Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Howie on Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:57 pm

This is the Edwardian 9/11

It is a legend that Capt E Smith went down with the Titanic, the honourable man put women & children before himself & paid with his life to save them.

google peter pryal

count the graves with the inscription unknown male & a research how many bodies were actually found - you'll be very surprised.

W T Stead wrote the first novel to predict the disaster & was a journalist who tried to expose paedophiles in high places, he was jailed for trying to prove child prostitutes were sold.

Stead was ordered to take the trip by President Taft & was last seen on a makeshift raft with John Jacob Astor - the target of this whole event, Astor was the most powerful opponent of the federal reserve.

Olympic sailed as Titanic, the targets were thrown in the sea after the panicked passengers were taken away to carpathia on lifeboats, all lights were switched off to make the ship disappear as seen in the distance by the passengers, Olympic was 50 miles away from the site at the time of sinking & refused to collect survivors.

James Cameron admits he used cameras that are only capable of recording 12 minutes of film per dive & conditions were too murky or film not good enough quality so he faked it with models & today says he could do a better job with cgi.

Look at every submarine video of the wreck, no one ever looks at it through a window, it's always on a monitor.

I believe the switch story with Olympic sinking to collect insurance is a distraction, only 1 ship sailed that night & none sank.
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:31 am

I recently browsed through "Women of the Titanic Disaster" by Silvya Caldwell, alleged Titanic survivor "from lifeboat 13".
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/women-o ... 1107993895


It is a brief, extremely rhetorical account, that contains excerpts such as this one:

I call that heroism. Yes, greater than that of the wife dying with her husband. She saved herself and was willing to live and suffer for the sake of her child. How much easier it would have been to have died in his arms. She said, “I cannot think of life without him but if he could speak, I know he would be pleased to know I stayed with Margorie.” I was proud to welcome such a heroine to my country. This bereaved woman would go about comforting others and often come back saying, “How much I have to be thankful for. I feel it when I see so many. worse of than I.” In her great trouble, she still could think of others. Her attitude was Christ-like.

And all of a sudden it occurred to me that the rhetoric of the Titanic, beside the symbolism analyzed in this thread (the rising of the american empire replacing the british empire, paralleled in the "new" greek gods guided by Zeus that vanquished the Titans), is also the rhetoric of the "immigration to america", the same rhetoric epitomized in the famous lines stamped on the so-called "Statue of Libery" AKA masonic statue in homage to... er, the light-bearer. :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

Mind you, I have nothing against immigration. Each of us comes from a line of migrants. To migrate is part of being human. However, there is such a thing as a natural process of migration, and there is forced migration to favor necessities of industries and governments that has very little naturalness about it.

In this sense, we are brain-washed to believe, day after day, that migration is a free choice of man, that has positive effects on society and must be respected (after all, we are told that second-generation immigrants can become presidents of the USA! :lol: ).
But of course things are a little more complicated than that: on one hand, people are reluctant to emigrate, they do it unwillingly, they always feel nostalgic and unwelcome, and they often resent their ungrateful, privileged host; on the other hand the welcoming nation is often wary of the immigrant, and soon is dramatically impoverished by it, because immigration means, above all, lowering the value of labor.
On top of these fundamentally survivalist reasons, there is the so called "cultural clash", whose prime effect is often that everyone loses something -- and the result of this process we can see today, it goes under the name "globalization".

What I'm saying is, it comes a time when governments and corporations and similar entities decide that migration of peoples must happen, and must happen more or less smoothly, thus the process is somehow sold and re-sold to those that might show resistance to it.

This is when rhetorical tales of heroic immigration and welcoming hospitality are concocted (the "golden doors") -- which also makes me think that the same thing, aside of artificial movements of the opposite intent, might still be happening today: wasn't the crew of ship Concordia, we are told, also entirely made of immigrant labor force?
Just an idea. This would be a side-purpose, not the chief one, I think.

p.s. Thanks for the connection to William Stead, Howie. Interesting read.
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Piper on Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:43 pm

Brittle ice vs. a massive steel hull and the ice wins? How do icebreakers survive without sinking?

If you ask me, it sounds as likely as aluminum slicing through steel and concrete... <_<
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Howie on Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:46 pm


Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:56 pm

Possible Human Remains Found in Titanic Shipwreck
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/h ... -1.1061974
http://gawker.com/5902087/possible-huma ... -shipwreck

From http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/h ... -1.1061974

:lol: :lol: :puke:

This would be some 2004 photographs by Robert Ballard "released to the public this week". The same kind of bullshit "anniversary release" that we keep seeing happening with 9/11. <_<

Of course, James Cameron had to pipe in and allow for this upteenth invention to pass:

James Cameron told the New York Times that his team has never seen any human remains, but that the alignment of clothes does seem to suggest that there was a body there at one point.

As to the author of the pictures, Robert Ballard "is a former United States Navy officer and a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island who is most noted for his work in underwater archaeology: maritime archaeology and archaeology of shipwrecks."

Here what he said about seeing the Titanic shipwreck:
"We came around the corner and it was in my view port. There was this wall of steel. Like the slab in 2001, like the walls of Troy at night. It was just big, the end of the universe. It just was there as a statement. We came in and I just looked out of my window -- I had to look up -- because the Titanic shot up a hundred and some feet above me. I'm down at the very keel, and I just went 'My God.' "

However, these articles about "human remains" seem also meant to attract the public's attention on another fact:

Sunday is the centenary of the sinking, and — not coincidentally — Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, has introduced a bill that would give the Commerce Department new supervisory powers to protect the Titanic wreck site from salvagers and intrusive research.

What do they mean by "intrusive research"? And wasn't the ship British property? And isn't the wreck in international waters? How's that concern of the US Commerce Department? Oh, wait: Hollywood is in the States. Sorry, got it. :rolleyes:
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Titanic

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:03 am

The whole Olympic insurance fraud thing sounds like a ready-made conspiracy theory, just so that curious people do not think "fakery". No surprise it is being fueled now, as another kind of evidence (no sinking ever took place, nobody died, there is no shipwreck at the bottom of the ocean) is starting to make sense.
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Titanic

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:36 pm

America is ill with Titanic memorabilia now - it's being shoved down our throats for the anniversary. I only know of a few rare people enchanted with the Titanic, but I know everyone who generally thinks the Titanic is "appealing to others". If the only reason people are interested in something is because others seem to be interested in it on a surface level, I must say it probably won't stand the test of time without artificial assistance.

This is how propaganda and peer-pressure seem to operate on some level. Few seem to actually like the Titanic myth on its own merits, but many are convinced by ridiculous stories, such as the Cameron trash flick, or are convinced by television that "everyone is abuzz" about it and thus the story of "liking" or finding meaning in the Titanic myth grows and grows - which has with it a peculiar power.

Even my closest friends can say "Titanic is a legitimately interesting story" while not being able to come up with anything interesting to say about it except that it's the ultimate myth of human hubris, and they consistently admit it is not their favorite story - nor have they learned anything from it. Only by direct experience do people seem to learn, and so these hoaxes - however artificially grand - are not as powerful as a personal story that cuts our emotions to the quick.

The purpose of propaganda seems to be: to use typically human lessons to kill our dreams of a better world and make us think it's a much worse place than it actually is, while disguising this pessimism as optimism for a future brighter and better (the actual world we live in!)
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby lux on Tue May 22, 2012 4:43 pm

I was doing movie extra work when Cameron's “Titantic” was shot. Central Casting was pushing for people to go down to Mexico (where much of the film was shot) for an extended period to work on the movie but I passed. Glad I did. Afterward I heard many stories about the horrendous working conditions on that movie. Extras were required to stand waist deep in cold water all day long (“day” = 12-15 hours) without a break, even having to remain in the water to eat their crappy box lunches. They were only let out of the water for "emergency bathroom breaks" and end-of-day wrap. May quit after a few days.
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby fbenario on Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:39 pm

Nice fake image.


Photo of Titanic Iceberg Up for Sale

An auction house is selling a black and white photo of the iceberg that experts say the Titanic struck shortly before it sank on its maiden voyage.

The photo was taken April 12, 1912, two days before "the unsinkable ship" met her demise when she hit an iceberg shortly before midnight April 14, killing 1,502 people.

