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

Re: CGI Collapse footage (from the Hudson)

Postby Equinox on Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:38 pm

DeeJay wrote:
Equinox wrote:Unique, rare 9/11 material shot from the Hudson
:lol: :lol: :lol:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8

Yes folks, more "Never seen before footage" :lol: from 9/11 with the usual "CUT!!" stop rolling.... then start again filming...
don't cameras work? :lol: .. Minutes later.

This movie supposed to be from a boat... I will offer some analysis on it shortly. As soon as finish the CNN post I'm working on. But I figure a few of us here will get a kick out of it so I have placed it up before I comment on it. B)

***
Dear Equinox,
I am reading my way through this website. It was interesting to finally see some footage from the water. Did you ever get back to this video as you had mentioned?
DeeJay


Thanks for bringing that up, It's a smoking gun for me. :)

Image


Here is a demo.
Here's what newly-imported clip into chroma key looks like, with no filters.
Image
Then slap on a Chroma Keyer
Image

The realism of a chroma key is largely determined by how
the keyer handles the boundary surrounding the Foreground image.
As a result of the processing involved in extracting a key signal from
the Foreground chrominance, there is a tendency for the key to
‘spread’, leaving a dark line at the edges of non-keyed Foreground
Objects.


simonshack wrote:*


BLACK MASKING OUTLINES in the newly released (2010) NIST imagery



Here we can clearly see how those fat/black, contour outlines (a true 'trademark' of the horrid 9/11 imagery) actually interact with the various image layers (in this case, the rising smoke). To be sure, this is not something which can occur in the domain of real photography - but only in (sloppy) digital compositing:

Image


If you wonder what I'm asking you to look at, here I've added a few arrows to help your eyes focus on the problem: as the smoke rises up behind the World Financial Center building, it appears to "erase" that ugly black outline ! :lol:

Image

Those black contour outlines may seem unimportant to the layman - but they are extremely useful to determine the digital nature of the 9/11 imagery. They are a 'trademark' of the LIVE TV 9/11 imagery - and now we see them again in the recently released NIST imagery.

I rest my case: ALL (yes, ALL) the existing 9/11 imagery of the WTC collapses are digital contraptions.



Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Seriously would they make cameras that even did a major flaw like that?


Here is the transcript of a conversation the other day about the masking lines. (The person was artist)


But I really need you too confirm something with your own eyes.. Give me your honest answer. CAN YOU SEE--- THE MASKING LINE Layers "C" and "D" FROM THE COLLAPSING TRADE CENTER do actually appear through the WTC-7? CAN YOU SEE THAT IN THIS SHOT I GRABBED? >>> THIS ONE......

Image
WITHOUT A DOUBT....IVE LOOKED AT THEM SEVERAL TIMES AND JUST TO ASSURE YOU IVE LOOKED AGAIN AND 100% AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY WERE DOING SO..


THE MASKING LINES ARE PROOF OF FAKE FOOTAGE.
I HAVE PLACED IT IN THE DEBUNK THREAD...

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=289&p=2375446#p2375446

IT WILL NEVER BE DEBUNKED..

BUSTED.
Equinox
Banned
 
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby simonshack on Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:45 pm

Prophet_One wrote:Has this video been posted here on CluesForum yet?

9/11 by Bike the lost tape my never seen before 911 footage:
by swompyskippy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ji_TblPeMCY#!


Dear Prophet One,

This is getting more and more ridiculous - and I'm getting rather tired at exposing these silly video composites. I keep wondering how to convey this in clearer terms. For crying out loud, this new "swompyskippy" video contains yet another variant of the old Westside Highway matrix viewpoint which I have illustrated for years now on semptemberclues.info :

HERE IS A FRAME FROM THE "SWOMPYSKIPPY" VIDEO YOU JUST POSTED:

Image

Ok?

Now, here are the other six "Westside Highway views" that I have posted on my website:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Can you see what I mean? Can you see that ALL of these shots have been crafted in a studio?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:37 am

fbenario wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:Did not the 3 towers explode on 9/11?

I doubt all of the 4 plane bullshit, but at least I thought that we might agree that the 3 towers blew up.

No, they did not explode. Using that terminology implies 'uncontrolled explosions' to the average reader.


