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
burningame
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by burningame »

Herr der Elf wrote:
. . .why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd
One word: Hollywood. The visual imagery of 911 has more to do with Hollywood or cartoon physics than real world physics. Hollywood 'improves' the real world, doesn't it? So what's so hard to understand? The perps have been visually programming all of us since infancy; if they attempted to show 'reality' it would be too dull. They are not crafting the imagery to suit the less than 1% of the population that has a brain.

What each of us has to beware of is a natural human tendency to subconsciously reference the fake imagery (i.e. everything). It sounds to me like you're still trying to fight the concept that everything has been faked. Once you pass that milestone, you would see the fallacy of Judy Wood's basing her whole concept on fake imagery.
AngellDust
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by AngellDust »

Herr der Elf wrote:In general, you are correct that the distinction between most of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant, with one exception that you didn't list.

Nukes have the worst PR, because the public believes that radiation from anything nuclear (e.g., milli-nuke, or a nuclear generator) will be cancerous ground for decades, if not centuries. Public gets a whiff of anything nuclear, they aren't going to rebuild the WTC. They probably would make them re-route the subway elsewhere. Hell, it might even cause an exodus of Manhattan. If banking elite had any hand in 9/11 (as would be indicated by Silverstein), then this is something they had to avoid at all costs.

Nuclear mechanisms not only gives little wiggle-room for who some of the conspirators were, but a whole string of enabling agencies from the military to CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc., not to mention the mass media conspirators. Certainly, terrorists could nuke us, but as we're seeing, terrorists wouldn't be so organized and efficient both in what they destroyed, but what they didn't,... or in how they controlled the message coming out of the media.

Everything that the conspirators hoped to gain from the hoax would be shot down with any form of nuclear revelation, because for them and govt, there would be status quo no longer. The house cleaning would be deep, possibly even to the restructuring of America into smaller regions. From within, the great empire crumbles.

I'm not married to milli-nukes or DEW or nano-thermite. But in my objective review of various sources, nuclear clues get the most song and dance to get them off of the table in dubious means. It was why Dr. Jones was called in: "Dr. Jones, we need you to put anything nuclear to rest from within the movement. We know there are unanswered energy questions. Here, take nano-thermite to fill the vacuum, even though it still a defense secret. Just as long as nuclear suspicions are squashed."

Most science-challenged thinkers didn't question the 9/11 Truther Dr. Jones. His papers were hard to work through, and even I had glazed over eyes. Still, tricks and deceit were discovered. [Refer to February 14, 2012 at 9:03 am. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20 ... mment-3395 ]

I am not going to fall into the trap of saying they used method A or method B. The destruction at the WTC, being overkill and redundant, probably used something of every form of destruction conceivable: DEW mounted to the internal structure that later became "the spire"; DEW from space to bore holes in WTC-5; milli-nukes to create a crater in WTC-6 (or maybe that was space-based DEW as well); etc.

So the difference that knowledge of the exact mechanisms of destruction would make is in how deep we must cut to get out the rot, how deep we must re-structure, and what controls must be put into place to prevent it from happening again.
Wow, that's a lot of fallacy. If I get you right: Nukes have the worst PR, ergo, the perps wouldn't want you to think they used nukes, ergo, nukes were used. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should have a look over here.

I hope you'll forgive me for mocking your assumptions:
Nuclear mechanismsMedia fakery not only gives little wiggle-room for who some of the conspirators were, but a whole string of enabling news agencies from ABC to CBS, NBC, CNN, and even the BBC.the military to CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc., not to mention the mass media conspirators. Certainly, terrorists could nuke us a bowl of soup for lunch, if they had access to a microwave oven and were properly trained in it's use. :lol: [st], but as we're seeing, terrorists wouldn't be so organized and efficient both in what they destroyed, but what they didn't,... or in how they controlled the message coming out of the media.[/st]


The buildings were privately-owned/leased, there were probably demolition permits in place, it appears as though no one was killed in the fake terrorist attacks or demolition, and the resulting litter was picked up. It was all probably as legal as lying on the news. Demolition and media fakery are simply tactics, a means to an end: war, constitutional revision, profit. The real offenses are ongoing and sanctioned by Congress and to a lesser extent the UN.
I am not going to fall into the trap of saying they used method A or method B. The destruction at the WTC, being overkill and redundant, probably used something of every form of destruction conceivable: DEW mounted to the internal structure that later became "the spire"; DEW from space to bore holes in WTC-5; milli-nukes to create a crater in WTC-6 (or maybe that was space-based DEW as well); etc.

So the difference that knowledge of the exact mechanisms of destruction would make is in how deep we must cut to get out the rot, how deep we must re-structure, and what controls must be put into place to prevent it from happening again.
WTF? The perps can nuke buildings from space? Quick, I'll distract them with a bucket of oil, you sneak into their secret lair and re-structure. Don't forget to put those controls in place. I'm right behind you. Don't forget your sword. :ph34r: :lol:

Seriously though, it's this kind of fear-mongering that keeps people afraid of demanding better, more accountable government. This death-ray crap promotes the idea that government is made up of evil villains who can and will terminate you from space with the press of a button for itemizing your taxes or researching media fakery.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by fbenario »

[quote="AngellDust"][/quote]

Absolutely top-notch comment by you! Very, very few new members here have ever shown such a good grasp of this forum's work. Well done.

For the rest of you, this post is a fine example of how to eviscerate faulty logic/assumptions, etc.
AngellDust
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by AngellDust »

fbenario wrote:Absolutely top-notch comment by you! Very, very few new members here have ever shown such a good grasp of this forum's work. Well done.

For the rest of you, this post is a fine example of how to eviscerate faulty logic/assumptions, etc.
Thanks fbenario! I'm fairly certain that's the first compliment I've ever received for sharing my thoughts on 9/11! :lol:
Brutal Metal
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Brutal Metal »

^^^ I just left you another one on the David Angell thread! :D
Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf »

Burningame wrote:It sounds to me like you're still trying to fight the concept that everything has been faked.
It sounds to me like you are fighting the concept that faking everything might just be a step into the disinfo bin and where you are being duped. Aside from being a bit unrealistic to accomplish end-to-end and in cases quasi-real-time, it all too conveniently takes a wealth of information off of the table.

Tainting of some, or even most media? Sure. I'll bite. Distrust but verify.

But if everything was truly faked, they would have done a much better job of the WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 destruction, like in making them a teenie-weenie more physics compliant which would have been easily within their power to achieve. The various angles on WTC-7 in particular that showed over 100 feet of free-fall is something you should study. If fake, how stupid can they get? If real, well it kind of explains the footage disappearing from the media instant-replay circus for quite some time.
Burningame wrote:Once you pass that milestone, you would see the fallacy of Judy Wood's basing her whole concept on fake imagery.
Overplaying your cards. Dr. Wood does not base her whole concept on fake imagery. Get her book to find out. Granted, fake imagery may have snuck into her analysis, but the burden of proving all that was fake has not been met. Hence my challenge on your digital masters to positively identify what has been tainted, and then you'll win a chance of potentially debunking a premise or two from the good Dr. Wood.

Failure to positively identify in each and every image what has been tainted will leave those images in the realm of depicting reality, and as such requiring an explanation. Vetting the images either way -- tainted vs. real -- will be a great service to 9/11 truth.

Human wrote:In my humble opinion ALL of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant because none of it (evidence ex:dust/steel beam's etc) would be permissible in a court of law, the court would simply ask to prove the evidence is from the buildings destroyed on 9/11 and since the evidence has been picked up and taken away it would be impossible, therefore the case would be thrown out rather quickly. The only evidence we have is the fake t.v. broadcast's and "amateur" photo's/video, which can be shown in a court of law quite easily how it was done.
... Aside from this, they'd probably put a Bush relative onto the bench (as they did in the recent April Gallop case) to further make it unlikely that a court of law would be fair.

However, to say that "ALL of the mechanisms of destruction are irrelevant" is being lazy. Some mechanisms everyone cares about, whereby things with nuclear components is one of them. Such speculation also provides motive for the song-and-dance and extra effort by those in power to lead everyone astray.
Human
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Human »

Lazy? no, running around searching for evidence of nuclear use by looking at Fake videos and photo's is pointless to me, especially when it can never be used in court of law. Please tell me who is "everyone" and then show us here a video or photo from 9/11 which shows signs of a nuclear device being used in any aspect of that day.
burningame
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by burningame »

I smell shill. :puke:
Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf »

Human wrote:Lazy? no, running around searching for evidence of nuclear use by looking at Fake videos and photo's is pointless to me, especially when it can never be used in court of law. Please tell me who is "everyone" and then show us here a video or photo from 9/11 which shows signs of a nuclear device being used in any aspect of that day.
Your re-framing of the task doesn't fly. You were not asked to "search for evidence of nuclear use". Nope.

You were asked to find the artifacts of digital manipulation that might prove one or more of the following images as tainted. Supposedly, this is aligned with the skillset of this forum.

And, upon finding the evidence of such tainting, you would win the chance of possibly debunking a premise or two presented by Dr. Wood (and others). For a forum with such a hatred of Dr. Wood, what could be better than that?!!


Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

As for your court of law quips, what makes you think that even your proof of tainted 9/11 images will be presented? It is not the court of law that we are aiming for. We're aiming for the court of public opinion.

Now if this forum doesn't have the nuggets to approach this focused image debunking (or vetting) task in a serious manner, that'll be a bad sign for this entire clues forum. Do not underestimate it.

I mean, if this forum is going to go bragging to the world that all of the 9/11 imagery was FAKE, then you had better prove it... Starting with the images and links I've provided. Succeed in finding the taint, and you just might find yourself killing two birds with one stone, namely any disbelief regarding the extent of the tainting and taking out of play images Dr. Wood (and others) use to make their case.

(Burninggame and others: do not play shill-associating games with me. It has too much of a "he who smelt it, dealt it" quality to it. I'm a duped useful idiot and therefore cannot be a shill. Being such a duped useful idiot, you can easily get me to sing a different tune, but it is evidence and analysis based on sound science that will (un)dupe me as such. Here's the irony. I'm duped by both Dr. Wood and September Clues. If the Clues Forum does what it is good at with regards to the images above and links to other images, well by golly you just might have an instrumental hand in unduping me from supporting Dr. Wood. Avoid the task with your shilly-games, the unduping may get applied to the Clues Forum itself.)
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by nonhocapito »

Herr der Elf wrote:If the Clues Forum does what it is good at with regards to the images above and links to other images, well by golly you just might have an instrumental hand in unduping me from supporting Dr. Wood. Avoid the task with your shilly-games, the unduping may get applied to the Clues Forum itself.)
We are not here to perform for you any sort of demonstration. We are not here to convince you of anything. This never ending Judy Wood issue you guys try to shove down our throats is getting to be seriously emetic, bothersome, pointless and inconclusive, in other words a waste of time -- and our forum has had enough of it.

If you find it more reasonable, more plausible, more likely, more feasible, safer and cheaper to imagine unprovable alleged energy weapons to explain a series of controlled demolitions, rather than simply realizing that anything we have been shown could easily be faked with Hollywood/newsmedia manipulative methods -- then I don't think you belong to this forum, nor can you claim any understanding or appreciation of September Clues. I suggest you go elsewhere.
AngellDust
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by AngellDust »

Herr der Elf wrote:by golly you just might have an instrumental hand in unduping me from supporting Dr. Wood

Image
http://gickr.com/results3/anim_782da81b ... 5759d6.gif

Herr der Elf, you shilly boy! These boats were pasted on the Hudson River, hence their square-ish pixel outlines on zoom in. :rolleyes:
Human
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Human »

I like the aerial photos, especially the change from green water to black, or how about a fire hose being sprayed on debris which is not on fire while just to the left the crane is picking up debris on fire (too be dumped in a container on fire?), hey...look out mister fireman your stepping in fire, I also like the second aerial/satellite photo? showing black smoke then a long fake looking plume of white smoke...care to ask Mr's Woods how this photo was taken and when?

Mr's Wood's photo:
Figure toast15. "Presumably these cars are finally being towed away from that lot. Those wheels look fairly good which means they probably aren't steel."................a better observation is the SAME type of tires on 2 different cars, simply taken from a car junkyard, slap some cheap tires on them since they didn't have any to begin with and then torch them and use as props, unless you think Star Wars weaponry beamed down from space and burnt specific cars, I am sure it was much cheaper for the perps to use Star Wars weaponry for the job instead..lolololol.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/Star ... 5.html#map
Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf »

AngelDust wrote:Herr der Elf, you shilly boy! These boats were pasted on the Hudson River, hence their square-ish pixel outlines on zoom in.
Dear AngelDust,

Awesome postings about the square-ish pixel outline (in the fifth picture)! I knew the advanced digital editing skillset of this forum would come in handy. With regards to the smoke itself, anything unusual about it?

Image
Image


The third picture from James Nachtwey ought to be an easy candidate to knock off as fake.
nonhocapito wrote:We are not here to perform for you any sort of demonstration. We are not here to convince you of anything. This never ending Judy Wood issue you guys try to shove down our throats is getting to be seriously emetic, bothersome, pointless and inconclusive, in other words a waste of time -- and our forum has had enough of it.
Don't do anything for me.

Do it for the Truth.

Do it for your own reputations.

Simon Shack is rather forceful with his conclusions that none of the 9/11 imagery can be trusted. The distrust has been proven to be well-earned. But he goes on to insist that all of the 9/11 imagery was faked.

I'm just humbly asking that it be proved.

And I'm making the task a little bit more manageable by limiting it to just those images Dr. Wood employed.

If the topic of Dr. Wood is truly so "seriously emetic, bothersome, pointless and inconclusive", then consider the boost in Clues Forum credibility with the mainstream truthers when your crew legitimately takes out of commission some of the pictorial evidence used by Dr. Judy Wood to support some of her "zany" theories. That ought to count for something!

Mr. Shack's and your negative opinions regarding Dr. Wood are well known. I'm not here to convince you or this forum of anything. Through your diligence in this task, maybe you'll convince me via the undermining of her evidence that your negative opinions have validity. I welcome such a day!

Alas, even limiting the source images to that re-used by Dr. Wood, I have my doubts that 100% fakes will be reached. I can't even guess what the faked percentage will be, but it'll put everything on more solid footing to know which images are definitely tainted and which images are such great fakes that they are still in the running for depicting reality.

nonhocapito wrote:If you find it more reasonable, more plausible, more likely, more feasible, safer and cheaper to imagine unprovable alleged energy weapons to explain a series of controlled demolitions, rather than simply realizing that anything we have been shown could easily be faked with Hollywood/newsmedia manipulative methods -- then I don't think you belong to this forum, nor you can claim any understanding or appreciation of September Clues. I suggest you go elsewhere.
I'm not here to argue the feasibility of faking imagery. That's not my realm of expertise.

Let's also not have you argue about "unprovable alleged energy weapons to explain a series of controlled demolitions". This is neither the purpose of this forum nor quite obviously within the realm of your expertise.

Legitimately take out what you can of Dr. Wood's pictorial evidence. The chips will fall from there where they may. That'll be a big accomplishment for which the 9/11 Truth Movement and I will be eternally grateful.
Brutal Metal
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Brutal Metal »

On the new Secret Service show here in the USA the agents CONFIRMED they employ electronic jamming devices in the vicinity of events and appearances the President makes for safety concerns and that it's been done for YEARS. I found that quite enlightening and builds creedance for digital simulation of 911!
Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf »

Dear Human,

I apologize for not being clearer when I provided the links to Dr. Wood's website.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

Please ignore just about everything she writes. Concentrate on the pictures and analyze their taintedness level.

What's my agenda?

My hypothesis is that once a critical level of proven tainted images is reached for a given theory, that theory will need to be re-assessed and maybe even re-canted. (This doesn't apply to just Dr. Wood.) When considering specifically the images that Dr. Wood uses, I expect a percentage of legitimately proven tainted images and a complimentary percentage of authentic-as-far-as-we-can-tell images (e.g., a nugget of truth).

Once this trial by fire burns off the tainted dross of disinformation, nuggets of truth might remain. The devious part of my agenda is that for any 9/11 theory to be valid, it must address all nuggets of truth while avoiding the tainted dross.
Post Reply