The photo shows a huge iceberg with a distinctive elliptical shape. The photograph was taken by the captain of the S.S. Etonian, according to RR Auction of Amherst, N.H. The caption reads, "Copyright. Blueberg taken by Captain W.F. Wood S.S. Etonian on 12/4/12 [April 12, 1912] in Lat 41° 50 N Long 49° 50 W. Titanic struck 14/4/12 [April 14, 2012] and sank in three hours."

There were no photos of the iceberg before this one emerged, but two Titanic crew members drew sketches of the iceberg that they saw April 14. Both sketches are similar to the elliptical shape of the iceberg in the photo, according to RR Auction.

The coordinates scribbled on the photograph are not far from where the wreckage of the ship lies on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/ph ... ories.html


Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Heiwa on Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:18 pm

It is generally believed that RMS Titanic hit an iceberg April 1912 and sank killing >1 500 persons.
This video is quite good:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6kefNLykPY
It suggests that RMS Titanic never hit an iceberg April 1912 on its maiden voyage April 1912. It was the severely damaged, a little older sister ship RMS Olympic that, for commercial reasons, was simply sunk in an insurance fraud going wrong. It appears quite easy to produce such a hoax 101 years ago. Just invent that the ship hit an iceberg ... that had never occurred before or later.
Which reminds us about the M/S Costa Concordia 2012. Who has ever heard about a Master hard turning his big ship close to an island giving it a kiss ... of death? The show that followed and is still going on is not very convincing.
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:21 pm

Tongue in cheek...

Olympic and Titanic, launched in 911, ooops, 1911, and the surprise impact on the way to New York (that ill-fated city). If both buildings, ooops, ships, had been destroyed, the death toll would have been 2 x 1500 = 3000.

Running/rowing away from the collapsing/sinking and smoking building/ship.
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:44 am

Evil Edna wrote:Lady Duff Gordon was the first to sell all the key myths to the world - hitting the iceberg, too few lifeboats, huge loss of life, massive insurance payouts! There would have been no Sinking of the Titanic without Lady Duff Gordon!

What is your take on what actually happened to the Titanic?
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Evil Edna on Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:14 am

Flabbergasted wrote:What is your take on what actually happened to the Titanic?

In one word, what happened? Nothing! There was no Sinking of the Titanic. It was just another Hoax.

Hoi.Polloi and Nonhocapito pretty much covered my beliefs earlier in the thread. The Titanic likely didn't exist. A non-existent vessel.

The tragedy was invented for the drama of it all, and for a huge insurance swindle. The bill for the underwriters (life, accident and maritime) was put conservatively at £50 million (about £5 billion or $8 billion in today's money).

The contemporary newspaper articles in the British Library archives are fascinating, and very revealing. In particular, the incredible eyewitness account of Titanic survivor, Lady Duff Gordon, pretty much blows the cover on the whole scam!

Lady Duff Gordon and her husband Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon, and the story of their rescue, was the first to be disseminated around the world. Reaching Europe by "cablegram" (?!) just hours after the disaster. Her tale was delivered so soon and in such detail that it could only have been pre-written! Her eyewitness testimony was to become the backbone to the whole story.

Yet worse, in those press reports, Lady Duff Gordon was portrayed as unbelievably cruel and callous. A lady of title who bribed the oarsmen in her half-empty lifeboat to row swiftly from the scene. Lest it be "swamped" by the masses. Leaving 1,500 souls to the mercies of the open sea. One poor fellow, close to death, who tried climbing aboard her lifeboat, was shot dead! Even aboard the lifeboat, Lady Duff Gordon was unmoved by the human tragedy around her. Lamenting instead the loss of her furs, her lace nightgown and of course her jewels. She tells a crazy, crass tale!

It was a clever secondary narrative written around Lady Duff Gordon. A tale of breath-taking abuse of her social status and privilege, and of merciless contempt for her fellow man. At the time Lady Duff Gordon served as a useful distraction from the main story of the Sinking. For years to come, the name Duff Gordon invoked huge public outrage!

Yet it's doubtful that Lady Duff Gordon and her husband Sir Cosmo ever existed at all. They were very 'simmy'! Why forfeit the reputation of real aristocrats when sims will do just as well?!

The "Duff Gordon" name is, however, linked in more tangible ways to the White Star Line Company, and the beneficiaries of the Titanic scam..



At the end of that long avenue of trees once stood Harpton Court. Said to be the finest country house in the whole of Radnorshire, Wales. For centuries it was home to the noble Lewis family, who produced a host of M.P.s, a Home Secretary, Chancellor, War Minister, and so on. [1]

However, on Weds 8 Nov 1911, Sir Herbert Lewis, the last of the Lewis Baronets of Harpton Court, died suddenly in a tragic "shooting accident". His death reportedly occurring at the home of Frank Bibby. [2] Frank Bibby was the only son of JJ Bibby, the shipping magnate and "leading partner" in the White Star Line Company. [3] Coincidence #1.

Sir Herbert Lewis of Harpton Court (maybe another sim) died without issue in that accident (leaving no heir). When Probate was granted, his estate passed to the "Duff Gordons", his nearest living relatives, apparently. By February 1912, a "Henry Duff Gordon" had fully moved in to Harpton Court.

Just weeks later on 15 April 1912, the Titanic had sunk. Among the survivors were notorious 1st class passengers "Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon" (Henry's simmy "older brother") and his even simmier wife "Lady Lucy Duff Gordon" ! Coincidence #2.

Like all country estates of the time, the Duff Gordons of Harpton Court employed servants. One of their servants was footman "Joseph Henry Boothby" (who shortly was to go "M.I.A. in France" during WWI, which got rid of him!)

Joseph had an elder brother called "Walter Thomas Boothby". Walter was a steward aboard the Titanic. When the great ship went down, so did Walter! [3] Another curious link to the White Star Line and the "Duff Gordons"! Coincidence #3.

Before joining the crew of the Titanic, Walter Boothby worked on her sister ship, the RMS Olympic. In fact Walter Boothby was aboard the Olympic when she apparently collided catastrophically with the Royal Navy warship HMS Hawke! [4] Coincidence #4.

And for a grand finale of bizarre coincidences, who was aboard the HMS Hawke at the time of her alleged collision with RMS Olympic? Why, no less than ANOTHER Boothby! "Alfred William Boothby", another brother to fellow vicsims Walter Boothby and Joseph Boothby who worked as the footman to the Duff Gordons of Harpton Court! Coincidence #5!!

Even the final resting place of the Duff Gordons is implausible. You'd think their aristocratic background would buy them a cosy family vault some place on their (stolen?) country estates. But nope, Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon, famous survivors of the Titanic, were buried, apparently, at Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey. [6]


As cemeteries go, Brookwood is not very nice at all. A private burial ground, owned by the London Necropolis Company, its main business (80% of its burials) was the disposal of London's pauper corpses, "buried at parish expense" (as cheaply as possible - just a few shillings each!)

Not the right place at all for laying to rest such a famous Baronet and his Lady wife!

Apparently in recent times, Brookwood was also (briefly) the final resting place for Dodi Al Fayed, playboy lover to Princess Diana. A strange place again for burying someone so famous and rich!

[1] http://www.jlb2011.co.uk/walespic/archive/980130.htm
[2] http://imgur.com/ljKjMdU
[3] http://imgur.com/VsUo3Yt
[4] http://imgur.com/CISG5Tn
[5] http://imgur.com/mW2IOnv
[6] http://www.tbcs.org.uk/duff_gordon.htm
Evil Edna
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Titanic

Unread postby Thinktwice on Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:46 pm

Feel free to move this post if necessary. Apologies in advance for the length.


Sometimes you get a hunch, and you can't always point to a particular reason why, but you feel a need to investigate. I have a little hunch that James Cameron had, or could have had, something to do with 9/11--especially in terms of production, scripting, and special effects. Of course many bits of circumstantial evidence can be trotted out to support some kind of connection (as is also the case with some other celebrities), but can we build a compelling and conclusive case? Who knows...

Now I do not want to speculate too wildly, so stop me if I go too far as I try to lay out this case.

Let us start with the most obvious point. The movie Titanic very openly explores many major emotional themes of the 9/11 event-- sudden tragedy and loss of life, questions of morality in the face of certain death, the hubris of leaders leading to disaster, the experience of violently and suddenly arriving in a New World. Cameron does this by placing the 90s viewer firmly in the middle of the action, and he hopes to get you to ask yourself--"What would I do in that life-or-death situation?" And then it features thrilling escape scenes, destruction spectacles, many witnesses, victims and survivors, along with the saccharine "my heart will go on" message about our unending love for the victims. Whether predictive programming or practice run, if Cameron wanted to prepare to "direct" an event like 9/11, he could really do a lot worse than Titanic.

Aside from that one movie, let's go over some of the other connections that we see in general. I want to focus on the areas I mentioned--production, scripting, effects.

Cameron from the beginning of his career has made movies hitting all the important military themes, incorporating the most realistic style of effects. Let's see: aliens from another world, space travel, machines that rule humanity, tales of successful human rebellion against technology, nuclear argmageddon, human-enhancing machines, spies and their lies and sorting them out, colonialism, and of course, great disasters with huge loss of human life spelling important lessons for humanity. Many ideas spawned by the likes of HG Wells and 20th century military propaganda masters. This shows that he can handle the responsibility of cleverly selling military imagery and themes to the U.S. (and world) population, often in a ground-breaking way. So what I mean by production, is that he has seemingly been groomed for producing things like this for a very long time, and is an expert at presenting these ideas to the public.

As far as scripting, we all know that the 9/11 stories all have an air of unbelievability, of scripted language, of weird coincidences and too-good-to-be-true story lines. Let's take Todd Beamer and Flight 93 as the perfect example of a saccharine storyline meant to add an extra punch to a propaganda tale. More examples: the storyline of the office worker who escapes, the firefighter who swears there were explosions in the lobby, and of course the victims in the planes and towers. These are stories calculated to hit you emotionally, make you cringe, as you vividly imagine it happening to yourself--and I would argue that this is the very point. Now, I'm no film critic, but at least judging by box office success, Cameron is really a very skilled screenwriter in that he can plot out these types of ridiculous stories and make them believable, complete with fairly well developed characters, fairly believable lowest-common-denominator dialogue and generally good pacing. He has the ability to make the audience care emotionally about the characters, and I would say that this is a defining feature of many of his films. And he always manages to throw in some classic one-liners that get caught up in the cultural zeitgeist surrounding the movies--just like 9/11 has, "Let's roll" and "the tower collapsed," For instance. These are skills honed over years working the craft.

As a self-proclaimed Titanic scholar, Cameron would have been familiar with W.T. Stead, the father of "government by journalism", which is as good a name for our current media-government complex as I can think of. As mentioned earlier in the Titanic thread, W. T. Stead, a successful British newspaper publisher and Hearst prototype, apparently died on the Titanic, which was ironic considering that he had written not one but two stories featuring a large ship crashing in the North Atlantic with large loss of life. Stead had the brilliant idea of supporting his friends' bills in parliament by writing creative short 'fables' or morality tales in his newspapers. The prototypical example is his crusade against child prostitution. In his papers Stead wrote serialized dramatic accounts of child prostitution while his friends in Parliament were able to raise the age of consent through law. In his case, he never claimed the stories were real--unlike our media which sells their morality fables as hyperliteral blossoms which can be endlessly unfolded in layers of bullshit.

Discussing Cameron's effects, I want to first touch on The Abyss (1989). Yes, this movie features some excellent CGI characters, one of the first. But this movie also features extensive underwater sequences, portrayed in a way that closely mimicks the popular conception of space travel with tremendous production value-- sequences that really look almost identical to so-called space footage. So perhaps some of the technical capabilities were developed there for simulating the '90s Space Shuttle and related footage, as well as possibly movies like Apollo 13, which did a solid job selling the Apollo missions to the 90s generation. In any case, the Abyss sells the ideas of amazing human technology successfully adapting humans to inhospitable terrain, and almost makes it look like we already have that tech in 1989, which is quite an illusion. Cameron makes these effects look easy.


By the 90s Cameron was integrating practical effects with CGI. To that end, Cameron together with Scott Ross and Stan Winston founded Digital Domain in 1993, which according to Wiki is still one of the leading CGI houses today. Digital Domain developed a few in-house software tools to create their effects. One of these tools is called Nuke, a digital compositing tool used to compile various imagery together in a scripted animation. This software was used starting in 1994 in many films like True Lies, Apollo 13, Armageddon, and of course, Titanic. However, this magical software was not released to the public until--October 2002! It is seemingly important to note that the software originally had a severe limitation in that it was strictly a 2D compositing tool, therefore any 3D motion of the camera in the scene was relatively difficult and had to be programmed manually for each animation element. However, by the time the software was released commercially in Oct 2002, it had native 3D handling built in--so any software hypothetically used for 9/11 could have been any point intermediate between the two.(refs. 2 & 3) They ended up delaying Titanic by months due to one flyover shot of the entire digital Titanic with scores of digital components added. This was the so-called million dollar shot which you can see in this video:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pfitprTLwM

Perhaps you can see where I am heading with this. Digital Domain's Nuke software can do everything you need to do to create a 9/11-type media package. You can compile all sorts of photographic elements together at your discretion, animate it and bring it to life. With this tool in his private digital effects company, Cameron has everything he needs to pull off realistic visuals for a faked 9/11-style attack--and years of experience making it happen in movies.

Now, I know we have often said it does not matter how the particulars of the magic trick of 9/11 were done. However, I think it is important to consider a way to explain how the effects were done so convincingly, in an effort to convert those skeptics we may encounter in discussing media fakery.

Looking around for a demonstration of this amazing software, Nuke by Digital Design, I studied the Titanic making-of documentary, where we can see some footage of this software in action, as well as how they used it. Since production started in 96, CGI was still limited in scope, so they used a hell of a lot of models. In fact, James Cameron is somewhat of an expert in models since he started building models for Roger Corman in the 70s. And what else is a time-honored military tradition than building elaborate models--and blowing them up? Just like in the Nuke thread, critical mass showed us the models of Japan they built. This Titanic documentary shows the many models they used, from the wreck of the ship, as mentioned earlier in the thread, to the life size ship set with moveable floating platforms, to models for the towers, detailed room sets, hallways, replicas of things that blow up, etc. Cameron had an almost unlimited budget and he used it, knowing the only way to sell the real ship in 1997 was to capture as much as possible in camera still, then stitch the necessary bits together to create the magic. I would argue that similarly many of the 9/11 elements ultimately derived from mostly photographic elements which were stitched together in some fairly complicated ways in evidently 2D compositing software. Why do I make this claim? Because that is what explains what we see the best, and it looks very similar to the results of Nuke software.

If you don't mind, let's take a look at what Nuke can do.
From the Titanic making-of documentary: (YouTube:[8:38-9:18])


I have to say, that is pretty amazing software. These artists have created a fabricated animated painting that looks almost real. It uses mostly photographic elements composited together. And this movie came out in 1997.

Take a look at this scene where the iceberg hits the ship, compiled with real elements, models, and CGI: (YouTube:[22:55-23:55])


OK, so we have complex interaction between real elements, model elements, CGI elements, and everything mixed together in Digital Domain Nuke software.

According to wiki, Cameron has little work going on between 1997 and 2005 when he started working on Avatar (2009). Apparently Cameron was initially on board to make the new Spider-man movie, and indeed he developed an entire screenplay which was later adapted by David Koepp with no credit to Cameron. I recall someone here hypothesized a connection between the CGI Manhattan used in Spider-man and the Manhattan imagery used in the early 9/11 imagery. I recall reading about how the Sony team used mostly photographic elements of buildings and stitched them together into a 3d landscape. (While looking for this reference, I found only the line on the Spider-man Wiki that seems to suggest this compiling together of photographs to avoid 100% CGI animation.) I note this connection merely as interesting, but not conclusive. We have no indication that Cameron set his special effects units to do their expert work creating a digital version of Manhattan. Using our knowledge of Titanic's effects, we can certainly imagine how his team would have done it, were Cameron in charge of the 9/11 storyline.

Cameron would build a large scale model of the WTC complex, would likely build a scale model of lower Manhattan, possibly a smaller model of the entire region to enable long-range shots. Then he would build some rig up some explosives, set up several camera angles and film the models exploding, then finally being demolished. (You may or may not build model airplanes and crash them in-- if they did that, it looks like they were probably replaced by CGI planes at some point, although possibly models could account for some of the poor airplane results.) You could make the WTC model 30 or 100 feet high and have real cameramen zooming in and zooming out as much as they want. This model effect will explain why you see so much cloning of the same various "tower explosion" special effects from the same angles as pointed out in September Clues. If it were a pure 3D animation, the geeks could spin it around in infinite resolution--but if the basis of the shots was originally photographed from models, that would explain the weird hybrid effects we see, where source explosion shots are cloned into multiple video story lines with superimposed foregrounds. I refer for instance to the "missile/engine" that shoots out diagonally NE from the "2nd hit" explosion that can be seen from multiple angles, arching diagonally away from the explosion. I have often wondered whether that was a part of a CGI explosion effect, and if so, why did it need to be cloned into multiple foregrounds? Supposing there were a 3D model of this explosion animation, then the geeks could render the explosion as it would really look from a simulated corner in Manhattan, at any angle, zoom level, etc. But we know from our study the final results were not this accurate, and show much more evidence of photographic compilation and cloning of a single shot into multiple shots. So in all likelihood the original source for the explosion is a model blowing up, filmed from several angles, and the film from only those angles is then compiled into the elements that later became the official imagery. Sounds plausible? I think so...

But still, whether models were used for certain elements or not, we are sure they used a computer for compositing eveything together, because we have seen so many artifacts of their digital compositions. In fact, Nuke has some known bugs as well. According to one of the developers, [name and link], some of the known issues with the Nuke software are:

File read error handling is still buggy and impacts our lighters every day. In the 3D system the inefficient memory management of the ScanlineRender node has caused many render memory problems - it needs some internal re-architecting.

So these are bugs that likely could have caused some of the many greyboxing effects Simon has compiled, like when the WTC7 image file just doesn't load correctly so it shows up grey, for example. We don't know what other bugs may have plagued the pre-release version.

James Cameron founded this amazing special effects company Digital Domain, so he was in the perfect position to pull off the 9/11 visuals. There was however a disagreement between Cameron and other founding member Scott Ross. According to this 2005 Forbes article, there was a major disagreement in 1998 between Cameron and Ross, so intense that Cameron apparently quit the firm. But not really, because Forbes says he still owns his share of the company, and he his "shadow still looms large" (arguably this is Masonic imagery). In fact, when Forbes published this article, they received notices from Cameron's lawyers not to bring this issue up. The argument was apparently about the over-budget effects on Titanic, but since Titanic was released in 1997 and made lots of money, why would that be such a point of contention in 1998, and even in 2005 for the article? The story does not add up. Perhaps a phony story meant to distance perp Cameron from his special effects company.

Especially since their custom software Nuke won an Academy Award in March 2002 for technical achievement. We know the Oscars love Cameron and ex-wife Bigelow.

To Bill Spitzak, Paul Van Camp, Jonathan Egstad and Price Pethel for their pioneering effort on the NUKE-2D Compositing Software.

The Nuke-2D compositing software allows for the creation of complex interactive digital composites using relatively modest computing hardware.

Now just to leave you with one final thought. What does James Cameron say if you ask him about 9/11? Surely he has some interesting tale of what he was doing.

According to his tale, James Cameron was the last man alive to find out about 9/11! And it was Bill Paxton, Hollywood actor, who informed James Cameron of the whole sequence of events on 9/11. You can see a (re-enacted? Or real?) scene where they discuss the events on Cameron's ship on 9/11.

Here is how Cameron described it himself in an interview with der Spiegel:

Cameron: The day the 9/11 terrorists murdered 3,000 people in New York and Washington, I was just diving to the Titanic. Twelve hours later, I came back to our mothership. I was presumably the last man in the Western Hemisphere to learn about what had happened.

Yes, Cameron himself has a 9/11 coincidence that somehow also comes off as an alibi. He continues:

For a while, I thought: Why are we diving into history while new parts are made, while the very ground we are standing on is shaking? But, some days later, I realized that (the film) "Titanic" gave us help in interpreting the new disaster, in exploring the feelings of loss and anger. Why do people watch "Titanic"? It's partly because they can cry. Loss is a part of our life; it's about love and death and about death partly defining love. And these are things we all have to cope with.

In my mind, this kind of emotional insight speaks to why Cameron is such a successful filmmaker. He is a shrewd emotional observer. I would argue that this makes him perfect for producing spectacular propaganda. Of course, Cameron in this quote is just "observing" the coincidence that his movie perfectly foreshadows thematically the 9/11 event that would occur less than 4 years after the movie was released.

I would not consider this an open-and-shut case. I consider myself to be just compiling the evidence and trying to put together a plausible story of what could have happened. I hope I have successfully shown that a person such as James Cameron could have easily helped design, consult or actually execute this project, in terms especially of scripting, emotional content and special effects capabilities. And the reason I find it necessary to prove this case is to provide a bridge to the reasonably intelligent skeptic that 9/11 was actually a media fakery hoax. Showing how the realistic effects could have actually been pre-made by professionals, and showing how a director like Cameron is essentially groomed for a role like this, I believe helps provide that bridge. This gives the military/planning perps a main "go-to" guy in charge of selling the emotional storylines and visual effects just as directors do.


I'll leave you with one juicy quote from the Titanic making-of documentary (12m10s), about Cameron's effects techniques:

One of the things I learned from Jim [Cameron], is the key is never do the same trick twice. Just when you think they are doing it with motion control and the background, then you change it… If you always mix the techniques up, you are bound for a much better success than relying on one technique for the entire film.
- Steve Quale, second unit director, Titanic.



1. The Making of Titanic, Behind the Scenes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62rXQFqTWQ
2. Interview with Bill Spitzak, Nukepedia.com, http://www.nukepedia.com/interviews/interview-bill-spitzak/
3. Interview with Jonathan Egstad, Nukepedia.com, http://www.nukepedia.com/interviews/interview-jonathan-egstad
4. Sinking Ship, Forbes.com, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/161.html
5. James Cameron Interview with Der Spiegel, http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/titanic-director-james-cameron-speaks-about-lasting-fascination-of-ship-a-826121.html
6. Academy Awards Technical Awards, March 2002
7. Vimeo, James Cameron's Ghost of the Abyss- The Unthinkable 9-11, https://vimeo.com/7367504
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:46 pm

Re: Titanic

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:27 am

Interesting Cameron connection to the Spider-man movie's fake New York, which SPI (Sony) apparently developed over 7 years leading up to the turn-of-the-century trailer involving the World Trade Center. Great suspicion, well presented. Thanks. Perhaps Cameron will ultimately turn out to be what Stanley Kubrick did for Apollo. I have a 'hunch' Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and space fantasy baby-darling J.J. Abrams were courted if not involved, and also had foreknowledge. However, Cameron being the ultimate person to take reins on directing the "movie" so-to-speak would not be surprising in the least.

Ab at Fakeologist.com notes that James Cameron did not release any films for 10 years around the year 2001. Busy on other things, I guess?

Interesting how in that obviously hokey and staged video of Cameron morosely bragging about his focus on half a 9/11 (1500 vicsims of Titanic, half of the 3000 vicsims for 9/11) they claim to receive a letter from the "P. P. Shershova" institute from Russia, in which the message can be read (but is not read aloud word-for-word in the video due to an edit at that exact point in the clip) this curious phrasing:


"Your mischief is ours as well."

Though the word 'evil' and 'harm' could arguably be close in Russian, in English it specifically means playful misbehavior or troublemaking, especially purposefully on the part of the 'owner' of the mischief. I find this a curious translation on such a sensitive topic. Sure, it was just an error in translation, if you prefer. Yet, in this "error" could the collaboration between Russian and American psychological operations be phrased any more plainly?

Also, does the large date 12.9.2001 look scribbled on rather awkwardly?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm


Return to Worldwide media deceptions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest