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

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:21 pm

Heiwa wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:

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:


Oh good grief! YOU DO NOT USE GRAVITY TO CRUSH ANYTHING! You use explosives in a top down, sequentially explosive, ripple down demolition process, so that the structure below is blown away before the already explosively destroyed "top load" reaches the point where it might have impacted the tower stub had it being going straight down instead of going sideways, because explosives had blown it sideways. Please try to pay attention. I have never said that the US Regime gravity and kinetic energy theory was plausible! Why is that so hard for you to grasp if you are so "smart" as the Americans say? Gravity is only really used to get the explosively disassembled building out of the sky and onto the ground.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Andrew1484 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:31 pm

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

Image


"Predictive programming" of the US population.

Some of it might be whistle-blowing that failed to stop the rogue faction of course. The Lone Gunman thing looked like whistle-blowing that failed.

GRAND THEFT COUNTRY | 9/11 - Foreknowledge: The Coup
http://www.grandtheftcountry.com/facts/ ... /coup.html
Image
"The Album Cover of “Party Music” by the aptly named punk rock band “The Coup”. Party Music CD Design was printed in July and was scheduled for release “after Labor Day” during the week of 9/11/01 – immediately the album was pulled from store shelves on 9/12. (Notice the “Covert Labs” (i.e. CIA Issue) detonator, Soviet “Red Star” or “Red Shield” (Rothschild) logo and the “location” of the explosive charges. Notice also the smug smirk on the bomber’s face. JUST A HARMLESS COINCIDENCE?? YOU DECIDE!)"

‪The Lone Gunmen Pilot - 9/11 Predictive Programming‬

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3WW6eoLcLI
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Libero on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:59 pm

Andrew1484 wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:

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.



Andrew,

So, if you were going to show off your wonderful pyrotechnics display in which, if it failed you would have a lot of explaining to do, or you could take the much easier route and show the display pre-recorded and tell your viewers it was live, not caring how it went off in the background, which would you prefer to do from a risk standpoint? Perhaps your brilliant efforts should rather be spent on figuring out why media fakery is not a widely acceptable and a mostly outright shunned explanation for 9/11 outside this forum -- then you may finally get the answers you are looking for.
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re:

Postby simonshack on Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:40 pm

Andrew1484 wrote:
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.

Andrew,

I would kindly ask you - for the sake of tranquil debate - not to question my honesty before providing solid and irrefutable argumentations to invalidate my own - something which you still haven't done - thank you very much. None of your video examples of 'top-down' demolitions, I'm afraid, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the collapse dynamics as featured in the 9/11 collapse imagery. Your examples all show very clear and defined explosives being ignited halfway up of (mostly) concrete-only buildings - or explosives charges setting off in quick succession on multiple floors. In stark contrast, the 110-story steel-frame towers seen crumbling in the 9/11 videos appear to 'fizzle' down from the very top - with no visible explosive blasts triggering their total collapse (and please, don't bring up the silly little 'squibs' promoted by the farcical "Loosechange" gatekeeping movie). Moreover - and since you mention Ockham's razor - we can very simply demonstrate that the available WTC collapse shots do not even match up with each other. This is just ONE of the numerous examples to support this claim:

Both these shots are clearly meant to be shot from a similar, head-on-to-the-WTC-north-face perspective. Watch the antennas:
Image

Andrew1484 wrote: 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.

Well, Andrew - the problem is that the WTC7 collapse imagery shown on TV does not look physically possible - unless you can provide real world examples of what we can observe here: the entire left side of the building sliding/expanding sideways (without breaking up into rubble and dust) as it dips down towards the ground...

Image

Andrew1484 wrote: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.

Well - so you're basically saying that the perfect 'top-down' collapse we saw on TV somehow damaged the rather distant Deutsche Bank beyond repair. This does not add up if you look closely at the WTC collapses shown on TV.

Andrew1484 wrote: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!

What they showed us on video was implausible enough. Yes. I fully agree. So? Does that make those videos any less implausible?

Andrew1484 wrote: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.

Yes. I call those things 'candies for conspiracy theorists' - and they appear to have worked out quite well, for the purpose of stirring up scores of endless circular debates among the 'truther community'. The same goes for the infamous "flashes-just-before-Flight175-impacts" as featured in some post-2007 videos. As I demonstrated long ago, it was once again the "Loosechange" clowns who inserted that "sinister flash" - which is ABSENT, for instance, in my original DVD-version of the Naudet brother's movie:

Image
Evidently, this flash was inserted to provide a "plausible explanation" (the phony flash was 'sold' as a possible missile-penetrator) as to why the entire airliner melded into the WTC effortlessly. I presume the perps were worried at the time that all-too-many folks would wake up to the absurd visuals of those airplanes disappearing into the WTC - as if into a cloud.

Andrew1484 wrote: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.

This is probably the most frequently asked question i get nowadays. "Why did they do a such a sloppy job of it? Did they not have an almost unlimited budget to do perfect computer animations?" Well, I could think of a zillion reasons why they came out sloppy. The bottom line is: they ARE sloppy - and that's that. Were they made sloppily on purpose? Perhaps yes, perhaps no - but what does this all matter at the end of the day? Perhaps we should all be thankful that they (probably) didn't have George Lucas or Roland Emmerich directing the "9/11 Hollywood made-for-TV movie" - but relied instead on upstart amateurs such as Steven Rosenbaum of Camera Planet. In any case, never forget that... "the best laid plans of mice and men go oft awry".

Andrew1484 wrote: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?

That is incredibly naive of you, Andrew. What better way for CDI to "play whistleblowers" if they were actually involved in the whole scam, making millions with it? Have you any notion of how psyops - and Big Business - are managed?


Andrew1484 wrote:When presented with two contradictory theories, the simpler theory is often correct. Occam's Razor.

I fully subscribe to that, Andrew.

Andrew1484 wrote: I have left some doubt and wiggle room for your much more complicated theory.

That's very encouraging to me, Andrew - although I cannot see what you find complicated about airing a phony movie on TV - once you control all the TV outlets.

Andrew1484 wrote:The 9/11 video record might indeed be bogus, clearly parts of it are bogus.

To be honest, as I put together September Clues over half a decade ago, I also thought "only parts" of the 9/11 video record was bogus. Until I realized how absurd and senselessly complicated that would have been. We were simply shown on TV - during a 102-minute time window of an average Tuesday morning - a prefabricated "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie" which subtituted the real world events taking place in Lower Manhattan - i.e. the controlled demolition of the (entirely vacated and cordoned-off) WTC complex. All the rest we were offered on TV, eyewitness reports, testimonials and images of "jumpers falling to their death", was all part of the very same shock-and-awe movie production.

Andrew1484 wrote: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.

I sincerely wish the best of luck to ALL loyal and honest citizens of the USA in regaining control of their country. I really do.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re:

Postby fbenario on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:21 am

Andrew1484 wrote: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.

While that does 'sound' like the obvious answer to the wide distribution, please keep in mind we have no trustworthy images/videos that actually show a wide distribution. Thus, spending time theorizing on it seems pointless.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re:

Postby fbenario on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:26 am

Andrew1484 wrote: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.

All that's silly, please stop posting such stuff until you assimilate the basic conclusions of the forum. All images/videos faked to keep American trusting its beloved gov. press releases and oh-so-trustworthy TV news. Period.

No reason to think it was even weirder in reality than as shown in faked videos - much more likely brought down in standard controlled demos behind a smokescreen. Don't ever forget that NO ONE saw the buildings collapse. Prove that wrong, have no fun trying.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Re:

Postby fbenario on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:43 am

simonshack wrote:I sincerely wish the best of luck to ALL loyal and honest citizens of the USA in regaining control of their country. I really do.

There simply aren't any beyond the few of us here on the forum. In any case, if I go too 'public' in person, I likely get jailed and have no more ability to participate here on the forum to educate folks to think for themselves. I don't believe my being jailed helps save any future lives, and wastes my own life, so I'm not doing it. My 1,600 posts here carry much more weight than any symbolic gesture in public.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re:

Postby Heiwa on Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:24 am

Andrew1484 wrote:
Heiwa wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:

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:


Oh good grief! YOU DO NOT USE GRAVITY TO CRUSH ANYTHING!


It as appreciated that you agree to this as, according to US authorities like NIST, FEMA, FBI, ASCE, etc and US media, gravity alone and no explosives of any kind caused the fountains of debris destructions shown live on TV and on various photos like this on the front page of NYT
Image
or as explained by NYT on an inner page:
Image
Media and US authorities are wrong and one reason is the fake info and footage transmitted by media - topic - apparently produced by the terrorists. Thanks for agreeing to this. Pls try to add some intelligent comments to promote the findings.
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: CGI Collapse footage.

Postby Andrew1484 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:20 am

Libero wrote:
Andrew1484 wrote:
Libero wrote:Andrew,

So, if you were going to show off your wonderful pyrotechnics display in which, if it failed you would have a lot of explaining to do, or you could take the much easier route and show the display pre-recorded and tell your viewers it was live, not caring how it went off in the background, which would you prefer to do from a risk standpoint? Perhaps your brilliant efforts should rather be spent on figuring out why media fakery is not a widely acceptable explanation for 9/11 outside this forum -- then you may finally get the answers you are looking for.


But what about the obvious errors in this allegedly "live video" (but might have been pre-recorded)? Why make an imperfect pre-recorded "live video" with things like the tipping WTC2 top and the squibs? Things that have given them a lot of explaining to do. That prove they lied.

Some say there was a 17 second time delay, so nothing was really live. If something went badly wrong they could probably cut transmission in the 17 second delay period, so that we could not see their mistake.

Lots of people agree that there was a lot of media fakery on 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 etc. I agree that there was.



And had it been 'perfect' as you describe, is that what it would have taken for you to believe that a top down collapse would have been possible? If so, take the Heiwa 'Who wants to be a Millionare' challenge... He's waiting.

Seems to me they created for themselves a few 'outs' or excuses for those that would never believe the official story... simple things to talk about that would not immediately lead to the obvious answer.



I have already answered Heiwa and his concept error about gravity being used to crush stuff on 9/11. Gravity was not used that way so his "challenge" is based on a false and impossible premise. It is a similar challenge to the one Jimmy Walter posed back in 2004/2005, offering $1 million to anybody who could prove that gravity rather than explosives blew up the towers.

This is my answer to Heiwa:
Oh good grief! YOU DO NOT USE GRAVITY TO CRUSH ANYTHING! You use explosives in a top down, sequentially explosive, ripple down demolition process, so that the structure below is blown away before the already explosively destroyed "top load" reaches the point where it might have impacted the tower stub had it being going straight down instead of going sideways, because explosives had blown it sideways. Please try to pay attention. I have never said that the US Regime gravity and kinetic energy theory was plausible! Why is that so hard for you to grasp if you are so "smart" as the Americans say? Gravity is only really used to get the explosively disassembled building out of the sky and onto the ground.
Andrew1484
Banned
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Libero on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:00 am

Andrew1484 wrote:


I have already answered Heiwa and his concept error about gravity being used to crush stuff on 9/11. Gravity was not used that way so his "challenge" is based on a false and impossible premise. It is a similar challenge to the one Jimmy Walter posed back in 2004/2005, offering $1 million to anybody who could prove that gravity rather than explosives blew up the towers.



Andrew,

Nobody here knows how they were brought down and trying to assume how can be fruitless... I believe that is what everyone is attempting to tell you. Logic should or will eventually will tell you that a screen was put up and they performed the magic trick. You already know that they couldn't have fallen on their own. You also admit that there was video fakery performed on that day. And if at least if you understand that had they made the video flawless, that would have only lead to a physically impossible action or a conclusion of media fakery, in which case cluesforum would have a bunch more members. Essentially, as long as people are still debating about the cause, evidently they did make the video 'Perfect' as you inquired previously. I'm not sure why you choose to believe what you saw from the media on that one particular day, but perhaps it might help if you take a stroll around the forum to see how media fakery is happening around the world to everyone, everyday.

Here's an excellent start... Check out the great investigative work that Simon and Heiwa did on the Costa Concordia. They proved that a particular photo released by the media was completely bogus. That is, of course, if you're not completely convinced that the dock was stretched on the particular day to accommodate the influx of new guests due to the 'accident' and then rebuilt soon after... if you are convinced that the media happened to be completely honest on that particular day.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1192&start=315
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Libero on Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:06 am

Andrew1484 wrote:
Libero wrote:Nobody here knows how they were brought down and trying to assume how can be fruitless... I believe that is what everyone is attempting to tell you.


Well I can certainly agree with that. I have serious difficulty "getting on the same wavelength" with people telling me it was all smoke and mirrors (OK I agree), the video record is completely bogus (OK, no problem) yet they somehow magically know that it was really a bottom up demolition, because that was the "only way" to do it.



Yep. I get you, now. You have provided the video evidence that top down demolition is possible, and that may have been a possibility among others. I think maybe many, including myself may have been concerned that you were using the miscellaneous stuff shown by the media as evidence to base your conclusion or (gads!) accepting it as the real deal, but it appears to not be so. On to the media fakery busting we go... :)
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:41 pm

*

ANOTHER MAGIC ZOOM-IN (NBC outfoxes CNN!)

Oh my oh my... :rolleyes:

Remember the lenghty, miracle zoom-in motion shown LIVE on CNN at 10:28AM ? If you don't, here it is again. It was supposedly filmed by a (seemingly psychic) chopper cameraman who anticipated that WTC1 was about to collapse, presciently performing a long-distance, 18-second zoom-in with his telephoto lens...and JUST as the zoom-in motion stops, WTC1 starts collapsing !

Image
As illustrated on my website: http://septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

Well, today I bumped into this (non-live) NBC clip which ALSO features a long zoom-in motion...which stops JUST as WTC1 starts collapsing (and a quick zoom-out follows) ! So yes, ladies and gents, we now have TWO wondrously prescient zoom-ins (from two separate TV networks) immediately preceding the start of the WTC1 collapse!

Image
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaL5DkheHvw

So let me propose two options/hypotheses as to how these two shots came to be:

OPTION 1: The two chopper cameramen both ran into a fortuitous strike of luck, the two of them coincidentally deciding to zoom-in their telephoto lenses to capture these two most timely and spectacular close-ups of the WTC1 collapse initiation.

OPTION 2: The Director of the "Hollywood-made-for-TV 9/11 movie" was obsessed with a foolish urge to squeeze as much shock-and-awe drama out of the animated computer imagery as possible. One of his favorite 'tricks' to achieve this, was to have his 'camera-shots' perform timely zoom-ins and zoom-outs during the movie's most 'defining' moments.

Dear reader, you are of course free to subscribe to OPTION1. After all, you are the sole and legitimate owner of your life and brain. I would personally firmly opt for OPTION 2, and before you call me a 'nutcase' for my beliefs, I'll back up them up with this:

THE MIRACLE ZOOMS. http://septemberclues.info/miracle_zooms.htm

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

You may have noticed (in the above NBC clip) how the WTC antenna behaves as the collapse initiates. Compare it to this other shot (credited to a French filmmaker, "Etienne Sauret") purportedly shot from some NY highrise building :

WTC1 collapse initiation (NBC) _________________WTC1 collapse initiation (Etienne Sauret)

ImageImage
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:11 pm

*

SIX OF A KIND ... <_<

Image

For sources to these images: viewtopic.php?p=2367661#p2367661

It's just a lazy and silly 'chain assembly' from a single digital "3D" template...(as now demonstrated ad nauseam).

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby Equinox on Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:23 pm

simonshack wrote:*

SIX OF A KIND ... <_<

Image

For sources to these images: viewtopic.php?p=2367661#p2367661

It's just a lazy and silly 'chain assembly' from a single digital "3D" template...(as now demonstrated ad nauseam).

Image


Ok mate, I back-archived and re-loaded. ;)



10 OF A KIND

Image

Brian Kiederling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CebtLGtkAkQ
Alfie Alvarado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNAKPIBUuuE
September 2001, ZDF History Dokumentation (un known shooter)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 24#t=3365s
Luigi Cazzaniga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Q00a0#t=6s
2002 documentary "In Memoriam: New York City 9/11/01. Unnown shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Gokhk#t=2s
Ben Reisman
http://vimeo.com/28895309
Thomas Nilsson
http://www.5ohwifey.com/2011/09/911-wor ... ering.html
Gulnara Samoilova
http://www.gulnarasamoilova.com/press
Amy Sancetta
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... -prog.html
Barry Weiss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZUcom0hUxk
Last edited by Equinox on Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Equinox
Banned
 
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Equinox wrote: Ok mate, I back-archived and re-loaded. ;)



Woah - well done, Equi ! :lol: :lol: :lol: :wub: "And then there were ten..."
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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 2 guests