CGI collapse footage

[biggesthoax]

*


THE THORNY QUESTION OF PERSPECTIVES

Do perspectives matter? Are they a useful tool to determine whether given videos are fabricated / tampered with or not? I would say, from personal experience, that the question of perpectives is perhaps the trickiest avenue of imagery analysis. This, due to the fairly advanced state (even prior to 2001) of 3D-imaging softwares, capable of simulating a given scenery from apparently different viewing angles/vantage points. It is a tough and delicate issue - if you see what I mean.

However, there are instances (with regards to the 9/11 imagery) in which the question of perspectives can be effectively used to make a compelling case, easily understandable to the layman (in the field of video and photography). In fact, I trust that even Jim Fetzer will effortlessly comprehend the following exposé which, I hope, will also help clarify to many other inquisitive minds my oft misunderstood case regarding the "retargeted" / rotated (think CAD) templates used to produce the 9/11 imagery. To this end, I will use two recently released (2010) videos from the NIST-FOIA image pool:

"THE SIFF-POST WTC1 COLLAPSE CLIP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=oW18Pj-3gHc

"THE SCARBOROUGH WTC1 COLLAPSE CLIP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJI3E7gIvrE

So here we go.

The "SIFF-POST shot" (allegedly filmed by either 'Andrew Siff' or 'Jason Post') shows a piece of DEBRIS falling between the collapsing WTC1 - and WTC7. My 100% marking shows how much of the NY BANK façade is visible:



The "SCARBOROUGH shot" (allegedly filmed by Jeff Scarborough, brother of NBC anchorman Chuck Scarborough) also shows this DEBRIS between WTC1 and WTC7. My 50% marking shows how much of the NY BANK façade is visible:


It should be immediately apparent to any attentive observer that, given the considerable lateral displacement of these two alleged videographers, the DEBRIS could not have been visible to both, in such near-identical fashion. If the SIFF-POST video is true, then the SCARBOROUGH video is false - or vice versa. More logically, we may well conclude that both are fake / i.e. computer animated.

THE "TELEPATHIC" ZOOM OUTS
But it gets 'better': most 'coincidentally', both videos feature a zoom out motion - shortly after the DEBRIS disappears from view ! Yes, we are asked to believe that BOTH videographers zoomed out almost in synch (within 1sec of each other)- both revealing their very different vantage points on either side of the street. Imagine that!...



Here we see the alleged SIFF-POST vantage point- after the zoom out:

Here we see the alleged SCARBOROUGH vantage point - after the zoom out:

^^^ Note: the two above frames are meant to depict the exact same moment in time ^^^


In short, the backdrop layer featuring the WTC1 collapse animation has been inserted into these two shots - without properly / realistically accounting for the considerable lateral displacement of the two alleged videographers. Add to this that WTC7 was a reddish-brown building - much like the building seen at far left in these images. There is only ONE way to explain why the WTC7 is depicted here as a greyish building : WE ARE LOOKING AT FAKE IMAGERY.

I rest my case: ALL of the existing 9/11 imagery is fake / computer-animated.
The only remaining problem is: most people don't believe this can be done.
Apparently, most people think that Hollywood movie-tech cannot be sold as news.

******
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS POST - DO NOT MISS THIS VIDEO:
Jeff Scarborough's "SEPTEMBERS CAMERA" - "Buy my book!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gv3M_xioLM

Jeff Scarborough interviewed on his brother's TV show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdj8qdRIq18

Morning all, I am an architect by trade and very good in ArchiCAD and also photoshop, plus an avid photographer and understand the logic behind structures and what should look right in images.

Now I have began building the Manhattan skyline in Archicad and have solved a puzzle of what you guys have been trying to work out with regards to the SIFF-POST and SCARBOROUGH images showing the facade debris shooting off the building. as shown above

I have made the entire scenery in ArchiCAD and added cameras at their exact locations and viola
It is 110% catagoric proof that the videos are impossible. please see images and you will see. I have added all building at the exact height and location (some of the shapes I havent made correctly yet as I made them boxes for now) and you will see what happens to the debris. its moves massively! it cannot be in that place on both images. I am going to begin doing the same for most of the photos and lets see what we get...


Here you can see I have added the locations of the cameras correctly



Here is the Siffpost one (see how the debris is almost the same location as in the video/image)



Here is the Scarborough one (see how much the debris moves, this can not be possible to be in the exact location on both videos/images) impossible...
Also a few more things to point out. see below image that I found of the World Trade Towers and surroundings. you can see clearly that St Johns university is there in the photo but where is it in either the SIFF-POST or Scarborough videos??? it should be a third of the way up the building behind it as shown in my render. but nothing whatsoever. so what they are saying is a building that was there before 9/11 and was there afterwards was missing for the day?



Let me know what you think?

[hoi.polloi]

It seems at first glance that this is a fine sort of confirmation of what anyone can already see in Simon's proof. Thank you for taking the time to try to make the point even more clear with 3D imagery.

However, I do want to ask if you can at all show us that you are matching the camera and not adding any sort of distortion or other trick. Can you overlay for readers the fake footage snapshots on top of your 3D image and show you are matching your "simulated lens" with theirs?

Also, to make it very clear I think I would want to indicate with imagery your critical point about the "missing St. John's university" building. Can you show us what building should be there in 2001 and then indicate in your new CGI images where it is missing?

I know that seems unfair to your hard work but please bear in mind that simple arrows and such can really help drive a technical point home for folks. Also, I might be the only one who would want this, so feel free to ignore my request if you think it doesn't serve your point well. Thank you again, and I hope that your efforts helps more people look deeper at the fake footage. This could be a series of great new proofs! Welcome to the forum!

[nonhocapito]

I'm with Hoi on this one, the presentation is a bit lacking. I don't see how we can say that the cameras are placed "exactly" where they were supposed to be. Wouldn't the use of a certain lens and a certain camera, and even the height of the person holding the camera alter the final result? (And we have none of these information, seeing that there wasn't any "person" "holding" any camera). It's just a small adverb, but the word "approximately" would have found much more appreciation from me, personally.

Furthermore, my impression is that there is no certainty as to where the big piece of debris is supposed to be... It could be much further or much closer to the building on the left and, correct me if I'm wrong, this would change the way it appears in the videos and even whether it can appear at all.

The two videos seem to contradict each other, this much is true. But being both fake products, I doubt we can "sc-sc-scientifically" demonstrate it. Ultimately, the element I find most compelling in Simon's investigation of this matter is the synced zooming-out, which, unsurprisingly, implies a very lucky zooming-in in preparation of the collapse. This, together with all the other similar lucky catches that have long been exposed on this forum, once again show the lazy, arrogant way in which the 9/11 theater was pieced together.

[biggesthoax]

OK leave it with me. but the height of the camera is only going to change very slightly and if the person was 5ft or 6ft it isnt going to make much difference. I am a photographer in my spare time and the lens will not distort the view and make any difference unless they were using a fisheye lens. the angle of view is exactly that. I will try and overlay both images from the video onto mine and thus try and get the location perfect and also the angle the lens was set at. then we can have another look. as with regards to the debris, I will try that in other locations and see where it changes but to me regardless where it is the position of it will change between shot locations and not be in the same place on both... leave it with me and I will be back shortly

[biggesthoax]

OK well I am back and I have found some interesting things, I found things I wasnt even looking for such as an outline around the right tower on the Scarborough zoomed in shot as shown below... this is strange where no smoke has gone into the outline, and as you will see I have overlayed the two Scarborough shots and they match up perfectly to show everyone when you zoom in and change the angle of the lens nothing changes to distort the image. it purely zooms in closer.



Also I have managed to line up the camera perfectly. it was actually positioned a lot further back than what it was before. I found this out on google maps street view as the signpost is still there and you can get a good idea of where it was shot from. now I have a problem... every single building on the left works almost perfect (see transparency between two images) but the tower (WFC 3) on the right is not even close to being in position. how is this possible? look at the image below and you will see just how close the tower is to the Verizon building and also the World Trade tower. now if I move the camera so it becomes into position everything on the left goes way out. the only thing I can think of is if the map is wrong so I have put it in the wrong place...

[hoi.polloi]

Nice progress, thank you!

Can we see some numbers for your building distances and dimensions to make sure you aren't confusing the location/size of the building? If you have trouble acquiring those numbers, please let us know where you are trying to get them. Bear in mind that Google/Keyhole/In-Q-Tel is basically military intelligence and I would not put it past Google to give very sloppy numbers in some areas. After all, view counts on our videos change (negatively or positively) often enough to show they don't mind messing with numbers to create confusion.

A lot of Simon's research has shown that they had some big issues with 2D/3D perspectives, almost as if to make the production cheaper they rendered out layers of buildings and moved them in a compositing program. If you could figure out if you could render the "background buildings" so that they all align, and then make a separate render for the "foreground buildings" and overlay them to get the same effect as the official "(simulated) footage", and it's proven to be a better method than a simple 3D render of specific accurate locations, we would have a very convincing proof of that compositing method, which we theorize they used at times.

Otherwise, of course, it's possible their software was buggy in many other respects (i.e.; an inaccurate 3D model or three ...) but if we're going to be accusing them of inaccuracy in that particular way, we better be damned sure we have the right numbers and make it very clear.

Also, that low missing building — was it really supposed to be there in 2001? Conspicuously absent ...

It's not too important to show ourselves why it's so fucked up looking but for others it could be quite compelling. You'd have to, on the one hand, disprove any straight-up 3D position giving us a shot like the official footage — and to really drive the point home such that it enhances what Simon's already done with simple pictures — also prove that by distorting the city you can create an accurate reproduction of their bizarro fake New York. I only see such a proof helping our research, not hindering it. Especially if you can account for the problems they had with motion, where their composited layers didn't behave like a 3D render, but more like a crass layering effect.

[nonhocapito]

I am a photographer in my spare time and the lens will not distort the view and make any difference unless they were using a fisheye lens.

I think you're wrong. All lenses cause distortion except 50mm. Different kinds of distortion (https://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl ... distortion). It is also important to notice that such distortion will be absent from a 3D rendering, which creates images in perspective but does not suffer distortion from curved lenses. I imagine it could be hard under certain circumstances to make a photo (or a 3D rendering processed to behave like a photo) and a simple 3D rendering match.

I also wouldn't discount the possibility that in creating the 9/11 theater physical models of the city were used, filmed with real cameras and enriched with special effects and greenscreen scenes.

[Coldacre]

really nice to see those overlays, great work!

[Nathan Draco]

Thoughts on use of scale models for the footage showing the burning towers?

I believe it's very likely that they employed methods of compositing foreground shots at ground level with crowds of people faking panic with backgrounds shots showing scale buildings burning and collapsing.

It would explain why videos of 9/11 look "real" in the sense that building facades reflect light correctly and smoke/dust move and look in a way that's impossible to simulate even now with the best 3D rendering programs. BUT problem is that the scale of everything doesn't seem to look right. That's my main gripe with the footage. The sense of scale isn't matching up to what it's supposed to be depicting. Smoke flowing from the towers don't billow as much as they SHOULD. What I mean by that is think about how smoke behaves from sources like a single campfire or a tire burning compared to larger sources like a forest fire or volcanic eruption. The larger scale sources would have MANY more "rolls" and individual plumes. So when you see pictures and videos of what's SUPPOSED to be the "real" twins towers burning and the smoke doesn't behave as it should in a situation like that, you get a "scale dissonance" of sorts. That's also why the collapse footage looks "real" and "fake" at the same time. Pieces and chunks of the tower go flying out as if they didn't have weight to them, but the dust plumes and illumination of the area look natural.

It makes sense to use scale models instead of 3D CGI renderings because CGI models at the time didn't look real and smoke effects would look ATROCIOUS. But with scale modeling everything is real and natural so it represents reality, by default, better (to a certain point). The issue with doing that though is, like I said, scale. They COULD have went and made full-size replicas of the towers and new york to remedy that issue but that would not be cost effective nor worth it. Smarter to build more along the lines of 1/4th size replicas of the towers and composite them in shots of previously recorded real new york where needed.

Below are photos of scale building replicas.



















Interesting thought, no?

[sublimity]

^Cluesforum member Tufa has posited this idea and has uploaded a video called "Fullspeed 911", that brings up the "scale dissonance", as you refer to it. I do believe they used scale models in the mix, as well.

[Nathan Draco]

^Cluesforum member Tufa has posited this idea and has uploaded a video called "Fullspeed 911", that brings up the "scale dissonance", as you refer to it. I do believe they used scale models in the mix, as well.

I am aware of his video as it was the one that turned me on to the the idea of it. Very smart person he is.

[brianv]

Few of you youngsters will have seen the video I did under a pseudonym on Youtube many years ago.

I'll post you two "screenies" from it.

"Naudet"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjBDugD35o8

"Snoop Pop Video done in (same?) Model Studio"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsfzAvOrjrc

[ObamaSimLaden]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te6VBiRjhqA

Always liked this tune.

[simonshack]

Always liked this tune.

Hmm...interesting. I see that this Rolling Stones video was directed by David Fincher - the director of the movie "FIGHT CLUB" (1999).

If you've never heard of the "FIGHT CLUB", here's what we can read about it on Wickedpedia:

"In 2006, the British magazine Total Film voted Fight Club number four in the 100 Greatest Movies of All Time, beaten only by Jaws, Vertigo and Goodfellas at 3, 2 and 1 respectively." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fincher

Here are the very final seconds of the 1999 movie "FIGHT CLUB": https://youtu.be/E1d5VvCa8Fo?t=32

You may notice that, apart from the two collapsing towers, the finale also features a 'subliminal' flash frame of a flaccid, circumcised penis (at exactly 0:43 of the above-linked Youtube clip). Interesting, isn't it?

[hoi.polloi]

To add to that, it's a movie that may actually be nihilistic and not just commenting on nihilism. Like the dreadful source material by Chuck Palahniuk, who (as far as I know) hasn't really indicated well that he isn't a psychopath himself. Does anyone know otherwise?

His character "Tyler Durden" which is a sort of nihilistic personality of the main (insane) character (or possibly author?) claims to have included frames of adult imagery in movies by replacing frames individually, just to be "cheeky".

It may also be a kind of admittance of the childish power high of these connected Hollywood types. Perhaps we should add David Fincher to our list of suspicious directors, which presently also includes James Cameron, who may have directly helped with the 9/11 directing and effects. But Hollywood itself is obviously a den of mobsters (apparently mostly run by old Jewish and Jewish-Hungarian power circles) so it's hard to say who there wasn't in the know!

We are gathering some clues, though. First "nose out" and now an "offending" ("offended"?) dick! Hmmm.

Compositing models seems like an easy trick they've been doing for decades. And perhaps a partial explanation for why the window sizes are so wrong at times. They composited actors/sims onto a model but didn't really get the proportions right and just slapped it in. Hence, King Kong man and other of the more obvious anomalies.