Sorry, I meant by "explode" that 1 & 2 apparently distributed their debris over a large footprint and by "implode" that 7 was apparently contained within the footprint of the building. I do not mean that either kind of distribution of debris was "uncontrolled" or unintended by the people who arranged the destruction of the buildings. As I said before, the apparently wide distribution of the debris of 1 & 2 may have been to reduce the shock load to the bathtub and so reduce the risk of a breach and flood.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:57 am

Heiwa wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:
I still think that WTC1 & 2 were blown up on 9/11 in explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions.


It seems you have seen too much television of WTC top-down, sequential demolitions. :P Don't you realize that the WTC top-down, sequential demolitions are 100% CGI and all photos and videos showing a WTC top-down, sequential demolition - a fountain of debris with wall panels flying around and smoke/dust being ejected are fake? :rolleyes:


If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.

Unfortunately, if we have absolutely no recorded evidence of how they really came to be destroyed, we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done.

This will no doubt delight a lot of people.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Postby Heiwa on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:24 am

Andrew1484 wrote:
Heiwa wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:
I still think that WTC1 & 2 were blown up on 9/11 in explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions.


It seems you have seen too much television of WTC top-down, sequential demolitions. :P Don't you realize that the WTC top-down, sequential demolitions are 100% CGI and all photos and videos showing a WTC top-down, sequential demolition - a fountain of debris with wall panels flying around and smoke/dust being ejected are fake? :rolleyes:


If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.

Unfortunately, if we have absolutely no recorded evidence of how they really came to be destroyed, we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done.

This will no doubt delight a lot of people.


Evidently this is the wrong thread but it was very easy/simple to destroy the WTC towers from bottom up (the only way), while most people were watching the pre-fabricated show live on TV incl. explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions fountains of debris, smoke and dust that you seem to believe in. Try to grow up! :rolleyes: As discussed in other threads the bottom up demolitions were apparently hidden by smoke screens, etc. while Lower Manhattan had been fenced off. You do not seem up to date with the findings on this forum. :P
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: V1 and V2 NAZI rockets (WW2): another hoax?

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:58 am

Andrew1484 wrote:
I still think that WTC1 & 2 were blown up on 9/11 in explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions.


Heiwa wrote:It seems you have seen too much television of WTC top-down, sequential demolitions. :P Don't you realize that the WTC top-down, sequential demolitions are 100% CGI and all photos and videos showing a WTC top-down, sequential demolition - a fountain of debris with wall panels flying around and smoke/dust being ejected are fake? :rolleyes:


Andrew1484 wrote:If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.

Unfortunately, if we have absolutely no recorded evidence of how they really came to be destroyed, we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done.

This will no doubt delight a lot of people.


Heiwa wrote:Evidently this is the wrong thread but it was very easy/simple to destroy the WTC towers from bottom up (the only way),


Yes this is evidently the wrong thread, but you saying bottom up is the "only way" and that we have no video record or empirical evidence concerning how it was "really" done sounds unscientific ---- like quasi-religious, blind faith, hive mind thinking and completely dogmatic.

Heiwa wrote:while most people were watching the pre-fabricated show live on TV incl. explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions fountains of debris, smoke and dust that you seem to believe in.


I have accepted your basic premise that we might have no genuine video record of the actual event, so I do not "believe" that it was either a "top down" or "bottom up" event based on no reliable recorded evidence. If I accept your premise that all the recorded evidence is fake (or potentially fake) then I have absolutely no reliable evidence to form any belief or theory around.

Show me any recorded evidence at all, about anything, and I can simply say that it could be fake. Nihilism.

Heiwa wrote:As discussed in other threads the bottom up demolitions were apparently hidden by smoke screens, etc. while Lower Manhattan had been fenced off. You do not seem up to date with the findings on this forum. :P


If the "demolitions were apparently hidden by smoke screens, etc. while Lower Manhattan had been fenced off" then, logically, you cannot possibly now know HOW the demolitions were carried out.

Of course the hive-mind sacred "findings of the forum" must be defended by the cult members at all costs! However I am obviously not a CF cult member, so I will probably be expelled as a heretic from this "CF Hive" pretty quickly if I try to reason with you calmly and if don't react "childishly" to your attempts to insult me (grow up etc.) by letting the fire rush to my head.

The debris of 1 & 2 appeared to be spread around a large "footprint" over Lower Manhattan after 9/11. I have suggested that this pattern of debris distribution would have reduced the falling debris shock load to the bathtub and this would therefore reduce the danger of cracking the bathtub and causing a flood.

I can see no advantage to your "bottom-up demolition theory" with regards to 1 & 2 if the demolition was intended to distribute the building fabric over a large fallout area. For reasons I have explained. If you have evidence that the fallout pattern, as observed after 9/11, was not over a large area, then perhaps I am wrong.

A bottom up demolition of such tall towers would have been, theoretically, much more dangerous than a top down demolition. If something had hypothetically gone wrong with a "ripple-up explosive demolition" or an "all at once" explosive demolition, like an accidental stall in the process, then the top of a tower (perhaps even all of a tower) might have toppled over sideways, causing immense unwanted damage to Lower Manhattan.

Conversely there would have been no theoretical risk in a top down explosive demolition because EVEN IF the lower down hypothesised explosives had failed to detonate for some reason, the tower stub would remain safely standing and so that leftover stub could be safely demolished later.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby antipodean on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:03 am

If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.


The fake video showing the collapse of WTC1&2, was faked because the top down collapse was to make Joe Public think that, the top down collapse is what happens when a plane crashes into the upper floor levels of a building.

If bottom up collapse footage was shown, it would have been more difficult to fool people into believing that the collapse was a result of the impact from the planes.

WTC7 had to have been seen as a different collapse to WTC1&2, because it was not hit by a plane, but supposedly suffered structural damage & fire damage when 1&2 fell.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage (from the Hudson)

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:12 am

Equinox wrote:Image

Seriously would they make cameras that even did a major flaw like that?



Photographing buildings from below to make them look natural and not falling over can be difficult. With SLR and DSLR cameras you can use a lens called a "tilt & shift lens" to make things look more natural.


ADMIN NOTICE (simonshack): Andrew, you're completely missing the point. The issue here is about the black contour seen lining the building. The image at right is extracted from an alleged "9/11 amateur video" (an obvious computer animation) which featured composited smoke gushing from the nearby burning WTC - hence the appearance of this ugly, black masking edge - an annoyance which anyone dabbling with green/bluescreen/chroma/luma key techniques is quite familiar with. In any event, NO genuine camera footage will ever feature thick, sharp black contour edges around buildings - or any other object for that matter.

Oh OK. Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a complaint about a camera (so a lens issue) --- not about stuff done on computers like in "Wag the Dog" --- The text "Seriously would they make cameras that even did a major flaw like that?" probably misled me. I suspect that the "real photograph" on the left is a still photograph with some "tilt and shift" applied at the lens, so a distorted image as well, but distorted in a way which makes it look better.

Reminds me of some bogus regime propaganda on TV about the Marriot Hotel guests. Had a bogus guest claiming ownership of a photograph from the street and then next a photograph of one of the twin towers that was evidently taken from on top of a nearby tower! Neither photograph could have been hers of course (claimed by other people), except in the TV propaganda narrative purporting to be a factual documentary. Frustrating, what they think they can get away with!
Last edited by Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby antipodean on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:19 am

Demolition Inc. were more than likely the company commisioned with the contract for pulling the towers.
It's a proud boast of theirs, that they have been awarded twice as many contracts in the pulling of high rise buildings than all their nearest competitors put together.
I read somewhere that they even pulled a couple of high rise buildings not far from New York not long before 9/11.

Here's a recent example of their work.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83kE0I21j-Q

"The implosion sequence starts at the lowest level," Controlled Demolition Inc president Mark Loizeaux told the Herald on Sunday. "I expect the overall detonation of charges will take about 13 seconds."


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10824678
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:33 am

antipodean wrote:
If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.


The fake video showing the collapse of WTC1&2, was faked because the top down collapse was to make Joe Public think that, the top down collapse is what happens when a plane crashes into the upper floor levels of a building.

If bottom up collapse footage was shown, it would have been more difficult to fool people into believing that the collapse was a result of the impact from the planes.

WTC7 had to have been seen as a different collapse to WTC1&2, because it was not hit by a plane, but supposedly suffered structural damage & fire damage when 1&2 fell.


Yes I take your point --- but the planes were fake as well of course.

So WHY were fake planes used this time, instead of an alleged van full of explosives underneath, as in 1993?

If you wanted them to collapse from the bottom, you could just say vans and/or suicidal lunatics blew up underneath them again.

Perhaps it was because they NEEDED a top down demolition (for safety) that they needed a fake pretext for a top down demolition.

So the necessity of a safer top down demolition meant that the entire bogus "impacting plane pretex" for the equally bogus gravity powered, top down, low resistance, sequential, kinetic energy (huh, energy needed deducted from gravity, yet also low resistance, wow!) "collapse" process had to be created.

On building 7, I think that was a cock-up. It probably should have blown up as WTC1 was blown up. Jennings and Hess told us about the pre-demolition, weakening explosions, and they were very lucky of course that it did not blow up as WTC1 blew up.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby CTGal1011 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:11 pm

They needed a pretext for a war. 19 Arab guys bombing a building isn't nearly as offensive as 19 Arab guys hijacking 4 planes, causing carnage and showing the grotesque breaches of national security which necessitated the government to squash freedom of ordinary citizens in order to go overseas and kill a guy from a country not involved at all (Iraq) and then further chase around some dude in the mountains of another country not at all involved. All under the guise of "liberation", while the US government stripped rights and freedoms of its own citizens. Nice, eh?

Plus, 1993 was a bit....messy.
CTGal1011
Member
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:02 pm

CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:36 pm

Andrew1484 wrote:
I still think that WTC1 & 2 were blown up on 9/11 in explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions.

(I have numbered my answers for easy reference).

A1: Where have you seen such a 'top-down' demolition being carried out anytime in history, Andrew?
(outside of cinema halls/Hollywood movies, that is).
Image"Independence Day" (1996)

Surely, it would have been wildly foolish for the perps to attempt any kind of experimental/untested demolition job at the WTC. Btw, and lest this isn't yet clear to you, the entire WTC complex was destroyed or suffered terminal damaged in the process (9 buildings in all). There would never have been any worries about the Twin Towers crushing the surrounding buildings - for the simple reason that this was very much part of the plan.
DAMAGE
Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later. The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks


Andrew1484 wrote:If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.

A2: What a convoluted, incomprehensible thought process, Andrew. Hope you'll find mine less obscure: the need to produce pre-fabricated fake collapse videos to air on TV was a crucial, 'foolproof' safety measure in the context of a psyop which could not leave a single thing to chance.

Andrew1484 wrote:Unfortunately, if we have absolutely no recorded evidence of how they really came to be destroyed, we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done.

A3: Excellent logic. To keep trying and figure out exactly what sort of explosives were used (by looking at / scrutinizing Hollywood animations!) is an utterly senseless waste of time. Most likely, as plain/sound logic suggests, fully tested and reliable demo charges (as used every single day around the world to bring down buildings with). Fortunately, we actually know the name of the company ("Controlled Demolition Inc.") who was contracted at the WTC that day - so this is a useful lead to follow as far as the investigation is concerned.

Andrew1484 wrote:(...)we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done. This will no doubt delight a lot of people.

A4: "Delight a lot of people"? Who? Well, I assume that you refer to the perps. Your logical processes fail you again, Andrew. The perps are jolly delighted by the fact that, for over 11 years, the "9/11 truth movement" has been spinning round in endless, rabid, circular debates about just what explosives were used to bring down the WTC - all of which leading absolutely nowhere - neatly wasting buying crucial time for the old farts behind this scam to live out their sordid lives.

Andrew1484 wrote:Yes this is evidently the wrong thread, but you saying bottom up is the "only way" and that we have no video record or empirical evidence concerning how it was "really" done sounds unscientific ---- like quasi-religious, blind faith, hive mind thinking and completely dogmatic.

A5: I see that you keep repeating this lame mantra (of our supposed hive mind thinking) again and again, like an old, broken record. How very childish and pathetic of you.

Andrew1484 wrote:I have accepted your basic premise that we might have no genuine video record of the actual event, so I do not "believe" that it was either a "top down" or "bottom up" event based on no reliable recorded evidence. If I accept your premise that all the recorded evidence is fake (or potentially fake) then I have absolutely no reliable evidence to form any belief or theory around.

A6: So what's it gonna be, Andrew? You 'accept it' or 'do you not accept it'? By the way, no one is asking you to 'accept' unconditionally any dogmatic precept, as you seem to complain about. This very thread (dedicated to the empirical analyses of every existing piece of WTC collapse imagery) is the living proof to the contrary. Our relentless work is here for you (and everyone else) to verify for yourself and draw your own, personal conclusions.

Andrew1484 wrote:Show me any recorded evidence at all, about anything, and I can simply say that it could be fake. Nihilism.

A7: "Nihilism"? Silly boy. You're being nihilistic yourself - by playing the all-round, dismissive skeptic/naysayer. And no, you cannot 'simply say that it could be fake'. One has to provide demonstrable and repeatable proof of image manipulations. This is what we do here, Andrew - in case you hadn't noticed.

Andrew1484 wrote:If the "demolitions were apparently hidden by smoke screens, etc. while Lower Manhattan had been fenced off" then, logically, you cannot possibly now know HOW the demolitions were carried out.

A8: Same as A3

Andrew1484 wrote:Of course the hive-mind sacred "findings of the forum" must be defended by the cult members at all costs! However I am obviously not a CF cult member, so I will probably be expelled as a heretic from this "CF Hive" pretty quickly if I try to reason with you calmly and if don't react "childishly" to your attempts to insult me (grow up etc.) by letting the fire rush to my head.

A9: Same as A5

Andrew1484 wrote:A bottom up demolition of such tall towers would have been, theoretically, much more dangerous than a top down demolition. If something had hypothetically gone wrong with a "ripple-up explosive demolition" or an "all at once" explosive demolition, like an accidental stall in the process, then the top of a tower (perhaps even all of a tower) might have toppled over sideways, causing immense unwanted damage to Lower Manhattan.

A10: See red/bold-type sentence in A1


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

It seems to me, Andrew (but please don't take offence - as you may just not be aware of it), that you are the one trapped (in a cult-like, dogmatic belief loop) and stung by the massive "group-think" effect implanted in most people's brain cells by the bogus 9/11 TV imagery. Here's your 'cherished' top-down collapse as aired on NBC that morning:

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby simonshack on Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:07 pm

*
This seems to me an appropriate time to re-post this Hollywood vs "9/11 LIVE TV" comparison : ^_^

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:20 pm

Andrew1484 wrote:
I still think that WTC1 & 2 were blown up on 9/11 in explosive, top-down, sequential demolitions.

simonshack wrote:(I have numbered my answers for easy reference).

A1: Where have you seen such a 'top-down' demolition being carried out anytime in history, Andrew?
(outside of cinema halls/Hollywood movies, that is).


I am sorry Simon but that argument is irrelevant. These towers were at one time the tallest towers in the world. If a WTC 1 or 2 tower ever fell over in a "bottom up demolition gone wrong" it could flatten a huge area of Manhattan BECAUSE it was so tall. Now if you are correct that not one person died on 9/11 because these American terrorists were so desperate to prevent even one American death on 9/11, then a tower falling sideways like a falling tree could have unpredictably killed THOUSANDS of genuine Americans (not vic-sims) in Lower Manhattan, a very long way from the WTC exclusion zone.

You want caring and soft-hearted American terrorists desperate to save American lives on 9/11? Then the top down method was much safer!

It was simply never possible to demolish these two towers "politely" and safely using explosives, by the bottom up or top down method. The polite way to remove them from the landscape would have been to build-down, or dismantle the towers from the top. That would have been VERY expensive in the PRIVATE sphere of the US economy, which is obviously why they were used in this "rogue faction" (?) US Military false flag event and so the COST of removing the entire WTC complex became a "corporate external cost" as far as the private economy was concerned.

It may be that with shorter structures the bottom up implosion demolition is preferred, as with building 7. It would normally be more economical that way (bottom up) in terms of expensive explosives to a CIVILIAN contractor. BUT 1 & 2 were MUCH taller than WTC7. Also EXPENSE was not an issue because funding would have been by a virtually limitless Black Ops military budget. If the demolition job was subcontracted to a civilian outfit like CDI then that would represent a huge potential "operational security risk" to the Military. The Military know how to blow stuff up by themselves and they know how to covertly sabotage buildings to blow them up. Skills which civilians like CDI don't need!

It is also simply not true that buildings cannot be demolished from the top down in reality. I don't think that it is very honest of you to try to plant false suggestions in the minds of your readers like that, who might not bother to check their facts.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NZtBL1PjMk

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

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

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

simonshack wrote:Surely, it would have been wildly foolish for the perps to attempt any kind of experimental/untested demolition job at the WTC. Btw, and lest this isn't yet clear to you, the entire WTC complex was destroyed or suffered terminal damaged in the process (9 buildings in all). There would never have been any worries about the Twin Towers crushing the surrounding buildings - for the simple reason that this was very much part of the plan.


A top down demolition is done when you don't want the risk of a tall tower to fall over. I am fully aware that every WTC building, 1 to 7, was damaged or destroyed and that every WTC building might have had bombs go off inside on 9/11 AS WELL AS them being deliberately hit by falling 1 & 2 debris. The ONLY WTC building that was demolished in a "polite way" on 9/11, whilst trying to prevent damage to the surrounding buildings, was WTC7.

simonshack wrote:
DAMAGE
Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later. The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks



In my opinion buildings outside of the WTC buildings 1 to 7 were damaged or destroyed accidentally. The Marriot was simply too close and I don't think that Deutsche Bank was intentionally hit, for example.

Andrew1484 wrote:If everything in recorded video form is fake, then presumably how the 3 buildings came to dismantle themselves "in reality" must have been even more surprising and weird than the way that they allegedly disintegrated in the fake videos. Otherwise there would probably have been no real reason to produce the fake videos as propaganda, to conceal the reality.


simonshack wrote:A2: What a convoluted, incomprehensible thought process, Andrew. Hope you'll find mine less obscure: the need to produce pre-fabricated fake collapse videos to air on TV was a crucial, 'foolproof' safety measure in the context of a psyop which could not leave a single thing to chance.


I am sorry you think my thinking strange, but WHY bother to fake the collapse process videos in advance UNLESS you are desperately hiding something EVEN WEIRDER than what they showed us? What they showed us on video was implausible enough!

Also if we accept your theory, in this case the "deliberate errors" like the squibs were obviously deliberately inserted into the fake videos of this fake collapse process. The tipping top of WTC2, magically exploding upwards, in mid air, so proving the lie of a gravity powered kinetic energy crush down of a top load were also created in advance.

I await with interest your theories WHY the 9/11 American Terrorists made such IMPERFECT videos that did not match the utter bollocks they said had caused these "collapses" shown in their videos. If they had weeks to plan the collapse videos they should have been perfect AND they should have matched the written and spoken propaganda story to accompany their pre-created video story.


Andrew1484 wrote:Unfortunately, if we have absolutely no recorded evidence of how they really came to be destroyed, we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done.


simonshack wrote:A3: Excellent logic. To keep trying and figure out exactly what sort of explosives were used (by looking at / scrutinizing Hollywood animations!) is an utterly senseless waste of time. Most likely, as plain/sound logic suggests, fully tested and reliable demo charges (as used every single day around the world to bring down buildings with). Fortunately, we actually know the name of the company ("Controlled Demolition Inc.") who was contracted at the WTC that day - so this is a useful lead to follow as far as the investigation is concerned.


CDI were called in to help clean up the mess the US military had made and they said things about what they saw at "Ground Zero" that FUELED our suspicions that 9/11 was another false flag event right from the start! If CDI had been contracted to sabotage the buildings secretly before 9/11, why would they then shoot their mouths off afterwards about what they saw?

Andrew1484 wrote:(...)we will presumably just have to give up wondering how it was really done. This will no doubt delight a lot of people.


simonshack wrote:A4: "Delight a lot of people"? Who? Well, I assume that you refer to the perps.


Yes.

simonshack wrote:Your logical processes fail you again, Andrew. The perps are jolly delighted by the fact that, for over 11 years, the "9/11 truth movement" has been spinning round in endless, rabid, circular debates about just what explosives were used to bring down the WTC - all of which leading absolutely nowhere - neatly wasting buying crucial time for the old farts behind this scam to live out their sordid lives.


You really think that you insisting that top down demolitions are impossible, when they are not and never have been, is helping to bring the 9/11 terrorists and the oligarchs who called for the attack to justice? Dream on!

Andrew1484 wrote:I have accepted your basic premise that we might have no genuine video record of the actual event, so I do not "believe" that it was either a "top down" or "bottom up" event based on no reliable recorded evidence. If I accept your premise that all the recorded evidence is fake (or potentially fake) then I have absolutely no reliable evidence to form any belief or theory around.


simonshack wrote:A6: So what's it gonna be, Andrew? You 'accept it' or 'do you not accept it'?


I don't have to do either Simon.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle.

You may or may not be correct that "behind a smokescreen" the 9/11 terrorists REALLY conducted a risky bottom up demolition, instead of the much safer top down demolition that they showed us in their pre-planned, pre-created videos, that were full of (presumably) deliberate inserted flaws and clues like the squibs.

When presented with two contradictory theories, the simpler theory is often correct. Occam's Razor.

Often correct, but not necessarily correct. I have left some doubt and wiggle room for your much more complicated theory.

simonshack wrote:By the way, no one is asking you to 'accept' unconditionally any dogmatic precept, as you seem to complain about. This very thread (dedicated to the empirical analyses of every existing piece of WTC collapse imagery) is the living proof to the contrary. Our relentless work is here for you (and everyone else) to verify for yourself and draw your own, personal conclusions.


Thank you very much Simon. I may be wrong of course, in my best guesses. I certainly cannot say for certain exactly who did it or how they did it. It is clearer to me why they did it, on esoteric and exoteric levels of understanding.

*********************************************
simonshack wrote:It seems to me, Andrew (but please don't take offence - as you may just not be aware of it), that you are the one trapped (in a cult-like, dogmatic belief loop) and stung by the massive "group-think" effect implanted in most people's brain cells by the bogus 9/11 TV imagery. Here's your 'cherished' top-down collapse as aired on NBC that morning:


No offense taken. I may be a mind-control victim. But I am certainly not going to defend the top down theory like a religious zealot if you can produce a bloody good reason why it is false. So far I have not seen a bloody good reason why it is false. Instead I have seen some gross dishonesty, like top down demolitions are only possible in Hollywood movies.

The 9/11 video record might indeed be bogus, clearly parts of it are bogus.

Some of the video evidence might suggest post-9/11 tampering of the video record. This might be done again by the US Military, to "muddy the waters" and to jerk researchers like you around a bit. Video also does not improve with compression and copying from copies. American low definition video, as ancient "NTSC standard" video (instead of SECAM or PAL), was never great to start with, especially around object edges. PAL (or phase alternating line) did a much better job on edges.

Ultimately, since the video record has certainly been tampered with on the bogus aircraft strikes, that is all we really need to know about 9/11. It was an inside job, a false flag job, by "rogue" (we might hope) parts of the US Military. If they also produced bogus collapse videos, as you suggest, that would simply reinforce their obvious guilt.

But us comprehending this evidence still would not help to stop the illegal wars of aggression. Or prevent WW3, if Iran is hit for example. It might take non-rogue parts of the US Military to stop the wars and stop WW3.

If 9/11 was a palace coup, as it seems to have been, then we may need a quiet counter-coup by the LOYAL to America parts of the US Military. Nobody else can do it for them! Otherwise the USA (and all of her military, loyal and rogue) might be taken down economically, like the USSR was taken down.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: V1 and V2 NAZI rockets (WW2): another hoax?

Postby Heiwa on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:04 pm

Andrew1484 wrote:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NZtBL1PjMk

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

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

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

I offer anybody, since many years, € 1 000 000:- cash that can demonstrate how a (weak) top can crush a (strong) bottom structure from top down by gravity, where (strong) bottom previsously carries the (weak) top, so that top remains up top. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .
If you Andrew 1484 is so smart you can do it and earn € 1 000 000:- cash from me, go ahead. Do it! Don't waste your time with your garbage comments on this forum. Go for the money. :P

It will not be easy, though! Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm and learn why. :lol:
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest