Demolition Simulation Software

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery

Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby antipodean on Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:34 am

I originally posted this in the, "Is there any merit to the non-TV fakery truthers?" thread, http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p2349658
but now think it deserves it's own thread.

In her follow up interview with Kevin Barret, Evelyn Gilbert names the 2 demolition companies, that also specialise in producing the software, simulating your chosen demolition based on any particular story boarded event.
She says she was struck by the "Storyboard like quality of the images shown that day" and that the "Perps worked from a story board series of drawings of key frames from film" http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/arc ... 012211.mp3
Edit : Start from the 10 minute mark to fast track all the intro bullshit.

The 2 companies providing these software packages are, 'Blast Code', & 'Applied Science International'
http://www.blastcode.com/
http://www.appliedscienceint.com/

Blast Code is of particular interest, it's President Helmar Gerhardt a 3D animator with a possible military background who has contracted to Weta Productions who in turn have links to Warner Brothers.
Just to pique peoples interest here's a screen shot of Blast Code's home page
Image
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby regex on Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:55 am

Well what I ask myself is:
why would they use such a demolition software instead of showing us the real demolition?

The twin towers are gone, what would they want to cover up?
regex
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:30 pm

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby antipodean on Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:55 am

regex wrote:Well what I ask myself is:
why would they use such a demolition software instead of showing us the real demolition?

The twin towers are gone, what would they want to cover up?


Who knows how the real demolition went ?

What's being covered up, is what actually happened.
By having a simulation set up in advance it erases any possible mistakes & errors. Plus any demolition that took more than 20 seconds, people would expect to see remnants of Boeing 767s in the collapse. Which is why we were sold a quick pulverising collapse scenario.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby regex on Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:42 am

antipodean wrote:Who knows how the real demolition went ?

What's being covered up, is what actually happened.
By having a simulation set up in advance it erases any possible mistakes & errors. Plus any demolition that took more than 20 seconds, people would expect to see remnants of Boeing 767s in the collapse. Which is why we were sold a quick pulverising collapse scenario.


I think we agree on the fact that the towers must have been brought down by some kind of controlled demolition. Planes, missiles or whatever could have never caused such a perfect demolition.
In case they used explosives to accomplish the demolition, then the collapse would look like,or at least similar, the footage that they presented us.

Even if they had made some mistake at the collapse, the NIST and other perp "scientists" would have just
made up another absurd theory and most people would believe it. No matter how aburd it would be.

The pancale theory is just bullshit and many scientists say that such a collapse is impossible. Now, eventhough the pancake theory is absurd, I just need to leave my house and I can see all the people believing that crap.

Thats something that bothers me.

And why would they insert something looking flashlights at the beginning of the collapse if it all was just pure CGI?
regex
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:30 pm

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby fbenario on Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:06 am

regex wrote:I think we agree on the fact that the towers must have been brought down by some kind of controlled demolition. Planes, missiles or whatever could have never caused such a perfect demolition.
...
And why would they insert something looking flashlights at the beginning of the collapse if it all was just pure CGI?

What in the world are you talking about? Neither you, nor anyone else, has seen any video at all of the collapse. How do you know what could have - or couldn't have - brought down the buildings? What's the point of asking about some insertion in fake footage?

If you've actually got any believable footage of the WTC coming down, please post it so we can all study it.

Remember, if the perps released fake footage of the WTC coming down in controlled demolitions, it's because they want you to waste your time and energy 'convincing' people that planes can't bring down buildings - which means you're not putting the same time and effort into convincing people that ALL the 9/11 footage is fake, and that there were no planes and no victims. You're allowing yourself to be caged by your belief that images/videos shown in the paid, controlled media are inherently trustworthy and reflect events that have actually taken place.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2217
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby antipodean on Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:23 am

Have you actually listened to the Kevin Barret interview, because you appear to have no grasp of this topic.

Where have I indicated that any of the collapse footage is not fake ?
Where have I indicated that I have any idea of what "could have brought down the buildings"?
Where have I indicated about there being " some insertion in fake footage " ?

if the perps released fake footage of the WTC coming down in controlled demolitions, it's because they want you to waste your time and energy 'convincing' people that planes can't bring down buildings - which means you're not putting the same time and effort into convincing people that ALL the 9/11 footage is fake, and that there were no planes and no victims. You're allowing yourself to be caged by your belief that images/videos shown in the paid, controlled media are inherently trustworthy and reflect events that have actually taken place


Once again you have made a statement that diametrically contradicts itself. By using the words "if the perps released fake footage of the WTC coming down in controlled demolitions" you yourself are casting doubt on whether the collapse videos are indeed fake.
You have an annoying destructive habit, of trying to steer some threads to a certain direction.

All I have done is made a post about the existance of software that can be used to simulate a controlled demolition, which could well be what it is we had bombarded onto our TV screens on 9/11.

by regex » February 18th, 2011, 8:42 pm
And why would they insert something looking flashlights at the beginning of the collapse if it all was just pure CGI?


The flash lights at the beginning could be what the software produced, relative to the information that was fed into it.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby repentantandy on Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:07 am

Even though he's not a committed no-planer, Barrett has long positioned himself as quite open to the possibility that there were no planes, and that cardinal sin has made him "thoroughly discredited" as far as the perp/sayanim-controlled opposition at 911Blogger is concerned.

His interview about the demolition-simulation software is certainly worth a listen, and the company that created and sells the software, IMHO, merits some really deep investigation.

It could be just another red herring, but the fact that the truther community has essentially ignored its existence (unlike the various versions of Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds fables, for instance) does give it some compelling cyber-cred. :huh:
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby antipodean on Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:11 am

repentantandy wrote:Even though he's not a committed no-planer, Barrett has long positioned himself as quite open to the possibility that there were no planes, and that cardinal sin has made him "thoroughly discredited" as far as the perp/sayanim-controlled opposition at 911Blogger is concerned.
:


Interestingly in her first interview with Barrett, Evelyn Gilbert states that 9/11 blogger rejected a post she posted about the existence of the Controlled Demolition Software.
I think to it's good to be objective, not to just reject all information by people known not to be commited no planers.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby simonshack on Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:01 pm

I got an e-mail from one Lynn Ertell (on December28 2010) telling me to check out Barrett's and Evelien Gilbert's blog (yes, she spelled it "Evelien"...)

KEVIN BARRETT'S truthjihadradio blog:
http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/201 ... et-up.html

Image

What do I think of all this? Not much... :rolleyes:
Oh well - let me hazard a guess: Perhaps it's a ploy to ridicule the idea that the WTC collapses were CGI? You know, people would then associate our serious research with the juvenile idea that it was all produced with readily available CONSUMER software for kids... :D
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby antipodean on Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:44 pm

It is a bit suspicious that it's taken her nearly 10 years to come up with this, given the fact she thought the collapse footage was simulated from day one, maybe it is just a red herring.
But I still think it was worth a look.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby fbenario on Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:10 am

antipodean wrote:Where have I indicated that any of the collapse footage is not fake ?
Where have I indicated that I have any idea of what "could have brought down the buildings"?
Where have I indicated about there being " some insertion in fake footage " ?

My last post was a response to Regex's post, not any of yours. That's why I quoted Regex, making the comments that led to my questions.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2217
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby regex on Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:58 pm

fbenario wrote:What in the world are you talking about? Neither you, nor anyone else, has seen any video at all of the collapse. How do you know what could have - or couldn't have - brought down the buildings? What's the point of asking about some insertion in fake footage?


I have never said that I saw any real footage of the collapse, have I?
My conclusion was, that they had to bring the building down somehow. Or no, wait, the towers are still standing. Get your facts straight before you try to make me look like an idiot.

If you've actually got any believable footage of the WTC coming down, please post it so we can all study it.

Remember, if the perps released fake footage of the WTC coming down in controlled demolitions, it's because they want you to waste your time and energy 'convincing' people that planes can't bring down buildings - which means you're not putting the same time and effort into convincing people that ALL the 9/11 footage is fake, and that there were no planes and no victims. You're allowing yourself to be caged by your belief that images/videos shown in the paid, controlled media are inherently trustworthy and reflect events that have actually taken place.


Ok, so what are you talking about? Looks like youre answering someones else posting. All the things you say are not new to me.

Still I don't understand why anyone would make the collapse so unrealistic.
If I was in the position to produce the collapse animation, I would make them as realisitc as possible. No flashlights, no freefall et cetera.

Why? Because I wouldn't want anyone to ask questions. That's it.

And please, before you answer my post READ IT. Don't come up with anything I haven't said.
regex
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:30 pm

Re: Demolition Simulation Software

Unread postby Dcopymope on Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:55 am

regex wrote:
fbenario wrote:What in the world are you talking about? Neither you, nor anyone else, has seen any video at all of the collapse. How do you know what could have - or couldn't have - brought down the buildings? What's the point of asking about some insertion in fake footage?


I have never said that I saw any real footage of the collapse, have I?
My conclusion was, that they had to bring the building down somehow. Or no, wait, the towers are still standing. Get your facts straight before you try to make me look like an idiot.

If you've actually got any believable footage of the WTC coming down, please post it so we can all study it.

Remember, if the perps released fake footage of the WTC coming down in controlled demolitions, it's because they want you to waste your time and energy 'convincing' people that planes can't bring down buildings - which means you're not putting the same time and effort into convincing people that ALL the 9/11 footage is fake, and that there were no planes and no victims. You're allowing yourself to be caged by your belief that images/videos shown in the paid, controlled media are inherently trustworthy and reflect events that have actually taken place.


Ok, so what are you talking about? Looks like youre answering someones else posting. All the things you say are not new to me.

Still I don't understand why anyone would make the collapse so unrealistic.
If I was in the position to produce the collapse animation, I would make them as realisitc as possible. No flashlights, no freefall et cetera.

Why? Because I wouldn't want anyone to ask questions. That's it.

And please, before you answer my post READ IT. Don't come up with anything I haven't said.


Maybe they made it look more like the buildings were blown to kingdom come rather than a simple collapse so as to lead the few of us who have doubt about the official story of 9/11 into a false lead that bombs may have been used, going by your logic. The same can be said about the missile hypothesis, I often wonder whether or not the missile idea is another false lead also, which is why the word 'missile' was used in the media show numerous times, the Freudian slip ups could have been a part of the act also. If the legitimacy of all the footage of the attacks itself is put into question, then we should hold every single word that was said by the actors in the 9/11 show to that same standard as well, so as to not be deceived by what could be deliberate false leads.
Dcopymope
Banned
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am


Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests