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.info
Post Reply
Human
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Human » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:48 pm

Herr der Elf

I will give you my opinion and my opinion only ok. I believe ALL of the collapse video's (from media and "amateur"), "plane" entering picture video's are fake and have been proven quite substantially here, I also believe based upon what I have seen and researched that a large portion of the 9/11 imagery pool photo's are fake due to CGI, Photo shop, image layering, re-targeting and other methods of involvement, BUT, I also believe there are photo's that are not fake as far as the methods explained above and that the photo's are simply props used to convey to the masses a sense of "more damage" if you will and this is standard stuff in psyop warfare.

Ex: burnt out junk yard cars placed in specific areas (fire trucks and police cars also), memorial wall photo's placed strategically, airplane parts, etc etc.

It seems like you are trying to pick a fight by saying "Simon said ALL photo's are fake" prove it! well if the collapse video's are fake, "plane" video's are fake, vast amount of "first responder" photo's are fake, memorial photo's online are fake, BUT, a few photo's are not fake yet still an important part of the psyop does this constitute disinfo on the part of Simon or anyone here? No, it does not! so what is your point?

The photo's of burnt cars and trucks on Wood's site show to me nothing more than props picked up from a junkyard complete with missing door handles and smashed out windows which were torched purposely by the perps (probably after people were evacuated from the area's) and that is all, no need for space based weaponry, mini nukes or anything else, just some cans of gas and a sledgehammer. The ones which are more severely damaged were simply parked in an area were debri from the controlled demo would affect them and then towed to certain areas for the world to see and photograph.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:01 pm

Dear Herr Elf.

Let me try and take you through a logical thought process - one which I have painstakingly developed for myself throughout almost half-a-decade of 9/11 research. I will use - as you have requested - some of the images posted on Judy Wood's website, which she obviously uses as a basis to her own thought processes (or, as appears more likely to me, her deliberately misleading 9/11 gatekeeping processes).

Image
Judy Wood's portrait - ( posted on her own website: http://www.drjudywood.com/)

Interestingly, you submitted this image (from the Judy Wood website) - credited to one "Greg Semendinger" - and officially released only on February 11, 2010: http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sep ... 1_2010.jpg
Image

Now, this "Semendinger" video (with over 10 million views) features a pretty much identical, aerial point of view:

Image

So a first question logically arises: how did the atrocious quality of the above-linked video turn - in 2010 - into a quite sharp, high-resolution image - such as the one posted on Judy Wood's website? Are we supposed to believe that Greg Semendinger was equipped with a crappy, "19th century" video camera - AND a top brand Nikon still camera?

Now, what about that chalk-white smoke seen in many 9/11 images? Since when does a kerosene/or office fire produce chalk-white smoke? Even this alleged satellite image (from Judy Wood's website) shows chalk-white smoke:
Image
Image
Which of the two above images are we supposed to believe in? Would it be logical to believe in one of the two?

We then have THIS picture from Judy Wood's website (featuring WTC6):
Image

Here are 3 other images featuring WTC6 images. Which one is real? (I have only bothered to put a couple of arrows here and there - but there are many more problems with this image trio. Verify the details for yourself - I'd hate to spoon-feed you:
Image

Wait - perhaps the one posted on Judy Wood's website is real - since it has more decent resolution? Would that be a logical assumption to do? I don't think so. In my world, plain logic suggests that ALL are equally fake.

Here again, we have a frame extracted from a Judy Wood video:
Image

Have we seen this scenery before? Yes indeed. It is the same as this one - a gradient map test I did some while ago which proves that firefighters were inserted over the rubble imagery:
Image

And it is the same little spot of rubble scenery as this too:
Image

Of course, I could go on and on, but I trust you are already familiar with the extensive amount of evidence to be found in this forum (and at http://www.septemberclues.info) exposing the systematic use of CGI to craft the imagery related to the 9/11 events. I must say I have a hard time grasping the logic & gist of your requirements, dear Herr Elf. Are you actually asking us to work harder - and expose 100% of the available 9/11 imagery - frame-by-frame? Isn't that a tad unreasonable/unrealistic?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for me to ask you to have a go at debunking my work?
UNDEBUNKABLE SEPTCLUES: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961

I frankly couldn't care less about Judy Wood and her collapse theories. What we do here is to expose the NEWS MEDIA'S COMPLICITY with the 9/11 psyop. Whether nukes, DEW, nano-thermite or (more logically) safe and ultra-reliable conventional demo-explosives were used to bring the towers is the least of my concerns. It certainly seems to generate heaps of circular debates all over the internet - conveniently allowing the old farts behind this hoax more time to live out their wretched lives without having their fat, millionaire-asses kicked by the law or the people.

kansasinnovember
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:53 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by kansasinnovember » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:55 pm

Hi Simon,
Re: The challenge to all pro-photographers of this world,it's so bad it's almost as if the whole list of cgi experts :lol: were given their own little piece of footage to create and then simply went off and did their own thing without a care in the world concerning the colour scheme,imagine the look on each of their faces when confronted with the end results..BLACK SMOKE,GREY SMOKE,WHITE SMOKE to go along with the BLUE SKY,CHOCOLATE SKY,ORANGE SKY etc etc....Never mind,just blame it on those brand new hi-tech LSD televisions. :lol:

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:25 am

kansasinnovember wrote:... the BLUE SKY,CHOCOLATE SKY,ORANGE SKY etc etc....Never mind,just blame it on those brand new hi-tech LSD televisions. :lol:

ORANGE/CHOCOLATE?
(WTC2 collapse as aired by NBC on 9/11)
Image

BLUE? (WTC1 collapse as aired by CBS4 on 9/11)
Image

GREY? (WTC1 collapse as aired LIVE by CNN on 9/11)
Image
Please note that I have speeded up the above gif (only to make it less heavy to upload). The long and slow zoom-in motion actually lasts for all of 18 seconds - thereafter, the zoom-in motion stops and...whoopee, the WTC1 starts collapsing! http://septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

We are therefore asked to believe that the cameraman in that CNN chopper had some magical intuition that WTC1 was about to collapse - and zoomed in on it ...just by some synchronical, serendipitious happenstance! You're free to believe in the magick! (Please know that this CNN clip is the ONLY LIVE SHOT we have of the WTC1 collapse initiation).

AngellDust
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by AngellDust » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:52 am

simonshack wrote:Now, what about that chalk-white smoke seen in many 9/11 images? Since when does a kerosene/or office fire produce chalk-white smoke? Even this alleged satellite image (from Judy Wood's website) shows chalk-white smoke...
Speaking of smoke, I think it's absurd that 220 stories of steel and concrete were supposedly turned into dust, and yet they had no vacuum or vortex effect on the slowly-drifting, non-diffuse smoke trail pictured. Even if 220 stories becomes dust via death-ray :lol:, the dust has to displace something (air) to it's final resting place. The vacuum should cause a broad haze and a cloud of paper too! :rolleyes:

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by fbenario » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:32 am

kansasinnovember wrote:BLACK SMOKE,GREY SMOKE,WHITE SMOKE to go along with the BLUE SKY,CHOCOLATE SKY,ORANGE SKY etc etc.
"it's an orange sky
always it's some other guy"


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

Brutal Metal
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Brutal Metal » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:56 am

^^ HEY those dudes are from my hometown in Mass, you couldn't grow up in the 70's in my area and not be a fan! :D
Carry on Gentlemen! And YES listen to what Simon says Judy is a plant, don't give her bullshit theories any merit!

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by brianv » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:04 pm

Brutal Metal wrote:^^ HEY those dudes are from my hometown in Mass, you couldn't grow up in the 70's in my area and not be a fan! :D
Carry on Gentlemen! And YES listen to what Simon says Judy is a plant, don't give her bullshit theories any merit!
One of those ugly stinking plants that smell of rotten corpses!

Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:05 pm

Human wrote:I believe ALL of the collapse video's (from media and "amateur"), "plane" entering picture video's are fake and have been proven quite substantially here, I also believe based upon what I have seen and researched that a large portion of the 9/11 imagery pool photo's are fake due to CGI, Photo shop, image layering, re-targeting and other methods of involvement, BUT, I also believe there are photo's that are not fake as far as the methods explained above and that the photo's are simply props used to convey to the masses a sense of "more damage" if you will and this is standard stuff in psyop warfare.
On the above, I believe as you do. Especially your more reasoned belief that "there are photos that are not fake."
Human wrote:It seems like you are trying to pick a fight by saying "Simon said ALL photo's are fake" prove it!
I no longer recall where Mr. Shack wrote it in a response to me, but Mr. Shack did indeed say words to the effect "all 9/11 imagery is fake," which I thought was a bit over-the-top and over-generalized and told him so. I tried to get him to measure his words a bit more, but he maintains that hard-line position.

It is not my desire to corner Mr. Shack on proving every 9/11 image was faked. I'm just giving him a little bit of the raspberries. What I am trying to achieve is more or less a grade on each and every image (still/video) on a scale definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that point in time.) And to narrow the scope of the initial work even further, I suggest focusing on Dr. Wood's images.

I also have a personal agenda. When I entered this discussion, I said I championed both Dr. Wood and September Clues, but in a left- and back-handed sort of a way. It is because I champion Dr. Wood that I earnestly hope that the taint in more of her images will be exposed, which in turn will legitimately question theories based on such images.

I'm sticking my neck out in this defense. The sooner I have definitive debunking of evidence used to bolster bat-shit crazy theories, the sooner I can change my tune, change my mind, and champion something else. I don't like being the fool. However, I'd be proven an even bigger fool if I let unsubstantiated "debunking" not be questioned.
Human wrote:The photo's of burnt cars and trucks on Wood's site show to me nothing more than props picked up from a junkyard complete with missing door handles and smashed out windows which were torched purposely by the perps (probably after people were evacuated from the area's) and that is all, no need for space based weaponry, mini nukes or anything else, just some cans of gas and a sledgehammer. The ones which are more severely damaged were simply parked in an area were debri from the controlled demo would affect them and then towed to certain areas for the world to see and photograph.
I've discovered a few instances where Dr. Wood got it wrong. For example, her analysis of a fire truck's burned front end was off, because the engine sat further back. The same police car was photographed from a couple of different locations, which is a serious blow to theories used to explain damage to vehicles at the bridge where they were towed.

But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that. The way they were popping off on the street between WTC-6 and WTC-7, in the parking lot catty-corner, and all along West Broadway that T's into the WTC at WTC-7 (before the WTC-7 was pulled) was not the work of a sledgehammer and can of gas. Please don't make light of it.

Herr der Elf
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:06 pm

Dear Mr. Shack,

Thank you for stepping in and sharing your thought process.
simonshack wrote:Interestingly, you submitted this image (from the Judy Wood website) - credited to one "Greg Semendinger" - and officially released only on February 11, 2010: http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sep ... 1_2010.jpg
Image
Now, this Youtube video (with over 10 million views) features a pretty much identical, aerial point of view:
Image
The two above images are from two different events. The top image shows the demolition of WTC-1, the second tower to collapse. The bottom image shows the WTC-1 still standing and is sometime after WTC-2 was demolished.
simonshack wrote: So a first question logically arises: how did the atrocious quality of the above-linked video turn - in 2010 - into a quite sharp, high-resolution image - such as the one posted on Judy Wood's website? Are we supposed to believe that Greg Semendinger was equipped with a crappy, "19th century" video camera - AND a top brand Nikon still camera?
You're implying that the high-resolution image came from the same video with the poor quality. Are you sure of your sources that both were made from the same helicopter, the same photographer, and/or the same camera? I do not know the answer. Unless you have some substantiation, my assumption is two different cameras.

I would be interested in learning of any digital manipulation to the top image.

simonshack wrote:Now, what about that chalk-white smoke seen in many 9/11 images? Since when does a kerosene/or office fire produce chalk-white smoke? Even this alleged satellite image (from Judy Wood's website) shows chalk-white smoke:
Image
Image
Which of the two above images are we supposed to believe in? Would it be logical to believe in one of the two?
You are mixing images from different points in time and angles and trying to use that as an indication of fakery. The time factor is important, because the initial fires were supposedly the result of jet fuel or whatever accelerant they used to create the fire ball. As that burned off and burned into the office furnishings, this changed the color of smoke. Aside from the fuel being burned at the time of the shot, it seems to me the angle it is viewed from with respect to the sun can also change the color of the smoke.

A more important aspect relating to time that needs to be taken into consideration is that WTC-7 had fires that started at around 9:30 a.m. before either tower came down. There were also several cars on fire on the street. So the image on the lower-right with smoke you are labeling "WHITE" ("GRAY" to me) actually still has black-ish smoke billowing from the towers while that gray smoke comes up from the fires in other buildings and locations closer to the ground.

Now we can consider the satellite image, which has both a black plume and a much larger white one. This is supposedly after the WTC complex has been leveled. Like the white-ish dust that went everywhere, the large white plume in space (if valid) is attributed to the super fine dust created in the pulverization that was so fine and light that it went into the sky rather than settling on the ground. But, this really depends on the validity of the satellite image. One of the Clues Crew already pointed out examples of digital manipulation in the boats to already clue us in to its fakery. I'd like to know if the white smoke is valid.

This satellite image, although used by Dr. Wood, comes from a more established govt source. For example, the satellite image with the large white smoke trail was used even when discussing with Dr. Jenkins to explain where content went, e.g., pulverized so fine that it went practically into orbit.



No need for me to discuss the WTC-6 composite: I'll rest on your analysis. Thank you. For future reference, I would like to be spoon fed.

simonshack wrote:Of course, I could go on and on, but I trust you are already familiar with the extensive amount of evidence to be found in this forum (and at http://www.septemberclues.info) exposing the systematic use of CGI to craft the imagery related to the 9/11 events. I must say I have a hard time grasping the logic & gist of your requirements, dear Herr Elf. Are you actually asking us to work harder - and expose 100% of the available 9/11 imagery - frame-by-frame? Isn't that a tad unreasonable/unrealistic?
Mr. Shack, you did indeed say words to the effect "all 9/11 imagery is fake," which I thought was a bit over-the-top and over-generalized and told you so. I tried to get you to measure your words a bit more, but at the time you maintained that hard-line position. When it comes to describing how we should approach 9/11 imagery, you are welcome to use the paraphrased "Ronnie Raygun-ism: Distrust but Verify."

I agree that it is a tad unreasonable and unrealistic to ask you to expose 100% of the available 9/11 imagery - frame-by-frame. This was not my request.

A significantly more manageable subset of that grand whole is what Dr. Wood uses. And even then, the two web pages that I have targeted go right to the heart of a couple matters. Just a simple gradient grading of each image from definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that moment in time captured by the camera's shutter.)

I mentioned my larger agenda. I have a personal one, too, unfortunately. I'm a duped useful idiot when it comes to Dr. Wood's textbook (and September Clues). I'm standing on her evidence and theories to evolve my own and deviate. Proving the extent that her pictorial evidence was tainted trims the fat and rot from her theories; it cuts both ways regarding strengthening and undermining mine. I don't like being the champion of bat-shit crazy theories if I am factually in error due to the craftiness with which tainted 9/11 images entered our consciousness and perverted our beliefs. Depending on what is revealed, I might have to issue a public apology for having led people astray.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by nonhocapito » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:59 pm

Enough with this insufferable Judy Wood!

The only purpose of Judy Wood is to pollute the idea of fakery with fantasy scenarios in order to keep the terror factor high.

Scary energy weapons are terrifying -- photoshop is laughable.

People like you, Herr der Elf, and your beloved barely-existing Judy Wood, seem to be actively working to keep the terror-potential of 9/11 high. On this forum the approach is rather different... At the center of the picture we put Hollywood and the media, that kind of angle, not fancy futuristic military scenarios. The final result is emancipation, not just an alternative form of "terror for the enlightened".

And getting to your phony "explain this" attitude (so utterly phony): arguing whether one or the other picture could "represent reality" is the wrong, misleading approach. The crucial idea is that everything could be faked. That's enough to connect a whole lot of dots.

You guys always come with the same argument, clinging to one or the other image that according to you cannot be explained with fakery. This is such a waste of time! We are not here to perform for you demonstrations of fakery! You act as if you are guided by logic -- but then you seem to think that on 9/11 we had fake videos and pictures, representing unreal events, followed, somehow, by real events shown as a consequence of those unreal preceding causes. Talk about logic! :lol:

Personally I tend to think that the demolitions of the towers were traditional demolitions that looked like traditional demolitions. And this was reason enough to fake the collapse as well as the rubble as well as the planes and the explosions! All your reasoning about fine dust and such is a waste of time because even you cannot have any certainty that the pictures are real, especially when we assume that planes and falling dummies were not. I cannot for the life of me imagine a moment when the pigs turned a switch and decided that from that moment on reality could be exposed because it was under control. That moment never came.

Just answer this question: could everything be faked? If so, why wouldn't everything be faked? Or, in other words: Why does the film and TV industry always favor filming in studio against real locations?

Makkonen
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Makkonen » Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:14 pm

Image

Why would anyone, let alone a firefighter, step straight into a fire? Speaking of which, it is a rather strange and nonsensical "ring" or "circle" of fire that hasn't spread despite the masses of papers(!) around. The picture is an obvious fabrication.


Image

Ah, James Nachtwey. What a convenient place to "photograph" SO SOON after the "disaster". In reality, a civilian _anybody_ should have no business whatsoever INSIDE DEVASTATED BUILDINGS FULL OF POSSIBLY HAZARDOUS DEBRIS, GASES, etc. Sorry for the caps lock, but this picture doesn't represent reality even as an "idea".


Image

I've added an arrow to the "collapse"/"pulverization" image to draw attention to some strange stuff going on in there. The bizarre grey-blue(!) section is what caught my attention. That color blend isn't seen anywhere else in the picture; the shape cannot decide whether it's smoke or freshly pulverized material; there's a heavy "shadow" only on the other side of the section, just below the arrow. Overall, this jarring section is probably the result of some heavy-handed layering in PS. Also, I think I'm seeing some tiny "face" figures in the collapse powder-smoke-stuff, but that's to be expected - that was and is one of the trademarks of the WTC collapse animations/stills. A little bit of strange "fun" for the CGI teams, I guess...

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:38 pm

Herr der Elf wrote: For example, the satellite image with the large white smoke trail was used even when discussing with Dr. Jenkins to explain where content went, e.g., pulverized so fine that it went practically into orbit.
:lol: That one's new to me - the dust went practically "into orbit"?

Ah yes - here we see it...and look, up it goes - in a mushroom cloud! Khalezov must be onto something, after all! <_<
Image
(From umpteenth phony "amateur video" - credited to one 'Jim Kosior': http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... d#p2360958

Dear Herr Elf - I hope you'll pardon me for indulging in a little comic relief from time to time. Don't know about you, but the sheer amount of ridiculous 9/11 imagery ultimately breaks me up - in fits of uncontrollable laughter.

Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus
Humor aside, let me now expound what leads me to maintain my 'hard-line position', as you call it: that is, to assert - or if you prefer, 'to postulate' - that all the available imagery depicting the crucial 9/11 events (as well as the controlled, Ground Zero 'crime scene') is false. Now, before going any further, let us (hopefully) come to an agreement regarding the meaning of 'false' - and its logical/investigative implications - since you seem to nurture the notion that perhaps some image/footage of 9/11 might be legit/authentic/genuine/or as they say, 'kosher':
Herr der Elf wrote:What I am trying to achieve is more or less a grade on each and every image (still/video) on a scale definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that point in time.)
Good Heavens. I had to highlight in red your "each and every image (stll/video)" quote - lest you deny that you ever wrote such a thing! Let me get this right: Even if there existed a 'scale/or grade' with which to 'gauge/or rate' the falseness of any given image, would you say that an image scoring a lower 'rate of falseness' puts it in some sort of 'possibly genuine' waiting list? I would say that to grant the benefit of doubt to any 9/11 image - at this advanced stage of our analyses/investigations - is an 'over-the-top' presumption of innocence which I doubt any fair judge would concede to any defendant. Instead, there is a good old legal principle (in latin,"Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus") which would ideally apply to our particular investigation. Let me quote 9/11 researcher "onebornfree", who explains this principle in simple words:
THE "FALSE IN ONE - FALSE IN ALL" LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

For those that do not know, there is a simple legal principle named "false in one false in all"[try "googling" that phrase], whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false then they have the incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that person/entity.

Therefore, and according to that principle, should anyone find any one part of the government/media 911 story to be false, then it is perfectly acceptable for that person to then conclude that _all_ "evidence" supplied by the government/media and/or "witnesses", is either knowingly false, or simply to be distrusted, until definitively proven otherwise.
http://www.dailypaul.com/120138/deconst ... er-31-2009
I will reply to your other queries in a separate post, Mr. Elf.

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Maat » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:46 pm

Ah, such pearls before der schweinehund, Simon! :D
nonhocapito wrote:Personally I tend to think that the demolitions of the towers were traditional demolitions that looked like traditional demolitions. And this was reason enough to fake the collapse as well as the rubble as well as the planes and the explosions!
Well said, Nonho!

And I personally don't believe there is any such person as "'Dr' Judy Wood", only a fictitious identity played by an agent acting as, to quote Brianv's apt metaphor, "One of those ugly stinking plants that smell of rotten corpses!" :lol: Just as the name of 'her' supposed fauxtographer "Semen dinger" is also an obviously crude joke.

Interesting that Herr der Elf (i.e. German for "lord/master of the eleven" same as his Spanish version: "Señor El Once") seems to share the perps' obsession with certain numbers, unless the dates he chose to post his shill-fest by verbal attrition here are all coincidences. Note that his 1st post on Cluesforum was July 25th [7/7], 2011. Then 6 months later, his 2nd post is on January 17th [1/17=9]. Finally, his first post since January & on this thread: February 18th [2/18=11]. <_<

Is that mere coincidence? What are the odds? :rolleyes:

Herr Duh's name is a pun too, e.g. 'herder' (cyber-herder?) 'of eleven' & 'elf': mischievous trickster; but I think the Spanish version is missing the N for 'nonce' :P

Human
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Human » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:50 pm

"THE "FALSE IN ONE - FALSE IN ALL" LEGAL PRINCIPLE:"

Thanks for sharing this Simon, I had not heard of this, but, do agree with it. I said in my post that I personally believe SOME photo's of cars and trucks are not CGI, PS, image layering or any other method (certainly could be wrong though), but, they are from a pool of "Fake" imagery from a FAKE event and therefore fit in perfectly with a FALSE-flag operation and therefore should be viewed in that context.
I certainly don't see these photo's of burnt car's and truck's as anything more than added props for this fake event and therefore fake in the sense that they convey nothing more than added shock value.

Herr der Elf: "But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that."

What testimony? please post here transcripts of "testimony" pertaining to burnt cars "popping" ? off on particular street's, not that it makes any difference to me whatsoever but please enlighten me since you have used this word.

Post Reply