9/11 SIMCITY

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

Postby nonhocapito on October 17th, 2010, 8:14 pm

simonshack 4 Oct 17 2010, 11:51 AM wrote: - The entire Naudet scenery is an advanced 3D "virtual reality" composite and was never actually filmed in that Church st/Lispenard street intersection. It cannot even have been shot in advance on a different morning (with successive CGI insertion of "airplane crash"), since the lighting is physically impossible.


Somewhere in my subconscious I think that shadow has always registered as "impossible".

I know this because every time I watched that scene, with that goofy fireman looking down the manhole, I had the "feeling" that the pavement was wet, as if for rain or for a street-washing that had just went on (but, alas, the pavement isn't wet at all): because only wetness would excuse that shadow, in the sense that it would not be a shadow but a reflection, as sometimes happens with thin puddles above dark sidewalks.

Now I can finally correct that effort of my brain, that in that split-second had to make sense of what felt wrong in the image --as I file that detail under "bad lightning during trickery". So thanks for this :D
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Postby simonshack on October 17th, 2010, 8:23 pm

nonhocapito 4 Oct 17 2010, 06:31 PM wrote:I will note that the first two verses of this song (and the refrain) are the following:


New York, New York big city of dreams
And everything in New York ain't always what it seems





The big city of dreams...
Where nothing's as it seems...

Now, take a ride 'n get high on

THE 9/11 SIMTRAIN

Image

This is from History Channel's "102 Minutes That Changed The World".
It's in three layers for maximum psychedelia:

LAYER1: The Manhattan background (a postcard with fuming towers)
LAYER2: The scrolling bridge pillars (nice and steady)
LAYER3: The dirty train window (providing the 'camera shake' :lol: )

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

And these are the immediately preceding frames: that's a genius shot - I'll buy it ! :P

Image
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby Maat on October 17th, 2010, 9:20 pm

simonshack 4 Oct 17 2010, 04:51 AM wrote:*

THE TELL-TALE SHADOWS

I have taken a better look lately at the shadows in the 9/11 street imagery. It appears to be the way to go in order to establish - in the simplest and most conclusive manner - the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 street sceneries.

For instance, the most (in)famous Naudet "1st hit" clip can be definitively exposed as an entirely artificial, goofily crafted "3D" composite:

Image

The implications of this incontrovertible proof are:

- The entire Naudet scenery is an advanced 3D "virtual reality" composite and was never actually filmed in that Church st/Lispenard street intersection. It cannot even have been shot in advance on a different morning (with successive CGI insertion of "airplane crash"), since the lighting is physically impossible.

- We can now be certain - beyond any shadow of doubt - that the "virtual reality" compositing technology was available in 2001, since this clip was shown within 24 hours of the event. This should now be acknowledged as a fact beyond debate - and I hope this will always be kept in mind by all those who patiently contribute to the 9/11 imagery analyses.

The recently released "New footage of 9/11" is in fact not new at all ( I have seen most of it before in various TV documentaries of recent years) but have only been re-rendered in higher definition. Their dreadfully contrived audio tracks are as bad as ever - so don't get fooled by their 'slicker' image resolution.


Very nicely revisited, Simon! :D

What always dominated my perception of the fakery in that particular shot was how the shaded area they were 'working' in inexplicably turned pitch dark as the camera angle swung left (just after blue-shirted pedestrian vanishes behind skyward-glancing fireman).

If the lighter area around the loitering firemen was intended to appear as created by lighting from the camera, then it still couldn't have cast any shadow towards the camera light either. Right?

Oh, and that simtrain footage is unbelievably awful :lol:
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ? George Orwell
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Postby fakers911 on October 17th, 2010, 9:57 pm

simonshack @ Oct 17 2010, 05:42 PM wrote:
fakers911 4 Oct 17 2010, 01:16 PM wrote:
You might have a good point there. I have no time to really think about that now, since I have to go outside in a minute. But hey.. the sun is shining today in Holland, so I might be able to test this live. :)


Fakers911,

I do find your contention ('sunlight-reflecting building') quite absurd and irrational. Yet, please rest assured that I do appreciate your request for caution when making our points and stating that they represent "incontrovertible proof" - as I just did. However, I will stand by this statement and provide more elements to consolidate my conclusion. Please let me know if the following demonstration meets with your satisfaction.

Here's the Lispenard/Church intersection as seen on Google Street View:

Image

Let us first determine that the fireman was (meant to be) in a shaded area. Well, there should be no doubt about that - as pointed out by the yellow arrows.
The red "X" shows his exact position in the Naudet clip.

Now, what you basically were saying was that - perhaps - the wall of the US Post Office (the pink/...or yellow building in the background) might have reflected/bounced the sunlight back towards the fireman (at a distance of roughly 5 car-lanes), thus making him cast a clear shadow, almost in the opposite direction of the sunlight.


So here's another Google Street View shot. The "X" is were the fireman stood on 9/11. The yellow arrow points to a person slightly more distant from the manhole. Does that person cast any sort of shadow? It seems not. Does this settle the matter for you?

Image

I will anticipate the only possible counter-argument you may put forward: "But we don't know at what time of day the Google Street View shot was made."
Allright, so let us both travel to Manhattan on September 11, 2011 for a final verification, at the intersection of Lispenard/Church at 8:46AM. Ok? ;)


Hahaha... I would love to do that, but I think that will be a stupid thing to do since they will put you behind bars without a trial when you set foot on American soil :P

Seriously now. I think you might have proven that I was wrong there. Anyway, I allready was convinced the Naudet docu be?ng a staged film. ;)

Thanks.
fakers911
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: September 29th, 2010, 7:55 pm

Postby nonhocapito on October 18th, 2010, 7:04 pm

To further illustrate Simon's brilliant observations on the new "Firebanks" (on this thread: http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... wtopic=386 )

It is remarkable that right in the "102 minutes that changed the world" A&E History Channel documentary (IMDB), the same Fairbanks clips (of slightly lower quality, at least in the version that I have: with no reason, considering that this is a 2008 feature documentary and who produced it obviously must have had access to the original material) appear without glitches and with audio!

Simon's capture from Fairbanks "raw" clips released from NIST:
Image

Same scene from "102 minutes" (15:31):
Image

This is just an example: glitches are absent from Fairbanks material all over the place. And maybe something like this can be "corrected" (I wouldn't know) but more likely it is that the glitches are caused, as Simon said, by having run a new "rendering".

Not only this: the "raw" "new" Fairbanks features no audio (only a buzzing noise) (I think the reason for this is that to justify the glitches, they had to pretend the whole camera was malfunctioning, including the mic.) BUT the same scenes in the movie have a soundtrack that seem to be taken live from the scenes themselves.

So who produced the movie didn't have any problem "inventing" a soundtrack? With sound-effect specialists and actors? What gives? Where is the "dramatization" label then? B)
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Postby brianv on October 18th, 2010, 9:28 pm

Thanks for reminding me about Fairbanks. Just going through some of my old vijeos..

Here's something else to watch out for in the SIM ---- slacks! That's right slacks! Slacks and belts to be precise. SIM Wardrobe by Mr Man of Langley VA.

Image

Image

When you're video watching keep and eye out! It might make a good party game!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby simonshack on October 19th, 2010, 2:19 pm

*

THE SILLY REFLECTIONS

It simply doesn't matter how much "new footage" the perps throw at us in the hope to somehow 'make up' for the dreadfully phony 9/11 animations they have been submitting to the public ever since 2001. No amount of 'slicker' imagery (such as the stuff released recently) can 'erase' their original trash imagery.

To be sure, one of the favored gimmicks in 3D special effects Hollywood movies is to insert reflections into given sceneries to make them look 'more real'. This is an age-old technique applied since the eighteenth century by neo-realist painters in order to make a given scenery look more like what our eyes see in real life. Such painters would often include a window (or any reflecting surface) to psychologically convey 'reality' into their canvas.

The problem with the 9/11 animators is that they were no painters - and had evidently very limited pictorial talents and knowledge of optics. The sheer silliness of their attempts to simulate reality is one of the best give-aways of the fraudulence of their 3D compositing. Here are but two examples of this poor craftmanship - please note that they are both related to 2 crucial shots of 9/11: "The Flight 11 impact" and the "Flight 175 impact".

Image Can you see the lefthand building bopping? :huh:
Image This one really deserves a Pulitzer prize! :D

WE CAN THANK THE PERPS FOR FINALLY RELEASING HIGH-RESOLUTION MATERIAL
IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT MORE CLEARLY THEIR WORST FIASCOES!!!
:P
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby SmokingGunII on October 21st, 2010, 10:16 pm

This thread is being discussed over at Lets roll. It appears that both Simon and I have made a mistake. Not only can shadows be cast in shadow, stone buildings can reflect sunrays so powerfully that shadows can be cast back towards the light source - even from 50 feet away.

Strange how it doesn't have the same effect on cars.

Ho hum. :rolleyes:
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Postby simonshack on October 28th, 2010, 8:25 pm

An old (in)famous clip from 9/11 - aired billion times on TV around the world:

Image


Reminds me of this other crowd shot from the Naudet movie "911":
Image
http://www.septemberclues.info/simulated_sceneries.htm

Of course, we are now (9 years later!) getting slick, newly rendered high-resolution "9/11 virtual reality" animations released - just as we had predicted long ago... They're being diligently posted on Youtube by none other than our former member "Bathit" (aka "911Crasting") who recently registered as a member here and launched himself into a disastrous attempt at debunking September Clues. We're making the perps work for their money ! B)
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby hoi.polloi on October 29th, 2010, 1:05 am

Looks like they tried to make the idea that "nobody could possibly collage people bumping into each other" as a basic assumption.

These show that that assumption is wrong, since the "bumping" here is more like holograms passing through each other.

Or - to be more accurate - montage motion-captured animations or video timed and masked on top of one another in a non-linear video editing program.

All the 9/11 imagery is fake. Fake. FAKE!

There probably wasn't that much "real" imagery to destroy in the first place, since - most likely - in the event of the perception of life-threatening danger, it isn't often people waste energy trying to document it. I could be wrong, but any time I've been in an ugly situation, I don't pull out my camera and start filming.

I start running and trying to pay attention and keep things - like viewfinders and cameras - away from my eyes so I can find the quickest safe exit!

For those brave enough to stand in one place for a minute while actors and law enforcement are running around them, their equipment was probably disabled electronically.

I think the media tries to push the idea that "everyone documents disasters with amazing cogency when faced with threatening terrorist situations" when in reality, people act rightfully cowardly and try to use their brain power on surviving rather than on risking to leave nothing more than a document of how they died!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby reel.deal on October 29th, 2010, 10:10 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Postby simonshack on October 29th, 2010, 11:59 pm

Nice post, reel deal.

There are so many problems with the 9/11 imagery it's not even funny...

In fact, it's absurd that our opponents are even called 'debunkers', since the very business we are in is to debunk the bunkum imagery of 9/11!

Therefore, let me propose the following modus operandi from now on: Since the recent flood of "New & sharper 9/11 Footage" actually helps us point out its many flaws in a sharper way, let's keep our analyses of this phony imagery down to a minimal number of frames. For instance, in this case:

Image
------------------------Image

Done! Debunked in two frames. Get it?
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby brianv on October 30th, 2010, 1:10 am

This guy is straight outta Doom or Wolfenstein...

Image
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby reel.deal on October 30th, 2010, 1:25 am

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Postby reel.deal on October 31st, 2010, 7:51 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest