FAKING THE RUBBLE

[Tufa]

If you take a banana, and rip it in two pieces, you have an illustration of how the perimeter columns should look like. You can compare with this picture:



... there are many things wrong ... and the various problems of the pictures are independent of each other.

[Heiwa]

I would expect that the result of destroying WTC1/2 using controlled demolition methods from bottom up would be two high piles of 110 floors of reinforced concrete on top of each other with the roof on top with a lot of cut core columns in between and sheets of wall panels around it. It would be quite obvious to anybody that this destruction was not caused by local failures (a hole in a wall) and fire up top (and collapse from top down - LOL) so ... all pictures of the rubble had also to be faked. The real rubble had of course to be shipped off and destroyed secretly. Big job = the real perps have great power. I wonder what they are up to next?

[simonshack]

Please, someone help me !


A view from the opposite side...



And here, a most ridiculous backdrop. The rubble pictures are doctored. Period.
But hey - the onus is on us to prove it !

[hoi.polloi]

It's the incredible shrinking man/inflatable backdrop!

Who knew that the avant-garde off-Broadway with giant 2D backdrops was taking their shows LIVE to rubble in SoHo?

It's almost as if some of these were created prior to 9/11 with no care/guarantees of how the actual rubble would look - old scam artist Georgey Morengo probably started creating this stuff in July 2001 and by the time the event rolled around, they just sifted through his pictures and said "Oh add that Colosseum bit to these and these are good. They look close enough. Anyway we are just shifting the sculptures around a bit - most of the stuff is already on its way to China!" {APPROVED stamp!}

"Aren't you worried that people are going to notice these historic pictures don't look real when they're collaged in the 2012 propaganda museum?"

"Whatever, don't bother me! Wassamatta you!! You're getting paid ain't ya? Shut up - the people won't even notice."

[simonshack]

*

OLIVER STONE'S "RUBBLE FIELD"

Oliver Stone made a 9/11 movie ("World Trade Center") and filmed it in a mock-up "GROUND ZERO rubble field" in Los Angeles. Hmm... Could this possibly be the location where most of the "REAL" Ground Zero rubble imagery (tirelessly analyzed here in this thread) was shot?

Watch/listen at 1min30sec:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1hmntCeLoY


Here's a shot from a trailer of Oliver's "Naudet-like" movie. Looks familiar, doesn't it?




SONY (the camera maker) praises the movie:

Formidable filmmaker Oliver Stone's decision to take on the "World Trade Center" project to recount events surrounding the 9/11 attacks raised more than a few eyebrows – was he going to slip in some political undertone like he did with "JFK" and "Born On The Fourth Of July"? In the end we need not have worried... "World Trade Center" is the most un-Oliver- Stone-like film by Oliver Stone: no ideologies, no conspiracy theories, just a very heart-wrenching portrayal of two policemen trapped among the ruins. (...)

Sony KDL32D3000 colour bit depth and noise reduction prowess was demonstrated amply too: smoke swirling around the rubble was rendered cleanly without the slightest trace of dithering or banding, reinforcing the lingering sense of chaos and dread.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Sony-KDL32D30 ... y.php#nogo

No one does fakes it better than Hollywood!

[hoi.polloi]

Nice find - an ACRE sized rubble field!?!

Then ... "So much of this movie was shot on your face ..." says the interviewer to old Mister Nicholas Cage.

So the movie is essentially some bold-faced lying, government conformity and a bunch of bad acting from one of the worst actors in Hollywood? Excellent. Sounds like a real worthy picture - the movie adds its own cheese to your popcorn!

This makes me even more suspicious of his JFK picture.

[ThemDarnBats]

This makes me even more suspicious of his JFK picture.

Ha ha.... yeah, just a little.
Have you ever sat through the commentary of the film JFK? He says that everything we hear from these bogus commission reports is just "bullshit!". It makes you wonder just what side of the bullshit line he sits on. Just look at the movie "W". Certainly no shortage of bullshit there, especially as he cast a Prince William look-a-like in the roll of Tony Blair!
“Reality is what is happening while you think you’re living your life”
Oliver Stone – JFK commentary

[Tufa]

I have never seen the World Trade Center (2006) movie. I tried once, but had to switch it off, it was simply ...

It's almost as if some of these were created prior to 9/11 with no care/guarantees of how the actual rubble would look -

hoi.polloi 14 Dec 2010
No, for their own security, my guess is that most video and pictures was made prior to the 9-11. In that case you can also check the psychology on a test audience, to see if it works. Very easy, really, you simply shoot the buildings, empty, and then discard the rubble while the TV run the horror movie.

These "rubble pile" pictures - once you learn how the fake rubble pile looks like the evaluation of the picture is rather straightforward.


World Trade Center (2006) movie It is the perimeter columns that is wrong. Very easy!

Now when we have found out how the rubble pile (fake) pictures was made --- it is impossible to argue that the pictures are "real" simply by providing hi resolution hi quality pictures, possibly also consistent, where there is no trace of picture manipulation. That isn't enough. The entire picture set has to be completely replaced!

[simonshack]

*

THE CORTLANDT 3D ENVIRONMENT

At this stage, I believe we have determined beyond resonable doubt that the 9/11 Ground Zero rubble imagery was entirely staged and/or digitally composited. It seems likely, in fact, that it was both staged (filmed on some location such as Oliver Stone's "Rubblefield" in LA) and successively composited in post-production, in order to produce a wider variety of shots - yet limited to a handful of 3D environments and (apparent) vantage points.

The view from Cortlandt street (simulating the rubble of WTC4) is a prime example of the "9/11 Fakery Team's" production pattern. I have put together an overview of the observations and wish to thank our member reel-deal for brilliantly pointing out this particularly phony 9/11-imagery environment. As it is, I recently took a new look at Steven Rosenbaum's "7 DAYS IN SEPTEMBER" propaganda movie. Rosenbaum purportedly "marshalled the resources of twenty-seven different filmmakers that recorded what they saw throughout the city on 9/11 and beyond". http://www.steverosenbaum.magnify.net/?f_id=45

Here are three frames extracted from Steven Rosenbaum's umpteenth 9/11 hoax reel:


Here we compare a shot of "7 DAYS" to a picture credited to "Robert Segal". (Among other things, you may ask yourself: Why is water being sprayed on some utterly flameless rubble? In fact, no flames are ever to be seen in this - or any other - 9/11 'firefighting' sceneries. Could it perhaps be because flames/fires are a little trickier to animate?..)


True to form, Rosenbaum's movie contains the by now familiar, dreadful renderings seen in virtually all the available 9/11 footage (including the Naudet movie "911" and the alleged 9/11 "amateur" footage). To be sure, sheared-off noses, limbs and faces are a common, frequent feature of the 9/11 image pool - and of the 9/11 image pool only. By now, it should be clear that these 'glitches' can not be ascribed to any sort of 'video compression artifacts'. They appear to be a distinct, consistent 'signature defect' of whatever animation software was used to produce the earlier (2001-2004) animated 9/11 video material:


It should also be clear by now that, by playing around with foregrounds/backdrop layers with their flawed 3D-imaging software, the 9/11 Fakery Team ended up with perspective aberrations far beyond what may be explained by normal focal distortions occuring due to different lenses/or viewing angles. No comments necessary here - but take your time to verify this issue for yourself :



We then have the usual chromatic absurdities seen in so many 9/11 photos & videos. Since we can rule out that the white areas pointed out below can not be reflections of any kind, we are left with just two options to explain this visual fact: 1- Someone splattered chalk/or white paint on the black façade sometime between the two shots. 2 - An error was committed either on the 9/11 movie set (clumsy prop management) or in the digital realm (clumsy post-production/photo-retouching). You decide:


In the next picture below, the uncharred and upright NYPD police car (see above) appears burned out and flipped on its rooftop. To be sure, its location (intersection of Cortlandt & Church streets) is the same as in the above picture. Again, it is up to you to choose : Alternative 1 - Is it more likely that this happened in real life? If so, WHY? Alternative 2 - Is it more likely this was decided on a movie set (by a silly B-movie director) or during computerized post-production ( by a silly video editor/art director?) :


Lastly, here are two shots credited to two pro-photographers - manifestly shot at the same time of day (note diagonal lightpole-shadow cast across the foreground steel beams). Now, even allowing that focal distortion (two diverse lens types) might account for the apparent, quite different sizes of the steel beams, three questions remain: 1- What chances that two photographers snapped a man walking by the exact same scenery at a very similar angle at the same time of day? 2- What chances that someone dragged/displaced that lonely beam (see red arrows) in the timelapse between the two shots? 3 - What exactly is going on around the black man's feet?


9/11 was a "Hollywood" production and - as all special fx movies are by definition - a simulation of reality.

[hoi.polloi]

YES! five stars

Excellent analysis. Your hard work is paying off, Simon. People can understand this very easily.

[simonshack]

OMG... And the traffic light at left matches neatly on both pictures - this is a gem ! ROFL.

Any link (source) to where you found that "before-WTC2-collapse" picture, reeldeal?
And, btw, have you any more pictures of the intact WTC4 from the Cortlandt street pow ? Thanks!

[simonshack]

Wot ? Raging fires in WTC4? And NO firefighting AT ALL?

Oh - sorry....I forgot :

[nonhocapito]

same blue truck sequence also featured here:

http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/vie ... f=28&t=159

with this logic: before collapse; after first collapse; after second collapse. whatever.
no mention of the total absence of firefighting...

[fred]

Brilliant work, Reel Deel. As we have seen before (and Simon has demonstrated) with their "chopper overlays" and their foreground buildings, these are cut-out art elements that they re-size and overlay onto any image to create a montage and add a little depth and "realism" to the phony images.

They don't worry about whether or not the perspective makes much sense, they just cut and paste the same traffic light overlay into the scene, IMHO.

[simonshack]