CGI collapse footage

[Heiwa]

The top crush-down global structural collapses of WTC1/2 shown 'live on TV' with smoke ejected sideways and upwards, wall steel column panels 6 floors tall, 20 meters wide ripped off and thrown out and dropping down followed by dust clouds, corner structures breaking up floor by floor, etc, etc, is not possible physically (energy and force not available) or practically ... so what you see of global collapses is 100% animation Hollywood style. You can thus be sure that what you see on TV/videos/photos before is also animations, e.g. falling people from floors above hole in wall. Actually the floors above are completely undamaged and there should not be any smoke or fire there, ... so why jump? It is amazing that, e.g. the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, believes that any steel structure can destroy itself from above by gravity, i.e. a small loose weak top part C can crush a taller, bigger and stronger bottom part A, where A carries C before.

So I offer $ 1 000 000:- to anybody that can describe such a structure where C crushes A. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm
I have invited universities and structural designers/analysts worldwide ... and nobody is able to come up with such a structure. Ergo - the WTC global collapses footages are fake.

[Equinox]

The towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed – and no real footage exists of that brief event. All collapse shots are computer-generated animations, much like the ones we saw in the Independence Day Movie (1996)...





--- and in the "ARMAGEDDON" Hollywood movie (1998) :




Discuss!!!



Required reading/viewing before posting on this thread:
COLLAPSE ANALYSES on my website > September Clues.info : http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

[Equinox]

In March 2010, the "SAURET-shot" was used again in a fanciful documentary by one "DIMITRI KHALEZOV". This man claims to be a "former soviet nuclear expert" and he uses - once again - the fake 9/11 imagery to illustrate why he believes the WTC was demolished by some nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Dimitri's version of the SAURET-shot is a sorry disaster: his WTC tower only shows 39 out of 59 beams ! Evidently, the 9/11 fakery-team provided poor Mr. Khalezov with a scrap copy of the various test-runs of their computer animations... Note also that the 39 beams are askew in relation to the building's frame. This formidable cock-up establishes beyond reasonable doubt the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 imagery.

(Gif anyone?)

I have no problems agreeing with this... does 2 + 2 = 12?
Not likely… and in this scenario I do not expect the same type of equation either. I believe neither shot is real...
On a side note I have researched that the WTC “comprised 59 box-section columns, spaced at 1.02 metre centres.”

Don’t quote that number.

These two different variation shots are one of the first pieces of convincing pieces of evidence that have lead me to believe that the collapse shots are CGI...

[simonshack]

*
This image was posted on the official "9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM" website. It was then removed, soon after that we exposed it as a fake image - right here on this forum. Note the cloned smoke patterns:



In fact, there exist no real images of the WTC tower collapses. Let this thread demolish the myth that the WTC collapses were ever captured on film.

[simonshack]

*
The antennas are seen falling in opposite directions - in spite of both "camera angles" being very similar:

[Tufa]

I am of the opinion that the "Tower Fall Down" pictures could, partially, be some kind of model, prepared to produce the "snow" avalanche clouds. A 50 cm width tower on a table?
It is absolutely not Real and best evidence would be the structural strength of the tower itself: If the tower fall, the video is a fake This idea, with a model, works reasonably well for the "fireball" effect.

[simonshack]

sorry! thats no good to me. i cant have the antenna falling in opposite directions,
but, for all those millions of TVDinner Americans... it will do just great !

Aww - I wouldn't be so harsh with the millions of TV-Dinner Americans. Surely, if daddy's beer-can topples to the right - or to the left - of the TVdinner table, the whole family will instantly be able to tell which side of the table it fell ! (mommy's got to clean up the mess,no?) Now, let's say that the family dog is lying to the right of the table - and baby Jonas is lying in his crib to the left of the table... Below, we have two frontal views of the WTC1 collapse:

Here, dad's beer-can topples over the dog: (yellow dotted line is parallel with the tower itself)


(To be sure, the yellow line is parallel with the WTC itself):



Here, dad's beer-can topples over baby Jonas:

Note that at NO moment in time does the beer-can (uh, I mean, the WTC antenna) lean even minimally to the right. Whoever argues that this is due to some sort of optical illusion/parallax/viewing angle issue... needs to explain this to every member of the family - convincingly. Good luck!




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

Here are two more WT1 collapse animations - just for the record. We will have a closer look at them later on:


source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo



source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6alf9_xswA

[Tufa]

ITS MAKE YR MIND UP TIME... GREENWICH ST. 9/11.
PYROCLASTIC ? ...OR NO PYROCLASTIC ?

.... PLASTIC !

[simonshack]

*
WTC2 COLLAPSE ANGLES

Well well well, folks...

Do you remember when I made these ROOFTOP TILT ANGLES observations in "September Clues Addendum"?

From this northview, WTC2 appeared to tilt steeply towards East:


From this northeast street vantage point, WTC2 appeared to tilt steeply South:


Later, I found that at least 3 photographers had snapped a still picture at the exact same split second, from very much the same vantage point (and there are, in fact a few more of those...). The problem is: whoever fabricted this set of stills was quite evidently confused about the towers' orientation - and simply f@*#%d-up big time. The WTC2 top section is tilting the wrong way! So I asked..."Can it get sillier than this"?



Yes, it can !

Here's a 'new' collapse video I found today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIeYKJyfFfU (at the very start of the video)
And here is what it shows: the WTC2 ROOFTOP disappears behind the smoke, with virtually no tilt angle at all !



I don't think anyone can fail to see the problems here:




And here's yet another proposed WTC2 collapse (courtesy of Steven Rosenbaum's CAMERA PLANET) :


Source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I

[simonshack]

*

WTC1 (pre-)COLLAPSE VIEWS

Ok folks - I know there are many out there still convinced that the tower collapse videos were real. Having demonstrated above that the imagery of the first collapse (that of WTC2) is dramatically contrived/inconsistent/absurd, let us have a look at the second collapse of the day (that of WTC1). If you are familiar with this page of my website http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm you will know that only CNN showed the WTC1 collapse "LIVE as it happened" at 10:28AM.

Here's an animated gif showing the long (18sec) zoom-in motion which, 'miraculously', stops JUST as the collapse commences:


We must assume this is a helicopter shot and, since it says "courtesy wnyw", we must also assume this is meant to be a shot from FOX's Chopper 5 - the same that supposedly filmed the infamous 'Nose-Out' shot. (Now, always keep in mind that I submit that these are no real shots from any TV choppers, so when I mention them it is only for the sake of referencing the various 9/11 TV images.)

Below, I have posted two frames extracted from 2 existing videos.

The first frame is from CNN's 'LIVE shot' (as seen in the animated gif above). Here's a link to that CNN clip:
CNN LIVE World Trade Center1 collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul--oYht2RE (sequence starts at 2:36 into the video)

The second frame is a new, anonymous clip (Oct 2010) presumably from the big batch of videos recently released by NIST:
ANONYMOUS video (released in 2010): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3RJvIaHL8 (virtually static view)

NOTE: You need to watch the 2 videos linked above before we may proceed and ask ourselves a couple of questions.



At first glance, the viewing angles of the 2 shots appear extremely similar - although they are in fact subtly (if not inexplicably) offset.
QUESTION 1: If the CNN shot was filmed by Chopper5, who filmed the Anonymous shot and from what vantage point?
QUESTION 2: If the Anonymous clip was shot from a much lower vantage point (as could be argued due to the buildings in the immediate foreground), how could the horizon line possibly appear as high as in the CNN shot?

We are left with only two options to explain these 2 shots:
Option1 - They were filmed from 2 different camera choppers aligned on an almost identical axis - one hovering below the other.
Option2 - We are looking at two digitally composited animations of the Manhattan scenery.

What is the most likely option? You be the judge.

[simonshack]

Oh, I forgot to mention: I would personally go for Option2 - anytime.

[Heiwa]

I fully agree with Simon that all collapse footages shown live on TV or Youtube or wherever are faked for the simple reason that nothing collapses by itself or by gravity from top down ever! If something collapses or breaks to pieces by itself or from gravity, it is from bottom up.

Evidently, if you overload something A from above with something else X and X is heavy and strong (and A is weak), X may crash-down A from above, but if X is a weak top part of A, X can never damage A below.

It is BASIC. It is the famous BJORKMAN AXIOM!

So what was shown live on TV on 911 and photographed by various people and published everywhere are just photoshopped animations of various kinds - as shown on this forum.

[hoi.polloi]

No, it's fake because it looks fake and it's filled with errors.

[repentantandy]

The point has been well demonstrated on this forum that sightlines to the top 1/3rd of each tower were generally occluded (by other buildings) from most ground-level and shorter-building venues on 9/11, and then there was the reality of the "general evacuation" that rapidly depopulated much of Lower Manhattan following the first "hit". Add to this the likely deployment of selected-frequency HERF/EMP tech to disable cameras without Faraday cages and the military-style generation of huge smoke plumes to further complicate Manhattan-based attempts at authentic photography (let alone breathing) of the actual tower collapses -- and you have the perp-desired situation of a "photographic vacuum" (regarding a real event) into which scads and scads of bogus imagery can effectively be inserted.

Check.

But what of the more than a million non-perp, ordinary folks residing or at work many miles away, on the Jersey Shore, with much better sightlines to the top 1/3 of the doomed towers than what was available to Manhattan residents? What of the Jersey folks likely out of range of the military-grade HERF/EMP and in no immediate state of panic while responding to evacuation orders. Shouldn't some of these people have grabbed for their cameras and camcorders and been successful in acquiring genuine stills and footage of the hollowed-out Silverstein cash-machine exploding into action? Of course they couldn't have captured any real images of "hot-knife-through-butter" passenger jets that never took off in the first place, but no one, even here at the ultra-skeptical, highly informed Clues Forum, doubts that the towers fell than morning, do they?

So shouldn't there be SOME authentic images of their demise, or at least of WHATEVER WAS visible (maybe just giant clouds of smoke) at the point in time when the seismic records indicated huge shock waves?

I still haven't seen the roundly denounced Jim Kosior video, and I certainly have no intention of supporting his suspiciously entrepreneurial efforts, but Simon's effective debunking of that peculiar production still doesn't preclude the possible surfacing of SOME genuine photography from Jersey sources, does it?

Or does it?

Are we to assume that Uncle Sugar's HERF/EMP was powerful enough to cripple cameras on the Jersey Shore too?

Perhaps.

But if, hypothetically speaking anyway, there were some photographers whose Jersey-based cameras did function effectively as the towers were about to topple -- what would the pictures show us?

And is the apparent absence of such images from the public record simply testament to the "long and powerful reach of the MSM gatekeepers," or to the lack of Faraday cages in Jersey, too?

The informed speculation here is awesome at times, so bring it on!

[hoi.polloi]

My guess is that it is fairly naive to assume only Manhattan was blocked. Given the international interests, they might have had military ready all over the country in case we caught on and there was some kind of instant revolution they had to suppress.

Rather than some kind of centrally located EMP in SoHo, they may have researched all areas for miles around that give a vantage point of the towers and went after anyone's photos that came close to capturing the "real" thing. This could be done with spy technology? More EMPs? It doesn't seem unreasonable given the huge interests.