We have discussed Martina Geccelli pictures
already, but I would like to go back to that for a moment.
Geccelli's pictures, as we all know, show empty office suites supposedly of the WTC, such as this one:
On some forums (David Icke, letsroll), you can also find this poem attributed to her:
There were no planes,
and no jumpers.
There were no victims,
innocent or otherwise.
No bucket brigades either,
since debris was lacking,
for reasons unknown.
And the "pit" became the "pile."
Searching at Fresh Kills was staged
for the cameras and the overtime.
The heroism was a joke,
and any suffering a lie.
A managed farce,
where nobody worked,
just nobly posed about in images.
The whole story is a mess,
badly told in the media,
by monsters accustomed to
having the upper hand.
Their burns would prove to be minor,
and self-inflicted anyway.
Even the dogs looked confused
and it's no wonder.
It is a nice poem. I for once like it. And if it was Geccelli's, it would be even more amazing. Yet I could not find any source for this, only in the end I think i figured (i could be mistaken) that the poem is in fact by StevenWarRan
, as it first appeared on the post
were Warran first (to my knowledge) introduced (in december 2010) Geccelli's work on his blog (in a sense, Geccelli is Warran's creation: so the confusion on the origins of the poem seem to be fitting in the scenario).
On one hand, Martina Geccelli's pictures fit perfectly with what we have been figuring out about the towers being very likely emptied out of offices and people on 9/11, and possibly months or years before.
On the other hand, they are just a handful of pictures, that by no mean numerically document the state of the WTC's office suites in the year 2000.
Where are the other pictures? Do they even exist?
The more I look at them the more I think they very easily could be CGI. Especially because they are so few (CGI is tedious)
. They really look like the CGI interiors that a colleague of mine at the university years ago (roughly seven or eight) used to create with Lightwave and Photoshop.
This "hunch" go together with other little things that add to the uneasy feeling about Geccelli.
1) The pictures released via her website are just seven. Obviously not the whole body of her work about WTC. Why? There is no publication by Geccelli where these pictures "make money". Just check Amazon. The only publication that carries her WTC work is Site Matters (2004)
, that documents the artistic projects staged in the WTC sponsored by the LMCC. I might be proven otherwise, but my bet is that this publication features the same seven pictures by Geccelli we already know
(give or take: StevenWarRan's post, that takes her pictures from the book rather then the website, shows only one that Geccelli's website does not have -- yes the one above, that incidentally is a perfect 180° of another rendering- er, picture featured on the website).
2) Even though her website shows work from apparently more recent years (although it is all awfully consistent, and seem to be created at the same moment), her biography, from the same website, seem to be focusing only on her experience in 2000. The rest of the work is barely mentioned in time, as if in all these years it spawned no exhibits, no publications, no happenings.
3) "Geccelli", believe it or not, is not an italian surname. It only "sounds" italian.
4) Many forums have started broadcasting her imagery as proof of things. Before Warran post, nobody seemed to be aware of her work, that just "sat" there, telling things about the WTC, ignored by all, for years. Is this possible? How old is Geccelli's website really
Whois says that "maritna geccelli" (sic) created it in march 2010... barely months before StevenWarran post
What am I trying to say here? That the towers were not empty, not gutted-out etc? Nothing of the sort. It still seems to be the most likely scenario (for the little we can tell since the actual demolition of the towers -- and removal of the debris-- happened far from everyone's eyes). Besides what would be the purpose of spreading fake pictures that seem to agree with a scenario that should better be hidden? (Well... here's an idea: focusing on the gutted-out towers can eventually lead to trust the fake images of the rubble, because they are so absurdly barren of furniture and other such elements that they must be documenting the truth of the gutted-out towers... sorry too convoluted
Bottom line, all I'm trying to say -- there is something strange about Martina Geccelli and her work.