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
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 7:28 pm

nonhocapito wrote: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.
Dear Mr. NonHocapito,

For someone who envisions that everything concerning 9/11 was fake, your imagination has evidently run out of steam if you can only ascribe one purpose to Dr. Wood. And oh, dear me. Her dasterdly purpose according to you cuts so quickly to the heart of what you champion.

I must be dense, because I see Mr. Shack and others pointing out quite the opposite. Those frail ideas of fakery when focused on the very evidence presented by Dr. Wood seem to cut the other direction and unravel some of Dr. Wood's theories. (As a courtesy to you, I will defer writing about the details of the unraveling to somewhere else in cyberspace... unless requested otherwise.)

If Dr. Wood is so insufferable, then suffer this discussion to focus like an ironic space-based laser beam on the imagery of her textbook/website and take it out of play legitimately. For a Dr. Wood hater such as yourself, that would be a mighty fine feather to put into your cap.

nonhocapito wrote: 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.
Quite right: The crucial idea is that everything could be faked.

What's your problem with definitively proving in Dr. Wood's evidence was is undoubtedly fake? This is the assignment that could take down the insufferable Dr. Wood.

And why are you projecting your weaknesses onto me? Talk about a uttery phony attitude, here you are saying "A David Copperfield-esque magician trick disappeared the towers using television into duping us into what to believe. (So far, so good... until you continue.) Don't worry your pretty little heads about the actual mechanics of destruction. We should all cop the "don't-explain-this" attitude and move along, folk! Nothing to see here."

nonhocapito wrote: 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:
Mr. Nonhocapito, I asked Mr. Shack for a new thread. When he made his 02 Feb 2012 posting on Dr. Wood and made reference to me, I just assumed that this is where he wanted my assignment discussed.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2364872

"We are not here to perform for you demonstrations of fakery!" Nonsense. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. You spout from your soap box not to trust any 9/11 imagery, that Dr. Wood is disinfo because she bases her conclusions on faked images, and that everything could be faked. When I challenge the forum for specifics, you get all testy and defensive.

September Clues is a big forum. If this is such a big waste of time, why don't you go occupy yourself elsewhere in the land of fakery while us adults consider Dr. Wood's evidence and take it down in a meaningful, legitimate manner?

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!


Talking out of both sides of your mouth. How could the demolitions "look like traditional demolitions" when such visual cues being faked is exactly what this forum is about? What you personally think is obviously shaped by watching too much faking of things on television. It doesn't appear to have much science or physics to back it up.

Lots of clues not reliant on photos or video take traditional demolition techniques out of contention. FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner connect were pulverized. FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink. FACT: the amount of traditional explosives required to meet this energy requirement is massive and presents legitimate logistic nightmares. FACT: hot-spots burned under the rubble without Oxygen for many weeks. FACT: traditional explosives cannot account for the hot-spots. FACT: even untraditional nano-thermite cannot account for the hot-spots without the simple math applied to its burn-rate suggesting unreasonably massive overkill amounts of the material.

Given that science reflected through your thinking is now proven to be a major weakness of yours, I suggest you refrain from speculating erroneously about causes for the observed destruction and focus where your strengths lie in proving instance-after-instance of faking in the imagery. Take Dr. Wood down legitimately.
nonhocapito wrote: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?
No, everything could not be faked.

Unless you are making the ludicrous insinuation that: "The towers and the WTC complex were not destroyed for real! They are still standing! One of these days, David Copperfield is going to pull back the curtain on the illusion and show that nothing was destroyed in the making of this Hollywood production."

Don't agree? Right. I didn't think that was your position.

And thanks to Mr. Shack's recent posting, I see that the following statement is malframed: "Could everything be faked?" A more precise wording would be: "Could all of the pictorial evidence be tainted in some manner?" To my shock and recent revelation, I now am coming on board with "yes".

P.S. Before you fly off the handle again in a posting in this thread aimed at me, check with Mr. Shack off-list. Your obtuse and science-challenge position isn't helping matters, and you clearly under-estimate my humble resolve. He might want you to abstain from rash actions against me that reflect badly on this forum, while he sees where the chips fall from my debunking request and the resulting discussion.

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 7:29 pm

Dear Makkonen,

Thank you so much for your effort in scrutinizing images used by Dr. Wood and finding areas of issues.
Makkonen wrote: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.
This above image was used to support the contention of Hutchison Effects: an erratic fire burning hot-spots here or there.

