"FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers

The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

Re: The Jumpers

Postby simonshack on September 8th, 2012, 7:23 pm

DeeJay wrote:I've just terribly offended and hurt a very good friend who has sent me these links and asked me if all these people were not real, if the towers were really empty. He has heard about "conspiracy theories" before but never from someone he respects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzKI9TBR ... re=related (especially this one…)


"PEOPLE" HANGING OUT OF WINDOWS

Incontrovertible proof of sloppy digital compositing

Dear Deejay,

I will use the video you linked to above (the "worst one", as you rightly call it) to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that those images of people leaning out of those façades are utterly fake - or, in any case, that they simply cannot represent images captured at the World Trade Center. Firstly, let's take a look at a couple of pre-9/11 pictures of the WTC. As you will see, what I am interested to illustrate and to establish - are the relative proportions of the external structure of the WTC façade:

Image

Here is a view of the pre-9/11 WTC façade itself - as we should see it in the 9/11 imagery:

Image



The problem is that the 9/11 imagery depicts nothing even remotely similar to the above :

Image

Now, whatever perspective issues we have here related to this low viewing angle (which would certainly compress the height versus the width of the windows - I'm well aware of that) it would hardly account for such a dramatic height/width discrepancy. Moreover, there is frankly no explanation as to why that spandrel height - adjacent to the below window - should be 10% taller than expected.

Any doubts as to the fakeness of these purported "WTC façade images" should be dispelled by this other, wholly absurd shot :
Image

I hope this settles the matter for your hurt and offended friend - and for you too. In my humble opinion, the only thing one should feel offended for, is the offensively piss-poor job on the part of the (undoubtedly well-paid) folks recruited to manufacture the 9/11 CGI illusion.

As you may agree, this is all very easy to comprehend - even for a little child. It would be childish for any adult person to whine and protest when faced with incontrovertible evidence which happens to clash with his/hers preconceived beliefs, don't you think?


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

This photo was, according to its author Andrew Morang, snapped in 1995 from the top of the 22-story Vista Hotel:
http://worldofdecay.blogspot.it/2011/09 ... later.html

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Jumpers

Postby DeeJay on September 9th, 2012, 1:29 am

simonshack wrote:
DeeJay wrote:I've just terribly offended and hurt a very good friend who has sent me these links and asked me if all these people were not real, if the towers were really empty. He has heard about "conspiracy theories" before but never from someone he respects.


As you may agree, this is all very easy to comprehend - even for a little child. It would be childish for any adult person to whine and protest when faced with incontrovertible evidence which happens to clash with his/hers preconceived beliefs, don't you think?


Dear Simon,
I thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to demonstrate to me the impossibility of the window people. FYI, I am now doing my homework and reading everything A to Z and will try to refrain from wasting everyone's time in the future. I am guilty for having jumped erratically from one subject to the next: there's just so much to absorb!
:blink: DeeJay
DeeJay
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: September 1st, 2012, 2:18 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2012, 3:54 am

*

And just to finish off this extensive analysis of the supposed "jumpers" of 9/11, here is what I would love to call 'the monster evidence'. Of course, we have by now exposed the absurd "9/11 jumper imagery" in every imaginable way - and reached the conclusion that ALL of this imagery was forged by digital means. However, there can never be 'too much' evidence to expose the massive 9/11 scam - so here we go:


THE KING KONG MAN

"PEOPLE FALLING FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzKI9TBR-XQ

At one stage in the above-linked video, we see a man stepping out of a WTC window. Now, we know that ALL of the World Trade Center windows were approximately 7feet tall. So, the question is...

Image

Well, he appears to be about 13 feet tall (or 4 meters tall). Since we don't have any records of human beings reaching such heights/dimensions, we can definitively conclude that this video is a crass forgery. Beyond any shadow of doubt.


*************************************************picture insert at right shows REAL dimensions of the WTC façade
Image


NOTE: The "KING KONG MAN" was first aired on ABC on September 11, around 1PM:
http://archive.org/details/abc200109111241-1323 (at around 19:40 into the archive clip).

