, the longest amateur video I've seen was 5 minutes long. And it only had a few people in it. This video is half an hour and has footage of a street filled with people.

You are right though; the footage is not without its flaws. I too noticed the perfect zoom-in shot of the "jumper". That was my first clue that the video might be staged.
Also, the smoke at 11:00 (when he zooms in) looks CGI.

And, the person filming (Joshua Good) misses the "plane" hitting the building. How do you film for 33 minutes and miss the most important part? :blink:
Macaria
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:43 pm

Re: The Joshua Good "amateur" footage

Unread post by Macaria »

jon909 wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 7:35 am I too noticed the perfect zoom-in shot of the "jumper".
Good point, that was spectacularly good "camera" work.
I didn't think of that. I was referring to their ability to make out a person, rather than a falling speck, at that distance. Sure, the cameraman could zoom in, but most (all?) of those other guys on the rooftop were looking with the naked eye, yet were already wailing "oh my gawd!" etc. before the cameraman zoomed in. How did they see it and if they did, how did they know what it was?

Anyways, it's really moot at this stage. It's simply not coherent that a real video can come out 15 years after the fact and confirm what all the prior videos were depicting when those videos have already been shown to be fake.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Joshua Good "amateur" footage

Unread post by simonshack »

jon909 wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2024 6:21 am And as someone who knows that all of the amateur footage is staged, I can't help but think maybe this one is real.

Perhaps it's because of the amount of people in it. Or because of how long it is (33 minutes).
Hello jon909,

Let me first point out that the fact that the "Joshua Good 9/11 footage" is long (33 minutes) and features many people in it - does not confer to it any more authenticity than any other shorter "9/11 amateur clips". This would be like saying that, since the spectacular specialFX-ridden disaster movie "Independence Day" runs for all of 145 minutes and features crowds of panicking folks running around the streets of Manhattan, everything in that movie must therefore depict REAL events that actually took place in reality!...

A 24-second clip from "Independence Day (1996) - check it out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kac6k22XFE

*************************************************************************

THE "JOSHUA GOOD" FOOTAGE - JUST ANOTHER PHONY 9/11 "AMATEUR VIDEO"

Let us first establish the origin & provenance of that 33-min clip credited to "Joshua Good". Well, please know that it 'just so happens' to be one of the dozens of "9/11 amateur clips" released by NIST back in 2010 (that's right, as many as 9 years after the event!). You may read all about this infamous NIST-released footage in my old 2012 post linked below. Suffice to say that in early 2010 (as the silly narrative goes), NIST was allegedly forced to release (following a FOIA request filed by none other than ABC News!) a huge 4.7-gigabyte batch of purported "amateur videos" which, we were told, NIST "had collected from amateur, professional and freelance photographers as part of its investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Centre"... At the time, I of course promptly downloaded the full 4.7GB file which had been made publicly available on the web - and have since analyzed all of its contents "to death", i.e. from every conceivable angle and aspect (yes, I'm probably the world's top forensic analyst of the "NIST-FOIA-CUMULUS" video batch...). The very first, striking aspect of this "NIST 9/11 amateur footage" (which NIST would have been sitting on and 'kept in a drawer' for all of 9 years!) was its remarkably sharp resolution - far superior to ANY previously available 9/11 imagery released by the mainstream media (between 2001 and 2010)...

The "NIST-FOIA Cumulus" batch (or "The Nine Eleven 2010 Movie Sequel"): viewtopic.php?p=2365938#p2365938

Let's now take a good look at this "Joshua Good" video (which is but one of dozens of clips from the NIST-FOIA-CUMULUS batch, all with remarkably similar 'aspect and texture' - as if they were all captured with one and the same camera). To be sure, 2001 cellphones had no video capacities, so one would expect far more variety from private videos captured with the different consumer cameras available at the time. But these arcane technical considerations, as we shall see, aren't even necessary to mention - in order to prove the utter fakeness of the so-called "9/11 amateur videos".

At 10:21 into the video, "Joshua" (with his ostensibly hand-held camera) starts zooming in towards the WTC1 tower (just as everyone starts screaming around him) and, while doing so, catches a "WTC jumper" in his viewfinder. Then, in what would be a superhuman feat of skill, vision, composure and self-control - he gently starts panning & following that free-falling object downwards until it disapppears behind a foreground building. Unruffled but what he just filmed, he then gently zooms out on the wider scenery - the entire 8-second, hand-held zoom-in / zoom-out sequence (capturing that "WTC jumper") featuring virtually no camera shake - in spite of the considerable distance to the WTC complex.

"Joshua Good captures WTC jumper" (animated gif slowed down to 0.25% speed)
Image

(NOTE: I trust that anyone familiar with some early-2000 videogames will notice the 'digital look' of the entire scenery - what with the washed-out and featureless aspect of the various buildings. More importantly still, the North face of WTC2 should have been in shade at that time of the morning: https://septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%2 ... ES_001.jpg )

Alright, so does this PROVE (beyond reasonable doubt) that this is a phony CGI video? No. People may still argue that our Joshua "went lucky" that day or/and that he was a truly masterful videographer with nerves of steel and super-steady arms & hands. Why he never got a Pulitzer prize for this shot is the only remaining question...

So how can we demonstrate (beyond reasonable doubt) that this is a phony CGI video? Well, we do know that the WTC towers were about 63m wide (or 207 feet), and that each of their facades featured 59 equally-spaced beams. Using simple maths, we see that 15 beams would subtend approximately 15m (or 49 feet). My below screenshot shows the very first video frame in which our "WTC jumper" suddenly appears (literally out of the blue), soon before "Joshua's camera" reaches maximum zoom. I have highlighted 15 WTC beams in red, representing roughly 15 meters. Since Joshua has an almost head-on view of the WTC1 tower (its lefthand corner actually being very slightly angled AWAY from him), we may say that this 15-m estimate is a conservative one. The question thus becomes: can anyone jumping out from a building end up tumbling 15 meters (or more) away from it? You be the judge.

Image

Later on in his "video", we see that our Joshua later decided to descend from his rooftop location down to the streets of Manhattan. Here's where "we find him":

Image

This view and location will mean nothing to you - until you'll know that as many as 10 other purported "amateur shots" (credited to 10 different photographers and videographers) were supposedly captured from very much that same location. By all means, you are free to believe that this is all just a matter of plain coincidence. However, if you do accept that the WTC complex was rigged for demolition (a total of 9 buildings were destroyed), don't forget to ask yourself whether any 'Joe Public' was allowed to access the area - and film the whole shebang at such close distance.

Image

Lastly, can any video geeks or gaming experts help me understand what sort of peculiar "glitch" this would be? (it occurs at 15:41 in "Joshua's video"): https://septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%2 ... tch_01.jpg

**********************************************************************

IN CONCLUSION:

So exactly what - you may now ask - was the purpose of releasing this 4.7GB batch of (obvious CGI) "private 9/11 videos" - in 2010 ? What would the possible motives behind manufacturing a bunch of "never-seen-before amateur videos" have been? And how did they think they would get away with releasing this new (and much sharper) CGI material as many as 9 years after the event? Well, here are the multiple reasons I can see for this rather bold undertaking:

- Firstly, you need to know that until 2010, there was a mere handful of purported "9/11 amateur videos" circulating on the internets (virtually ALL of which credited to Steve Rosenbaum's Camera Planet TV production studios): STEVEN ROSENBAUM'S $3MILLION ARCHIVE OF 9/11 "AMATEUR FOOTAGE": viewtopic.php?p=2364110#p2364110 Those Camera Planet clips were horribly blurry & pixelated, i.e. of piss-poor resolution. There were no close-up shots to be found of either WTC jumpers or WTC collapses - surely the most "spectacular and heartbreaking visuals" that the 9/11 narrative relied upon to start the "War on Terror" and bomb Iraq and Afghanistan to smithereens - on the wave of the public outrage triggered by the "Binladen attacks" .

- Since a growing number of 9/11 researchers had justly been lamenting the scarcity of private / amateur imagery of the event, there was a mounting need for the 9/11 planners & perpetrators to do something about it. Naturally, what they chose to produce was a number of traumatizing CGI clips showing suicidal pixels jumping from the towers, complete with people screaming and running - and close-up shots of the towers absurdly / unphysically collapsing top down (!)... (in reality, no legit imagery of the tower collapses exist - as they were enveloped in artificial smoke well before they set off the demolition charges).

- How did they think they would get away with it? Well, in 1990 (that is 18 years after the last "Apollo 17 moonlanding"), they had already successfully tested the general public's aloofness and credulity by releasing volumes of magnificent, never-seen-before high-res color images of the phony Apollo missions. It worked fairly well - and perhaps half of this world's population still believe in NASA's televised moon missions. However, here in Italy where I live, it really feels more like 25 %... NASA is on its way down - and so is the lame 9/11 hoax: a simple controlled demolition job of some old, fully-evacuated real estate - sold to the world as an evil "muslim terror attack". :rolleyes:
jon909
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:00 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by jon909 »

Excellent (and quite funny) breakdown of the footage, Simon :lol:
User Macaria made some good points as well.

The jumper appearing out of nowhere, and the common angle that "Joshua" and many others coincidently filmed from the street, are enough evidence for me to conclude that the footage is indeed fake.

Also, I can't believe I did not notice the north face should be in shade :blink:
Perhaps I was too focused on other issues with the footage, that I missed the most obvious one...


PS: I had some unrelated questions about the "HD" photos of the moon landing. However your reply seems to have answered those questions :)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI collapse footage

Unread post by simonshack »

jon909 wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:09 am Excellent (and quite funny) breakdown of the footage, Simon :lol:
I'm glad I made you laugh, dear jon909. Laughing is a quite healthy exercise !

Now, check out these 3 shots - and let me know what you make of them, ok? -_-

Image

Yes, all 3 shots are taken from the very same "9/11 video" credited to an "amateur videographer" (whom I jokingly call "Joe Wonder")...
Post Reply