I suspect it is a fabrication as well, but we need to locate the cues of actual digital manipulation proving it as such.

Makkonen wrote: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".
The above image was used to support the contention that no hot-spots were at the WTC. If you draw a perpendicular line from the "NY" in the caption to where it goes in the rubble, that is supposedly where satillite images showed an unquenchable hot-spot. The contention is that if there were a hot-spot, all of this water would be turned to steam and none of the firemen would be loutering about there. If the image is fake, the reality of the hot-spot remains possible.

If this image is fake, again we need to identify the cues where digital manipulation was deployed.

Makkonen wrote: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...
I'm sorry. I'm not seeing anything amiss.

Perhaps others with more keen artifact snooping eyes could offer some opinions on what Makkonen points out and possibly other artifacts of digital manipulation.

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 7:30 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.
simonshack wrote: :lol: That one's new to me - the dust went practically "into orbit"?
I'm just repeating what Dr. Wood was saying to Dr. Jenkins and image he provided.

simonshack wrote: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.)
simonshack wrote: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!
No denial on my side, except that you missed the qualifying sentence.
Herr der Elf wrote:And to narrow the scope of the initial work even further, I suggest focusing on Dr. Wood's images.
simonshack wrote: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.
Most astute observation, Mr. Shack. Most clever of those perpetrators. You've cracked the door in my thinking to consider that the probability is greater than I had imagined of all 9/11 imagery being digitally manipulated in some manner, however slight, before publication and release to the world. Could be as simple as inserting a water mark, or a boat with the square pixels of the insertion software, or bogus birds flying across the screen.

It is a very devious perpetrator back-up plan should any of the imagery make it into a court of law to prove anything. The capable defense attorney will convince the judge & jury that none of the images depict a moment of reality, so therefore no argument can be advanced on the shoulders of this evidence... except one. Our beloved corporate media was complicit in the cover-up. Being found guilty of this lesser charge won't rock their worlds too much. They change corporate names and logos and continue to milk profits of the media-addicted masses.

If the perpetrators had the wherewithal to stop normal investigative procedures such that even fire marshalls were complaining about the destruction of physical evidence, now it makes sense the extent that they would go to taint the pool of pictorial evidence. Tainting the image pool is by far the easier task.

simonshack wrote: 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
These rules certainly apply to a court of law. The April Gallop case with a Bush cousin on the bench refusing to recuse himself from the case demonstrates most handily how hard they have worked to corrupt the courts.

Which leaves us the court of public opinion.

In the court of public opinion, thinkers will recognize how they are being played in the purposeful tainting of pictorial evidence. Thinkers will still want 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.)

They won't be satisfied with side-lining the pictorial evidence on a technicality. They'll want to know exactly where. Are the backgrounds somewhat true? Are the masks somewhat true? Are the overlays somewhattrue? For each image, which element if any is most likely to retain anything from reality.

And thinkers will use this to come into real courts through the side-door. The case they'll bring up will not be an April Gallop trying to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon; it will not be Dr. Wood trying to prove the unanswered massive energy questions.

No, the case will be that these same tainted images supposedly duped our leaders and caused knee-jerk over-reactions that led to illegal and immoral wars abroad.

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 7:30 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:"But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that."
Human wrote:What testimony? please post here transcripts of "testimony" pertaining to burnt cars "popping" ? off on particular street's...
Ask and ye shall receive. As but one example, consider the testimony of emergency medical technician Patricia Ondrovic.

Google: "Patricia Ondrovic"

Your googling efforts will be fruitful. One of the links will be this interview here:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/91 ... e-wtc.html

Dr. Wood's textbook has extracts from her official testimony that will probably be included in the google results.

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 10:15 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:For someone who envisions that everything concerning 9/11 was fake, your imagination has evidently run out of steam if you can only ascribe one purpose to Dr. Wood. And oh, dear me. Her dasterdly purpose according to you cuts so quickly to the heart of what you champion.
Judy Wood means nothing to me. Her research does not interest me or ever helped me in any way. I have no interest whatsoever to debunk her claims or to disprove what she says only because you come around asking this forum to do so. All I know about Judy Wood is that she does one very imbecile or malicious thing: draw unwarranted, fantastic conclusions from imagery that we have all the reasons to believe is fake. That's enough for me. She ceases to exist except as a shill agent, until someone like you come around trying to still profit from this poor investment.
Herr der Elf wrote:How could the demolitions "look like traditional demolitions" when such visual cues being faked is exactly what this forum is about? What you personally think is obviously shaped by watching too much faking of things on television. It doesn't appear to have much science or physics to back it up.
You're not following. I am not saying that the demolitions looked like traditional ones because this is how they look in the faked videos. The demolitions in the videos look like nothing but fantasy. Besides, clearly no one among the general public was allowed to see the demolitions, in reality or video. I tend to believe that they were traditional demolitions because it is the easiest, simplest, most logic and most economical explanation at hand. And because of this, obviously the scenes of the collapse had to be replaced, like everything else, with fake imagery.
Herr der Elf wrote: FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner connect were pulverized. FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink. FACT: the amount of traditional explosives required to meet this energy requirement is massive and presents legitimate logistic nightmares. FACT: hot-spots burned under the rubble without Oxygen for many weeks. FACT: traditional explosives cannot account for the hot-spots. FACT: even untraditional nano-thermite cannot account for the hot-spots without the simple math applied to its burn-rate suggesting unreasonably massive overkill amounts of the material.
All these "FACTS" are complete bullshit.
How do you know "the concrete was pulverized"? Looking at fake pictures?
Logistic nightmare? What kind of issue is this? Even if it was a logistic nightmare (which I doubt, considering that the towers were most certainly empty and had been for a long while on 9/11) it doesn't mean it could not be solved. Several, several years were obviously spent taking care of this plan.
Hot spots? Where this information comes from? The mainstream media? The truthers? Are we allowed to laugh here?
Herr der Elf wrote:Given that science reflected through your thinking is now proven to be a major weakness of yours, I suggest you refrain from speculating erroneously about causes for the observed destruction and focus where your strengths lie in proving instance-after-instance of faking in the imagery. Take Dr. Wood down legitimately.
As I said, personally I don't give a shit about "taking down" Judy Wood or the bullshit you came to shovel around here. All I care for, as far as our exchange goes, is that this forum isn't polluted with disinfo.

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 10:29 pm

Herr der Elf wrote: P.S. Before you fly off the handle again in a posting in this thread aimed at me, check with Mr. Shack off-list. Your obtuse and science-challenge position isn't helping matters, and you clearly under-estimate my humble resolve. He might want you to abstain from rash actions against me that reflect badly on this forum, while he sees where the chips fall from my debunking request and the resulting discussion.
Ok, Mr Elf

This paragraph of yours smells so much of crass divide-and-conquer tactics that I am going - from now on - to use tweezers to extract your real motives for coming here with your Judy Wood-centred discourse. Let me make it clear that I fully stand by the replies Nonhocapito has offered to you - and for you to call him 'obtuse and science-challenging' is frankly more than I can bear.

Let's see what 'scientific' methods you have to offer, Mr Elf: you stated that "Lots of clues not reliant on photos or video take traditional demolition techniques out of contention."

You then list a long series of "FACTS":
FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner connect were pulverized.
Really? What do you have to offer in support of this "FACT"?
FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink.
I do not understand this "FACT" at all - sorry.
FACT: the amount of traditional explosives required to meet this energy requirement is massive and presents legitimate logistic nightmares.

If you wish, I can link you to scores of videos showing steel-frame buildings being demolished effortlessly. They evidently presented no logistic nightmares - and are indeed performed all over the world on a regular basis.
FACT: hot-spots burned under the rubble without Oxygen for many weeks.
Again: What do you have to offer in support of this "FACT"?
FACT: traditional explosives cannot account for the hot-spots.
Same as above.
FACT: even untraditional nano-thermite cannot account for the hot-spots without the simple math applied to its burn-rate suggesting unreasonably massive overkill amounts of the material.
Again, what evidence do you have to back up the existence of these "hot-spots" ? Did you read about them in the news?

I can see where this is going, Mr Elf. You clearly wish to stir up an umpteenth, circular and pseudo-scientific discourse here on Cluesforum concerning the exact sort of explosives used to demolish the WTC COMPLEX. There are countless places to discuss such technicalities. This is not one of them. I will now suggest to you, as Nonhocapito did, that you go elsewhere (try "9/11 Architects & Enginners for Truth". Ask them to debunk Judy Wood. Have fun!).

I am also very disappointed to see you bring in the "David Copperfield - the towers are still there" crap talk. This is an all-time low of your 'career' as a 9/11 writer - and I think you should be ashamed for posting such inanities on this forum.


Re: TOASTED CARS

Regarding the toasted cars, Mr. Elf - you wrote:
"But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that."

So our forum member 'Human' rightly asked you:
Human wrote: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.
Mr. Elf, you responded by citing the "Patricia Ondrovic testimony". Have you verified that source in any way? Or do you just make up your "FACTS" and "CONTRADICTIONS" by reading newspaper reports? See, my research proceeds in a different way: I analyse the news reports - and verify/question their credibility using a trusty, old-fashioned empirical method: observation. As it is, I have long determined that the "toasted cars" meme was an integral part of the 9/11 "Hollywood made-for-TV movie".

Here is my WTC7 STUDY published on Youtube in January 2009 (and which, for some reason, has a paltry 7200 viewcount). Please pause this video at 1:44 - and observe what there is to observe: The burning WTC7, yes?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

Then, unpause the video and watch the toasted cars presented by this CBS reporter. Now, please know that the WTC7 was NOT a white building. It was reddish/ brown. In fact, the very same shot of the chalk-white WTC7 is featured in the Naudet brothers "9/11" propaganda movie. The below gif loop (at right) is extracted directly from the high-resolution DVD of the Naudet movie - that I have purchased (I hope you won't argue once again - as you did with the white/black WTC smoke - that the WHITE WTC7 could be explained by any sort of optical artifact/phenomena :lol: ) :

ImageImage

Now, here is my logical process at work: if the CBS video (aired on TV) shows an impossibly WHITE WTC7 - what credibility have these toasted cars? Are they not also part of the 9/11, Made-for-TV "Hollywood" production?

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Makkonen » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:30 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:Dear Makkonen,

Thank you so much for your effort in scrutinizing images used by Dr. Wood and finding areas of issues.
Makkonen wrote: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.
This above image was used to support the contention of Hutchison Effects: an erratic fire burning hot-spots here or there.

I suspect it is a fabrication as well, but we need to locate the cues of actual digital manipulation proving it as such.
When the picture is depicting an extremely unrealistic or improbable situation (a firefighter casually and carelessly stepping straight into a fire; the said fire not catching on despite very flammable adjacent material in paper; etc.), I think it is enough to call it a dodgy one. Closer scrutiny may be of course recommendable, but not absolutely necessary if the depicted/proposed reality has already broken down in the picture.

Herr der Elf wrote:
Makkonen wrote: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".
The above image was used to support the contention that no hot-spots were at the WTC. If you draw a perpendicular line from the "NY" in the caption to where it goes in the rubble, that is supposedly where satillite images showed an unquenchable hot-spot. The contention is that if there were a hot-spot, all of this water would be turned to steam and none of the firemen would be loutering about there. If the image is fake, the reality of the hot-spot remains possible.

If this image is fake, again we need to identify the cues where digital manipulation was deployed.
My issue was more that an authentic existence of any kind of picture from that location from a civilian photographer is extremely improbable, I'd say practically impossible. Since civilians are usually evacuated from a disaster area and the area itself cordoned/sealed off for forensic + other investigations, the area is strictly off-limits to anyone but the authorities. As I said, a guy "lurking" in a devastated building, supposedly photographing from a "hole"(!), in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster, would usually be a cause for great uproar because of all the potentially nasty ramifications (putting oneself & others needlessly at risk, contaminating possible evidence, therefore possibly instigating court cases for self, others, and the authorities, etc. etc. etc.). In this case even the idea of this particular type of picture is, in my opinion, absurd.

Herr der Elf wrote:
Makkonen wrote: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...
I'm sorry. I'm not seeing anything amiss.

Perhaps others with more keen artifact snooping eyes could offer some opinions on what Makkonen points out and possibly other artifacts of digital manipulation.
Agree to disagree, then.

---

I don't want to sound cynical, but it seems you're trying to create a "fakery asymptote" of sorts here, saying from a lot of pictures that "OK, might be dodgy, but we need to have even better analyses to be absolutely sure". The demands you've put on fakery analysis here seem, well, infinite. But you've done this cleverly by handing out little carrots, encouraging to go further down the line, only to say "...but we can't be absolutely sure". Your endeavor, sorry to say it, doesn't seem all that innocent. As I said, you're trying to establish a fakery asymptote of sorts here so that we would get frustrated, insecure, then go over to the dark side of Dr Wood's Death Star.

Lazlo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Lazlo » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:28 am

I was regarding the crappy quality of that Naudet Video and was thinking about a benchmark to compare it to and I landed on the cheesiest production I could come up with America's Funniest HomeVideos
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i479N2ei8Us The beauty of it is that it is so random. They video tape whatever with whatever quality of tape happens to be in the camera and can't plan for any kind of lighting conditions and probably don't have a lot of time for focus and fine tuning and yet they still come up with better product than say, the Naudet Brothers. Plus when you consider how many generations or iterations these home videos have been through: 1st in the cassette, then transfered to the broadcast tape, then digitized, compressed (I just don't really know all of it) then onto Youtube it makes for a great comparrison.

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by fbenario » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:41 am

[quote="Herr der Elf"][/quote]
Enough is enough. This forum does not welcome, and will not accept, posts that are defensive, emotional, personally insulting, or repetitive. You have repeated the same analyses, passive/aggressive "oh-so-reasonable-researcher" persona, images, demands, queries, and manipulative reasoning over and over.

Don't ever again repeat anything you've posted on this thread. If you have something positive to contribute to another thread, please do so.

Don't ever again tell any of us what we should research, focus on, agree with, accept, or take seriously.

Can you feel the trap-door beneath the feet of your continued participation here begin to open?

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Human » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:45 am

From Herr der Elf:

"Your googling efforts will be fruitful. One of the links will be this interview here":
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/91 ... e-wtc.html

"Dr. Wood's textbook has extracts from her official testimony that will probably be included in the google results."

Oh yes, my googling efforts were very fruitful! too bad your's were not.

Wood's has extracts from her "official" testimony? how interesting that is, shall we show the good people here on this forum just one verse from each to see if they match up? after all this was a dramatic scenario and a day no normal human being would ever forget...wouldn't you agree?

Here is a section from the interview you posted and said it would be "fruitful" (as in Nutty?), this is her recollection of what happened when the tower collapsed.

Killtown: What did you do when the South Tower started coming down?

Patricia Ondrovic: I didn't know what was happening, but there was a loud "roar" -- lots of crashing sounds. I was attempting to put my stretcher back into the vehicle. The ground was shaking and I saw a sea of people, mostly the various agencies on scene, Fire, Police, EMS, all running towards me. I had no idea what they were running from, but I decided I'd be ahead of them and just started running west towards the river. As I was running, parked cars were blowing up and some were on fire, the street was cracking a bit as well. Very shortly after I started running, everything became one big black cloud. I was near the West Side Highway and I couldn't see around me anymore.

PO: Well, one second I was trying to put my stretcher into the ambulance, the next thing I know I am thrown to the ground as the ground was shaking. Debris was flying at me from where the building I was parked in front of. There was a continual loud rumbling, there was just debris flying from every direction and then everything being covered in the black and gray smoke.

Here is a section from her "official testimony" , it seems she forgot to mention a few "burning" details in her interview above wouldn't you say?

"Thank God, I would have been dead had I run
the other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.
As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that
set my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to be
called burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off my
hair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the only
way I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.
There's hundreds of cops all running up there, and I ended up running through this park,
and I couldn't even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North.


For those who wish to read a perp story filled with inconsistencies, here you go.

Interview: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/91 ... e-wtc.html

"Official Testimony" lol: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... 110048.PDF

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Brutal Metal » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:28 am

Hey Herr der Elf what are you theories concerning that day back in 2001? Camel Jockey's with box cutters highjacked 3 commercial airliners and crashed them at those infamous locations and over 3000 innocents perished? Our fine NY Firefighters were Valiant heroes that saved 1000's of others. Bin Laden was responsible and personally selected Hanjour to pilot one of the flights? This was the reason for the USA declaring war on all forms on Middle Eastern Terror? Patriot Act/Military Industrial Complex/Civil Liberties perishing daily/5000+ American war victims most under the age of 25! SO NOBODY ELSE had a hand in this event? 20 Sand Negroes and a Turbin wearing Polygamist where the Masterminds? Instead of being the thorn on this sites foot just GO AWAY!

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by burningame » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:11 am

As Herr Der Elf sinks slowly into the sunset, and I feel the rush of humorous posts approaching, I’d like to dedicate this one to “the colors of 911”:

“Orange-Colored Sky”
(…“I was walking along, minding my business…whap!, bang!, alakazam!, etc…)

“Blue Turning Grey Over You”

Mr Elf, your tiresome use of the word ‘tainted’ in itself is a sly attempt to infer that there was somehow, somewhere some GENUINE 911 imagery.

“Tain’t So, Honey Tain’t So”

Tain’t so, honey tain’t so,
Spoke to the Lord and the Lord said no,
Tain’t so,
Honey just tain’t so

Well I’ve asked MY God, and he says he’s very annoyed at people like you coming here to disrespect the good people here. You see, this is not just about photographs. You know as well as I do that 911 was the justification for untold slaughter and corruption with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention unbridled torture, and also the yet unknown effects upon the soldiers. Yes, real flesh and blood, human souls. Not to mention the collective human psyche. What a way to begin the new century. Shame on you! If you are genuinely, passionately enraged about this fact - which to my mind everyone should be - you wouldn’t be here acting as you do. I would suggest that you go home now, and ruminate on it.

You people think you know about ‘tone’ in human conversation, but you know shit. Your pronouncements sounded hollow from the start, your manner annoying to say the least. If you’d read ANY of this forum before posting – and if you were genuine and had a brain – you would have come to the table in a proper fashion. Not with the attitude.
...(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...)
"I'm a duped useful idiot and therefore cannot be a shill"?

You’ve mentioned this a few times now, we get it already. But I’m afraid this is a non-sequiter: it is the very DEFINITION of a shill.
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.
You know what? I know who my ‘masters’ are, and while my ‘digital’ masters are certainly the eminent researchers on this forum, I have to say my REAL masters show themselves more and more in basics like good communication and clear thinking, combined with a healthy instinct for bullshit.

A duped useful idiot? Well I certainly hope you get paid by the posts, because you had a good day yesterday. But I would like you to go home now to whatever you do, and maybe wonder about those innocent lives, and the turmoil the behaviour of YOUR masters have put the world in.

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Maat » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:03 pm

Ah yes, my Cluey compadres :D this one has certainly shown its true colors in all their murky mindlessness,
flogging his phantom "Dr": Image — and quite impervious to any 'clue bat' from us, of course Image
(You can see where it spilled over from at that Truth & Shadows "mash-up" blog, trying to bury Simon's inconvenient facts there with the same long-winded fallacies)

What I said re the Kosior crap here last year also applies to this 'Herr Duh / El Nonce' circuitous clown who has also, typically, 'played the psychological double-bind of "you can't say it's fake if you haven't seen it all [read 'her' book]" BS for way too long.' :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, Simon is in the wearisome and aggravating position of 'damned if you do/don't' with insidious trolls like this Elf of having to initially respond & refute their sophistry just to prevent anyone assuming 'silence/dismissal = consent/defeat'.

The problem is that this is exactly what all narcissists (sociopaths, conmen etc.) and pseudo intellectual trolls rely upon. Once they are acknowledged and engaged the bombardment of verbal diarrhea continues and will increase unless and until starved of fodder &/or blocked.

The only advantage in giving them enough rope is that they do inevitably prove their motives beyond all reasonable doubt to any observers capable of critical thinking. ^_^

So this wannabe cyber-herder disinfo artist, Herr 'Duh', has overplayed his hand and exposed his agenda, ad nauseam. It really makes no difference whether they are genuine idiots, trolls, shills or paid to be — the tell-tale signs and attempted/intended effects are always the same.

Image

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

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by Herr der Elf » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:08 pm

To the gracious participants of this clues forum,

I wish to express my gratitude for the assistance you have provided and for indulging me in my quest. Although I did not obtain the complete invalidation of the smaller subsets of Dr. Wood images that I gave in my challenge so that weaknesses in her theories could be exploited, I guess I obtained what could be expected on short notice.

I can see where this thread is going. Even though I am a champion of most of the research of Mr. Shack and company, I seemed to have struck a nerve.

Evidentally, if I have to reference any imagery whatsoever to make a point, you are going to pull the ploy "all imagery is faked, so you can't use it to prove squat."

You might have a convincing argument with me to say "all imagery is tainted", because it would be something both easy to deploy and easy to verify by discovering as much as one out-of-place digital artifact in each image/video. But no, you say "all imagery is faked," and with that you stretch the premise to its breaking point.

Worse than that is that you create a vacuum and have nothing credible to fill it with. If the WTC wasn't destroyed in a manner parallel but not coincident to what we were led to believe through tainted images, then the vacuum becomes how the WTC was destroyed that would be consistent with the observations of all witnesses as well as material evidence from the scene. Whereas the WTC area was evacuated to a large extent, observers weren't pushed so far back that they couldn't see or hear anything.
Herr der Elf wrote:FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner content were pulverized.
simonshack wrote: Really? What do you have to offer in support of this "FACT"?
nonhocapito wrote:How do you know "the concrete was pulverized"? Looking at fake pictures?
The starting point for this are tons of images showing the pulverized concrete dust all over Manhattan that you haven't proved are tainted, let alone "faked."

To this, we add the recollections of anybody who spent any time at Ground Zero or flying around it in a helicopter. Has any such observer ever disputed the images of the aftermath as not being what they saw? Even if some image editor took some liberty with some flag poles or Coke trucks or heroic firemen for better framing in a publication, has anyone from Ground Zero ever disputed the "essential" reality (not the technical pixel reality) of the destruction that the images depicted?

No.

The bar is now raised for your forum. Not only do you have to prove each specific 9/11 image as "fake," you have to provide the testimony of observers who will dispute what the image depicted as not being the "essential" reality.

Thus, it remains a fact that the pulverized concrete depicted in images from Ground Zero and all over Manhattan represent the "essential" truth and can't be brushed away.
Herr der Elf wrote:FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink.
simonshack wrote:I do not understand this "FACT" at all - sorry.
Go out to your back concrete patio with a sledge hammer. It is anyone's guess how many swings it will take for you to crack it and break it into chunks that two strong men could hoist into a wheelbarrel. Consider this energy quantity E1. If you attack the concrete with a powered jackhammer, you could probably get those chunks down smaller than a fist. Consider this energy quantity E2, whereby the "greater than" inequality E2 > E1 applies. If you truck these chunks to a cement plant, their powered machinery could grind this down even further into the size pieces useful for new cement and even dust. Consider this energy quantity E3, whereby the "much greater than" inequality E3 >> E2 > E1 applies.
nonhocapito wrote:Logistic nightmare? What kind of issue is this? Even if it was a logistic nightmare (which I doubt, considering that the towers were most certainly empty and had been for a long while on 9/11) it doesn't mean it could not be solved. Several, several years were obviously spent taking care of this plan.
As you increase the energy requirements to account for the massive energy sink suggested by the observable evidence, you increase the amount of whatever conventional or unconventional explosives and with it the logistics of getting it into the building and wired into place. How many days did the bomb sniffing dogs take for their pre-9/11 holiday? I don't disagree that several years were spent in the planning, but actual boots-on-the-ground implementation of the final features was performed on a much shorter time schedule.

NIST legitimately debunked conventional explosives due to the insufficient decibel levels recorded and observed. They can further be debunked by the duration and nature of under-rubble hot-spots not requiring oxygen and smoldering for many weeks, if the logistics math calculated on quantities required for pulverization didn't already present unrealistic, massive quantities and compounded operational risks.

Given the above, I don't know why you two have both actively championed conventional explosives (lamely) at the derision of those who say that weapons of great energy exist, were accessible, and would be deployed at lower risk and lower logistics on 9/11...

[* palm forcefully against forehead *]

No sense me continuing with this line of thought here. Those interested can seek me out in cyberspace.

I want to once again express my gratitude for the commentary expended on my behalf. I'll leave you to discuss amongst yourselves my alleged shill level and agenda, and apologize that it may distract the discussion from its supposed prime objective. Have a great day!

P.S. Dear Maat. Loved your assessment of me. Keep up the good work.

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:59 pm

The starting point for this are tons of images showing the pulverized concrete dust all over Manhattan . . .
I can certainly imagine that there could be deployed some type of machinery that could distribute into the air a fine dust. Can you imagine the same? It certainly makes for a much simpler explanation, in my mind.

Post Reply