"KING KONG MAN" was also featured in the official TV 'documentary' "102 Minutes That Changed America":

- as aired on the History Channel and all over the world, translated in several languages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... nU#t=2461s




****************************
Now, for the fun part: Phil Jayhan (the founder of Letsrollforums) actually observed these absurd proportions back in 2010 and made this fantastically warped and hilarious, leap-of-logic conclusion:


"THE TOWERS WERE RECONFIGURED"

Yes, believe it or not, but Phil Jayhan actually put forth the notion that the WTC towers' external aspect had somehow been "reconfigured", that is, the windows/spandrel heights had been stealthily shrunk/modified at some stage in time - and THIS is why we see these giant people leaning out of the windows... :lol: :rolleyes:

In other words: Phil Jayhan works very hard to uphold/protect the notion that the 9/11 imagery is REAL AND LEGIT.

Read it to believe it:
http://letsrollforums.com/reconfigurati ... 23544.html
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby Thunder on October 5th, 2012, 11:18 am

The tallest man was 272cm (8.92 ft), his name was Robert Wadlow. He died 1940.
*ironic on*
But this is amazing how big they are in New York. Up to 4 meters. Without any doubt, this one is real and in NY there are the biggest human beings on the planet. Respect. The picture is the best evidence ;) Or don't you trust home videos and news stations?
*ironic off*
Thunder
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: March 25th, 2012, 5:32 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby reichstag fireman on October 5th, 2012, 1:07 pm

The Giant Jumpers are a really good hoax buster, Simon. Even the most stupid can understand it. And I have :)
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby simonshack on October 6th, 2012, 12:03 am

reichstag fireman wrote:The Giant Jumpers are a really good hoax buster, Simon. Even the most stupid can understand it. And I have :)


That doesn't make you a genius, RF. However, it surely proves that you're not stupid ! :lol: :P

Now, whether the folks responsible for crafting these atrocious 9/11 photo/video frauds were stupid or not is open for debate. I'm getting more and more people asking me if I think that they made these 'mistakes' on purpose (for some reason). My answer to that is: "I don't know. But does it matter? After all, hasn't 99% of the world fallen for it all (pun intended) - to this day?".

The bottom line is that the entire pool of 9/11 imagery (upon close scrutiny) turns out to be riddled with such a pervasive amount of blatant forgery as to make it impossible - for any honest person - to ignore.

Today, I bumped into this still picture credited to one "Bolivar Orellano". Here's the gut-wrenching story of Bolivar's harrowing 9/11 experience as he allegedly snapped his pictures that day ...: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/0 ... ml#s355121

Image

Does the above image credited to this Bolivar look familiar to you? Where have we seen that scene before? Let me help you out: it appears to be from that video with the giant, 4-meter-tall man (see my previous post in this thread):
Image

So let me now enlarge a section of Mr. "Bolivar Orellano's" still picture :
Image

Ladies and gents - I think we can now call it a day. We can tranquilly conclude that these images are crudely crafted digital frauds. We can also conclude that ALL of the "veteran 9/11 "truthers" who keep using the 9/11 imagery to formulate any sort of theories (and any sort of fanciful conclusions based on those images) are frauds too - or simply inept/whimsical researchers.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby Andrew1484 on October 8th, 2012, 5:31 am

simonshack wrote:Now, whether the folks responsible for crafting these atrocious 9/11 photo/video frauds were stupid or not is open for debate. I'm getting more and more people asking me if I think that they made these 'mistakes' on purpose (for some reason). My answer to that is: "I don't know. But does it matter? After all, hasn't 99% of the world fallen for it all - to this day?".

The bottom line is that the entire pool of 9/11 imagery (upon close scrutiny) turns out to be riddled with such a pervasive amount of blatant forgery as to make it impossible - for any honest person - to ignore.


Yes, I think that it might matter if the mistakes were deliberate.

If the mistakes were deliberate, was it whistle-blowing?
or
A symbolic "religious" language that the farmed peasants cannot read?
or
A really warped sense of humour, laughing at the stupid peasants who buy it at face value?
or
Easter Eggs (candy trail) designed to provoke a managed response?
or
A Darwinian method of sorting the wheat from the chaff, if they intend to get rid of the chaff?
Andrew1484
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:03 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby hoi.polloi on October 8th, 2012, 1:57 pm

Yes, I think that it might matter if the mistakes were deliberate.

If the mistakes were deliberate, was it whistle-blowing?
or
A symbolic "religious" language that the farmed peasants cannot read?
or
A really warped sense of humour, laughing at the stupid peasants who buy it at face value?
or
Easter Eggs (candy trail) designed to provoke a managed response?
or
A Darwinian method of sorting the wheat from the chaff, if they intend to get rid of the chaff?


In the case of Falling Man, I would say some mistakes don't appear to be deliberate; they appear to be sloppy editing. Bad keying, for instance. Few people would notice this on close inspection, and we really do not know why they would do such a thing. We can speculate about the details, but measurement and pressure of public response are definitely themes of Falling Man.

The danger of ignoring the why is that we lose information about the "enemy" but the danger of paying too much attention to the why is giving credit where credit is not due and making the "enemy" out to be something it is not.

That's why I agree with Simon that it's not important or wise to speculate too deeply beyond what we've uncovered on this forum. If you see something deeper, however, please expose it for everyone. Just be aware that there is a general philosophy on this forum of remaining in the very skeptical, "no frills" science of is it fake or not? and less focused on the why is it all so fake? and we will refocus when necessary.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby simonshack on February 2nd, 2013, 1:37 pm

*

What an appropriate soundtrack ! ^_^


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU7mZbjwOCA
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby SmokingGunII on February 2nd, 2013, 5:01 pm

It's not often I will say this but OMFGG!

I just love the alien arm with the 4' forearm waving on the left side of the tower. Quite how the alien managed to lean out so far to be seen from the "cameraman's" angle ;) is beyond my comprehension of human physics! :blink:
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby XQB on April 4th, 2013, 6:30 am

simonshack wrote:*

What an appropriate soundtrack ! ^_^



Darn, what was this video about and what was the soundtrack? It looks like the account that posted the video was pulled.
XQB
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: April 23rd, 2012, 7:43 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby simonshack on April 4th, 2013, 2:01 pm

*

NO JUMPERS SEEN IN ANY OF THE LIVE TV FOOTAGE

Funny... We are told that 200+ people jumped to their death that morning.
Yet we cannot see any jumpers in the LIVE TV footage? How can that be, I wonder ? <_<

Image
(Animated gif rendered at normal speed)

...oops! And whats going on in that backdrop? Is that a landslide? :huh: :P

And no - don't even try arguing that this supersonic, scrolling backdrop is due to 'the TV chopper's sideways drift'.
I wonder if the nerd who made that "3D" landscape simulation software still has a (government) job!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... C8#t=2082s
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby omaxsteve on April 4th, 2013, 3:52 pm

...oops! And whats going on in that backdrop? Is that a landslide?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... C8#t=2082s


Simon, I just noticed something in that video that seems totally incongruent.

Is it possible to display two 5 second clips side by side to each other? They show two impact sequences leading to the ball of flame from 39:46 to 39:51 and again from 40:06 to 40:11 from a different angle. In the second sequence the plane is obscured by the towers, however if the plane followed the path in the first sequence I believe that the plane "should" have been visible. You may have already done this if so, I apologize)

regards,

Steve O.
omaxsteve
Member
 
Posts: 182
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 1:44 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby simonshack on April 4th, 2013, 7:41 pm

omaxsteve wrote:
Simon, I just noticed something in that video that seems totally incongruent.


Not familiar with the "16-SECOND MAGIC SEQUENCE", are you Steve?

Here it is on my website: http://septemberclues.info/wtc_airplanes.htm


And here's another gif I made of it:

Image

But yes, your observation is quite valid. If you look at the "International Shot" (ABC), the angle of the towers doesn't look right - in relation to the "Ball" shot (NBC), where we see the 'plane' disappearing behind the towers far too early - with respect to its apparent speed and trajectory (if this sequence had depicted a real event in the real world, that is!) Whoever composited this 16-second animated sequence had a pretty poor sense for time/space/perspective.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Postby brianv on April 4th, 2013, 8:37 pm

Don't you see what's going on here Simon? Questioning the footage as if it were somehow legitimate. It makes no difference which angle the fly walked across the screen in the latest Lookout Mountain studios, the "footage" was fabricated years prior to the event. Just like the towers were emptied years before [IF THEY WERE EVER POPULATED]. The static cameras in the sky yeah, the five mile zooms, the post-production software panning and shake. It was fed to the TV stations the same way the loony landings were, 4 decades ago. It worked that time. Why not use it again? There was NO footage taken on that day. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to VICSIMS: the simulated victims of 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests