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
WTC 7: why they needed to CGI the CD CGI: Computer Graphic Imagery / CD: Controlled Demolition
I will dedicate this post to Andy Tyme, an excellent and most articulate 'veteran' 9/11 writer who keeps battling it out at Jim Fetzer's 9/11 SCHOLAR'S FORUM. Andy seems to back most of our research here - but has recently expressed reservations as to the CGI nature of the available "WTC7 collapse clips". He reckons that the WTC7 imagery is genuine - as he wrote yesterday on this thread: http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topic ... mment64070
Dear Andy, here are the reasons why I believe the WTC7 imagery is CGI too. There aren't that many clips of the "WTC7 collapse" - let this be said - yet ALL contain anomalies, contradictory dynamics & evident CGI features of one sort or another. Let's start from the NBC clip which was shown on LIVE TV and commented by Dan Rather. Here's a cropped/enlarged version of three frames extracted from the original TV archives. You see, those thick black linings are clear clues to digital compositing. There really isn't any scientific excuse (photographically speaking) for these fat, flickering, black linings :
And here's another obvious CGI example of the WTC7 collapse - as aired on TV on September 11, 2001. Obvious? Well, decide for yourself:
So much for the atrocious and quite absurdly poor/blurry/candy-colored images we were shown ON LIVE TV on 9/11. But please keep in mind that HARDLY ANY SHARPER IMAGERY OF THE WTC7 COLLAPSE was aired on TV that day. Now, let's watch - AND LISTEN - to the WTC7 collapse, as depicted in the Naudet brother's slick feature-movie "911" (which, of course, was released well after September 11, 2001):
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UBHwsp1PAw
As you can HEAR, the audio is totally bogus and is certainly not genuine: WHY would anyone, in post-production, change/replace the original audio of such a unique, historical event? Just think about it: DO WE HAVE ANY ORIGINAL AUDIO of the WTC7 collapse? NO - we don't! Don't you think the audio of such an event would be JUST AS historically relevant as the visuals of it? Have you ever heard what the collapses sounded like?...But let's get on.
It turns out that we are asked to believe that another cameraman (with a tripod) was standing right alongside that NAUDET guy who supposedly filmed the WTC7 collapse (on a tripod too it seems, the "NAUDET camera" being rock steady). Now, please understand that the ODDS of two different cameramen, with both cameras mounted on tripods and framing almost the EXACT same view in their lens ... well the (astronomical) odds of such an occurence is up for YOU to compute. Good luck! To this day, all the arguments for such 'coincidences' have been incredibly lame.
NAUDET CLIP: This next clip is from the Naudet feature-movie "9/11". The left part of the building appears to 'expand' Eastwards. Note: the left side does NOT appear to tilt - it just expands and goes straight down in the first 2seconds of the collapse. Agreed? Now, whether you're a structural engineer or not, does this 'expanding effect' (of that ONE side only) appear physically realistic to you? Do we have ANY images of a bottom-up controlled demolition that looks like this? If so, let me know - I'm really curious to learn how a collapsing building would expand like a chewing-gum being stepped on.
As you can see, here the East corner of WTC7 doesn't expand and clearly tilts 'Westwards'...
...unlike the 'expanding/vertical' Naudet collapse - with that East corner smoothly descending in a straight line. Let's compare them:
TILTING WESTWARDS____________________'EXPANDING' & GOING STRAIGHT DOWN
Here's another newly released (2010) shot of the burning WTC7 - a version of which (completely "washed-out", blurry and colorless) was initially aired on CBS soon after 9/11. NO wonder that they chose to downgrade their imagery in the early stages of their TV hoax! Their digital building renderings sucked!
AT LEFT: Here's how the (reddish-brown) WTC7 appeared in the Naudet feature-movie "911" - not kidding you, folks!
In fact, that awful, white-washed shot (credited to the Naudet brothers) is simply extracted from the same absurd 'news clip' aired by CBS which some of you may be familiar with - featuring CBS reporter VINCE, "the guy who discovers what war is like". Here it is:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc
We then have this 'never-seen-before' clip (i.e. released many years later - like so many other 9/11 clips...) Can we really believe that such 'historical'. world-defining images were kept in a drawer for years? Zapruder, anyone? "Previously unseen WTC7 collapse video": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c611FK37Un8
Here's a frame of that clip which ends with an eerie view of a TOTALLY deserted surrounding area - and which, by the way, features yet another 'Miracle Zoom Out' just as the building starts collapsing... and just like we have seen in countless other 9/11 clips.
THE SOLOMON BUILDING (aka WTC7) - and its symbolism
As for WHY it was decided to make the WTC7 'mysteriously collapse' many hours after the "Binladen airplane attack"(and why they concocted this obvious red herring for the 9/11 truther community to chew on), you will need to dig into the historical/mystical significance this Solomon Temple represents for some fanatic individuals of this planet. You may start your digging by simply consulting this Wickedpedia page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple
*************** Dear Andy, this is absolutely no attack on my part on your beliefs. The thing is, my logical process - driven not only by my steady imagery research - brings me to the conclusion that NOTHING was left to chance in the planning of this 9/11 psyop. Even the late WTC7 collapse was pre-planned and digitally pre-rendered. Let me just back my beliefs with a few technical questions:
1: Why don't we see ANY of those classic demolition flashes popping all around WTC7 before it collapsed? Are we to believe that they somehow popped all of this building "from inside" - with some hitherto unknown technique? Ask any demolition expert (no, not 'Danny Jowenko' who was supposedly whacked so as to discourage real demo experts to come forward...) how this could possibly be achieved. For sure, clowns like Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov would have us believe that some SUPER WEAPON was used. I can only hope that people don't buy their obvious media-gatekeeping (and similar garbage such as that inane hologram theory peddled by Fetzer - aided by his Scottish poodle Richard Hall).
All of the above-mentioned clowns are most blatantly protecting the media's role on 9/11: "CRASHING PLANES?" - Oh, what TV showed were REAL holograms filmed by REAL cameras! "PYROCLASTIC COLLAPSES?" - Oh, what TV showed were REAL collapses (caused by SUPER-WEAPONS) filmed by REAL cameras!"
It really boggles my mind that so many sharp, longtime 9/11 researchers fall for their utterly idiotic bullcrap.
2: Has ANY building in the history of controlled demolitions EVER collapsed in the way that the above videos depict it? I don't think so. Therefore, why are we supposed to believe in that imagery - knowing that 9/11 hoax was fundamentally based on fake imagery?
Need I remind you of my stance? I believe the WTC towers were downed with quite conventional demolition explosives - and it didn't go too well : all of 9 (yes, NINE!) buildings around them suffered severe damages - and had to be disposed with in the aftermath. Everything took place behind a visually impenetrable wall, a simple military-grade smokescreen - the most elementary subterfuge / sleight of hand known to man - and no bystander was able to make ANY visual sense out of it all. How can this perspective be so hard to consider ?
BBC's PHIL HAYTON 'forgets' being on air on 9/11 !
"I wasn't in the studio that day, I'm sure, I didn't go in".
Everyone will remember what is possibly the most internationally (in)famous 'cock-up' in BBC's history - the reporting of the WTC7 collapse by Jane Standley, 23 minutes before it actually (or allegedly) collapsed. Jane was seen standing in front of a window (or so it seemed) facing the Manhattan skyline - with WTC7 in clear view, still standing tall - as she reported it had gone down. Well, Phil Hayton - the BBC anchorman TV viewers all saw in the studio that day - is on record saying he doesn't remember ever being there!
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGelvjIuANo
Later in the interview, Phil suddenly recalls that, hey, he actually WAS at work on 9/11 !!!
At 5:23 : "Oooh yeah, now it's coming back to me ...of course... because at THAT stage I wasn't doing the morning - I was doing the evenings..."
So what to make out of this? Is the simplest "KISS" explanation perhaps that Phil is ...uh ... telling the truth - and that he just forgot about that Pre-recorded Phony 9/11 Broadcast Session he participated in - several months before September 11, 2001 ? Does anyone have a better - more plausible - explanation? Can ANYONE honestly believe that this BBC talking head could have innocently forgotten - for even just a moment - THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS LIVE ON AIR ON 9/11 - THE MOST DEFINING "NEWSDAY" OF THIS CENTURY?
Thanks, Simon, for "not attacking" my views. The reason I haven't posted here for a long time was that even though I thoroughly respect and admire the prodigious investigative work done at CluesForum regarding 9/11, 7/7, and the absolute epidemic of subsequent, politically convenient, shooter/bomber terror drills that were "flipped live," I was becoming distressed at the ease with which the "it's-all-fake" dismissal was being slammed against a very wide range of still other major (and even minor!) events, but too often without anything close to the years of exacting research and analysis that went into your exposing the intricate and monumental fraud of the "102-minute movie". And I was not looking forward to being summarily attacked and denounced as a shill -- the moment I raised my concerns and doubts.
Now, in regard to the uber-curious, possibly Masonic/Kabbalistic destruction of the "Solomon's Temple" of Lower Manhattan... so far I am just not convinced that this "event" transpired according to the perps' original plan. Panic-driven improvisation, or a far-from-perfect "Plan B" execution still seems, to me, much more likely. I have no quarrel with your customarily excellent deconstruction of the delayed-release, higher-res images of the WTC7 collapse credited to the "Dean-Street Anagram Boys" and other comparably suspicious entities. And your re-stated above take on the paucity, imprecision and abysmal quality of the "live" shots from the networks has indeed made me ponder anew what must have been going on in their TV-control rooms at that late-in-the-day hour.
But I guess the biggest obstacle to my accepting your thesis of the post-5PM toppling being both "on schedule" AND falsely (also simultaneously?) portrayed on "live" TV by a CGI animation (devoid of conventional-demolition "squibs"!) -- is MOTIVE.
Yes, concealing the actual, bottom-up demolition of the towers by means of fantastic CGI animations simulating top-down destruction WAS necessary to associate (in the public mind) the collapses with the supposed near-top, fire-igniting plane crashes. But what perp-purpose would be served by replacing (in the viewing audience's perceptions) a potential, "live" TV-view of the actual, bottom-up demolition of WTC7 with a CGI-fake view that was ALSO bottom-up? (Or at least quite reminiscent of conventional demolitions...)
Perhaps there WAS some valuable propaganda advantage to be gained by risking discovery a second time, compelling the networks to "switch again to a government-provided recording and pretend it's live". I just don't get it.
Yet I'll grant you, Simon, that the BBC "cock-up" (which can be interpreted as evidence that the video playback of the CGI-simulated collapse had gotten way out of sync with Jane Standley's teleprompter) does give your theory increased plausibility.
repentantandy wrote: Yes, concealing the actual, bottom-up demolition of the towers by means of fantastic CGI animations simulating top-down destruction WAS necessary to associate (in the public mind) the collapses with the supposed near-top, fire-igniting plane crashes. But what perp-purpose would be served by replacing (in the viewing audience's perceptions) a potential, "live" TV-view of the actual, bottom-up demolition of WTC7 with a CGI-fake view that was ALSO bottom-up? (Or at least quite reminiscent of conventional demolitions...)
Perhaps there WAS some valuable propaganda advantage to be gained by risking discovery a second time, compelling the networks to "switch again to a government-provided recording and pretend it's live". I just don't get it.
Dear Andy, thanks for your - as always -thoughtful and articulate reply.
Let me first just say that I am humble enough not to pretend to have 'sussed out' every single aspect of the perps' planning and long-term strategy - how could anyone possibly pretend such a thing? However, I trust that we do agree on one main point: that the 9/11 hoax was planned many years / or decades ahead of time - and that every aspect which could have gone wrong was duly envisioned and accounted for by the perps. So this is to say that your view - in my opinion - does have its merits: the late WTC7 collapse may well have been the (hasty & goofy) enactment of a "plan B" or a "plan C" which had been envisaged - in the event that something went wrong with the demolition of the entire WTC complex (hey, perhaps even the Deutsche Bank, which was eventually brought down in 2008, was meant to collapse that morning - and something went wrong - who knows? In any case, 9 buildings were terminally damaged on 9/11, which suggests that the Twin Towers may not have fallen straight down into their footprints - as shown on TV...)
However, let me expound why I tend to believe that the WTC7 collapse was actually part of the original "plan A". This brings us to a fundamental psychological aspect of the rightly-named PSY-OPS (Psychological Operations). You may agree with me that psyops are DESIGNED to confuse and bewilder any examination of the same. One of their most effective mind-twisters embedded in their planning is the Contradictory Information that they contain - all of which is aimed to generate zillions of conflicting theories, is it not? In this case, the Contradictory Info was this WTC7 building tumbling more or less like a conventional demolition. My point being: the 9/11 psyop script was not written so as to make the "Binladen attack" universally believable - quite the contrary:
The MORE conspiracy-theories that the 9/11 psyop could generate, the BETTER !
Now, just look at who is behind that "BUILDING WHAT" campaign - which purports to 'awaken' the public to the 9/11 lies. The "BUILDING WHAT" campaign is, of course, entirely focused on the "suspicious collapse of WTC7". What does this tell you, Andy?
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHIj9wzbYGQ
That's right: Bob Mc Ilvaine, Manny Badillo and assorted "mourning family members" are behind this well-funded "truth campaign" - all under the wing of the Richard Gage clown. The "BUILDING WHAT" propaganda is a most effective way for the perps to uphold the idea that people died on 9/11 - since the public will never suspect - and will promptly reject the notion - that these "mourning family members" are simply paid operatives working for the government. As you can see, there may well have been a pre-planned purpose for the "suspicious collapse of WTC7" - now that we know that 3000 people did NOT die on 9/11.
You are right Simon, it was a pigs-ear from the beginning. A diabolical disaster in terms of realistic. I don't think anyone was buying it! The Pentagone and WTC7 were fallback positions. They must have been really shitting themselves. And of course the Media drove the getaway car!
Yes, I heartily agree that the McIlvane/Badillo/Gage bilge over "Building What?" is essentially distractive propaganda, but for the present I still harbour strong suspicions that these disinfo agents' late-to-the-table campaign to stir the conspiracy-pot over WTC 7 was not part of the original plan. Rather, I view it as a contingency response, a making-lemonade-out-of-a-lemon (that sour fruit being the building's having missed its scheduled collapse time) strategy which ultimately has, indeed, assisted in reinforcing the "massive victims" meme.
Anyone still convinced that this is a REAL video depicting the REAL WTC7 collapse? Please pay attention to what goes on below the "V" I've added to this animated gif - it's quite amusing :
Here follow two frames extracted from the "NIST-FOIA" imagery released in 2010. I've just marked them with a few reference-points, hoping this will illustrate clearly enough what bothers me with these two sceneries (which were supposedly shot shortly before / and shortly after the WTC7 collapse). I will just let you ponder about them - without further comments of mine:
I should probably hop into a plane to New York one fine day (with my cameras and assorted lenses) and verify if perspectives such as these are at all possible to achieve - including that foreground guy walking by ('above' the cameraman)in IMAGE A...
If you have viewed my "WTC7 STUDY" (embedded below) you'll be familiar with CBS reporter Vince DeMentri - 'the man who discovered what war is like' as he was shown roaming around (what vaguely looked like) the WTC7 area - stating that he "didn't even know where he was". Well, if you ask me, he certainly was NOT anywhere near the alleged 'burning inferno' which, according to the idiotic NIST report, 'weakened' the 47-storey WTC7 building and made it tumble down... In any case, Vince's supposed 'LIVE REPORTS of the imminent WTC7 COLLAPSE' reinforces my belief that the entire WTC7 saga - with its late afternoon collapse - was very much part of the original Grand 9/11 Hoax Plan. As to WHY this was needed is open to debate: was WTC7, as many have theorized, used as the operational HQ to carry out the WTC demolitions - and therefore could only be destroyed later in the day? To be sure, the very notion that WTC7 "was on fire all day" would have provided the perfect alibi as to why the wider WTC area was enveloped in thick smoke for so many hours.
In 1993 DeMentri joined CBS' flagship WCBS-TV in New York as a reporter, and became anchor of the station's weekend evening newscasts. He stayed there until 2003, when he moved to NBC's Philadelphia affiliate, WCAU-TV. DeMentri won several awards for his reporting for WCBS and WCAU, including seven Emmys for investigative reporting and a National Edward R. Murrow Award for his reporting on the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_DeMentri
A quick web search for Vince DeMentri ("a man with a long history of controversy") brings up a few funny stories - not least this most bizarre episode: "Two days after the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, DeMentri, then a reporter for WCBS/Channel 2, snuck into Ground Zero, pretending to be a federal agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He got nailed [actually "arrested" according to this other article] but a charge of trespassing was eventually dropped." Whatever relevance this factoid - if true - may have, one may wonder why CBS news reporter DeMentri needed to fake his identity in order to sneak into the Ground Zero area... thoughts welcome, folks - it's all good fun!
But let's now take a look at DeMentri's "9/11 LIVE performances" - all connected to the WTC7 event.
Here he is (standing at the apparent location where the Naudet brothers allegedly filmed the WTC7 collapse) telling us about his heroic close-up visit at the flaming WTC7 - and stating that "a four-block radius around the WTC7 has been cordoned off - because it is expected to collapse"...
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ5iwZd953c
My WTC7 STUDY : Note that I published this study on Youtube in January 2009:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg
In 2011, here is the big DAILY MAIL headline - for an article which purports to debunk conspiracy theories thanks to "unseen 9/11 footage": "Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire" That 2011 Daily Mail article links to the below 'video footage' (obvious CGI - with that washed-out, almost WHITE WTC7 façade)which, as you'll see, is the same as I used in my above WTC7 STUDY (of Jan 2009). It is claimed that the 'rare' footage was part of the "never-before-seen" material released under the (2010) FOIA act supposedly filed by ABC TV against NIST... (*rolleyes*). The gist of that ridiculous Daily Mail 'scoop' is that it "clearly shows the WTC7 under severe fire" - and that this should shut up these kooky conspiracy theorists once and for all... Note that the AUDIO of this version with Vince roaming around the WTC7 has clearly been altered / tampered with, probably 'for extra realism': compare it to my above WTC7 STUDY version and you'll hear that "wind bursts /microphone disturbances" have been added (and the gain/volume of the audio track has been drastically lowered / downgraded) - yet the image resolution is superior to my version (which I found and downloaded even before 2009 - perhaps in late 2007 or so.)
A last thought I'd like to share with you - and has to do with those silly, burned-out cars and buses (without door handles or number plates). Let's be serious about it - and stop fooling ourselves any longer (what with the lame Judy Wood bullcrap and such) : these vehicles are all props taken from a junkyard and placed in whatever cinema studio these images were concocted. Full stop.
"Compelling television if you will"...
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKfFSSZe6bk
Well, I hope my humble research efforts are a bit compelling too...
I hereby add Vince DeMentri to my list of individuals I'd like to see being questioned about their involvement in the Grand 9/11 Hoax.