"a man stands in the rubble at ground zero with a fire extinguisher and calls out asking if anyone needs help"

OF COURSE THEY DO !!!

there's MINIMUM 5 PHOTOGRAPHERS here with some serious photoshopping to do...
there maybe NO VICSIMS, NO VICTIMS, NO COPS, NO FIREMEN, OR OTHER ACTORS TO BE SEEN, but
ALLAN TENNENBAUM, DOUG KANTER, JAMES NACHTWEY & ARIS ECONOMOPOULOS & OTHER(Zzz)...
KEEP RUINING EACH OTHERS' SHOT...

flags & lamposts, traffic lights, red & blue toyota pick-ups, cop cars & coca-cola trucks optional...

Yes reel deal,

it is all a dreadfully pathetic affair. I have not gotten down to analyze the WTC rubble images in proper fashion yet, but at first glance it all seems like just more of the same: ineptly photoshopped imagery. I know, this whole thing is getting quite maddening, but we can find some solace in knowing that the madness is not of our own making: it originates from the sick and mentally deranged people behind this gigantic hoax. Since those people appear to be thick as a brick, we can only hope they will soon be derided by the overwhelming amount of better people populating this world.

Much is wrong with the 2 pictures compared below - but I have only pointed out the "A" building which is all what's needed to show the artificial nature of these photos: the bottom part of the "A1" building protrudes way ahead of the large black building in the picture. It appears 'ghostlike' and quite horridly 'photoshopped' (let's stick to this familiar term for simplicity's sake):



Now, "A2" is obviously meant to represent "A1" from another angle.
However, unless you really wish to believe that the entire "A rubble" has been pushed backwards between the two photo shoots, it simply does not add up!

Then, of course, we have totally different-looking WTC beams on the left, a missing flagpole, and a crane (top right of big picture) with nothing attached to it at all !...


THICK AS A BRICK (great musical interlude for you all)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY

A1 is still A1 at top left in second pic @ right... just has the corner cut off @ lefthand
edge... you can tell that the angles are really different by wtc(4?) on the righthand
side of each pic ...it aint always going to be quite THAT easy!



This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 19 2010, 09:56 PM

No, don't do music, expecially not that - I get so emotional baby and it ain't helping to make sense of what the angles are in those pictures. You need a degree in WTC geography to make sense of it. Sorry if that makes me dunsky of the class. More explanation required for arguement and counter arguement. Meanwhile the quality of A1's surroundings... where TF is that pic from?

Since some real rubble actually must have been there after the towers were taken down, I don't know if we can yet say for sure that all the WTC rubble imagery is faked (although, now that I think about it, it would probably be needed to make the rubble consistent with the implosion pictures, where parts of steel are shown to be left standing, and all the rest pulverized etc)
Anyway sometimes the imagery of the rubble certainly looks weird and most times, where we have the "heroes" in pose, completely staged or photoshopped.

This one below comes from the FEMA photos in the "Kurt Sonnenfeld" zip file, and I think it represent the same scenery discussed above --from the side.
Could the black building part on the right be A1? It certainly isn't A2 (supposedly out of the picture to the right), but like reel.deel says I'm not sure that in those shots A1 is supposed to be A2.



Is this the same thing from yet another side? (talking about staged/photoshopped pictures) (also from the Sonnenfeld zip file):


This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 19 2010, 10:25 PM

not altogether sure exact link for each pic, stumbled on these couple nights ago, though...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...ero.html#ground

these 2 shards of wtc tower seem to 'star' in a lot of ground zero imagery. the 12 pics that head the thread meant to illustate how all these famous (nachtwey) photographers all descended to the same spot, in the immediate aftermath. the sunlight & smoking ruins are roughly the same. and yet, there is still much obvious disparity between them, and photoshopping. the cola truck in pic 6 becomes flat-face cabin truck in 8 & 9, being the most obvious example. the last 2 pics, 10 & 11, i put to show how close they were to wtc 4? (i think?), the whole time. obviously, at some point, the fakery switch is flicked back off and ground zero pics depict reality again, but thats the crux & mystery of why we're all here at the shack, aint it! its kinda like 1 whole big game (hunting!) of photoshopped cgi chess... i think the fakery had to mirror the reality pretty accurately, for instance if the smoking, still standing wtc towers had the wind blowing the wrong way...?!? that would be instant FAIL right there. ...i'm just as curious as you guys, i was up 'top of the world' sth tower in '99, i stood right on the super-thick glass panels and stared straight down 109 storeys beneath my feet.

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 19 2010, 11:06 PM

It looks as though the crowd of guys on the right was added into the picture, particularly the guys in what looks to me like military garb. They don’t look like they fit into the whole scenery at all. I don’t remember it ever being reported that the military was there. Maybe all of the pictures are just a bunch of different images of objects and people put together, like a collage.

Come on now, people: It's high time to call it a day. This is plain stupid.
If you don't get this, you have NEVER held a camera in your hands...

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOW EXACTLY DID THAT BLACK BUILDING TILT SIDEWAYS AS IF SUCKED DOWN BY A LANDSLIDE???? WHAT FANTASTIC FORCES MADE IT SLIP DOWN SIDEWAYS INTO THE EARTH???
Perhaps due to "falling debris of WTC hit by passenger plane?"

ARE WE ALL IDIOTS ON THIS PLANET? ARE WE ALL SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THIS FARCICAL AND PATHETIC CRAP ?

And I'll say one more thing: If you don't get this, you are not going to be a credible member of this forum.
I hate to say this, but we really need to move on now. These idiotic composites are only more confirmation of the basics of the 9/11 trickery which called for a TOTAL HIJACKING of the visuals of the event. No real photos were allowed of the WTC rubble - the "Ground Zero" area was simply cordoned off. No one was allowed to take pictures of it, and there were even plenty of WARNING SIGNS around the area (courtesy of major Giuliani) threatening the confiscation of your camera if you only dared to snap a picture there! Come on, folks - wake up !!!

Those "RUBBLE pictures" are only a work of fantasy! Since they used high-grade explosives to destroy the entire WTC complex, they had NO DESIRE to show the whole world the actual rubble of this destruction. How hard is this to understand?

I really don't think that I, Simon Shack, need to convince you of the existence of imaging tools able to show you whatever you are supposed to see. Have you NEVER seen a Hollywood movie in your entire lifetime?

there! thats better! ...fish-eye lensed!
its landscape not fish-eye... ok

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 20 2010, 02:08 AM

I know you probably have discussed this a hundred times Simon, but some of us haven't yet (I haven't) and because one person cannot figure out everything by himself, and the material on this forum or elsewhere is quite vast to be taken all in (it must happen over time, over years of research), maybe there is no need to question the "credibility" of people for this (well, it's your call, of course).

Anyway, your arguments make perfect sense. I wanna expose my line of thought only because possibly it can be useful to others:
As we all have seen and discussed many times, a big part of the perpetrators' plan was to include elements to divert attention towards pre-cooked "conspiracy" interpretations, including some unspecified and unprovable form of controlled demolition as evidence for the "inside job". So, because the WTC crime scene is, among other things, the scene of a controlled demolition, one could think that this is where the two levels (reality and the conspiratorial diversion) could, at least in part, collimate. That's the misunderstanding.
I guess what's not considered enough is that you cannot use *just some* real imagery that might work to feed either the official or the conspiratorial stories. You cannot because you have to create a whole set and it has to be coherent in all its parts: the planners could not be sure that the result of the demolition would fit harmlessly in its entirety, not even for the purpose to feed the conspiratorial crowd. This, in my understanding, is why reality had to be avoided completely also in presenting "the rubble".

For example, pictures like this one:

have a hazy nature that is perfect to be fed to the "conspiracy" crowd (rather than to the "official story" crowd). Those craters in the buildings look weird and yet they don't provide any answer or give out any useful clue.
Conversely, the perpetrators of the plan couldn't be 100% sure that the real imagery of a high-grade explosive demolition rubble would maintain those two qualities (drive the "people with questions" nuts, without providing any useful clue). Being reality, it probably would have provided some clue.

By the way, here is a larger crop of those buffoons in pose:

What a photoshop disaster... other than looking cut-out and pasted: The neck of the guy to the left; the "smoke" he seems to have in front of his face, while he is obviously not smoking; the lines on half of the face of the guy to the right... etc.

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 20 2010, 09:21 AM

Since I am digging inside the "Kurt Sonnenfeld" folder, here is another picture that could use some discussion (or not).

Weird white spots on the face, as if to confuse/track the identity represented:

Rain drops on the lens or rather left-overs of some device used in some sort of software? I can't answer to this.

** EDIT: I still have to figure out the identity of this one. Although other names surface as chiefs of Battalion 52, some say this guy is one "Joseph Pfeifer", chief of Battalion 1 (read his testimony on this PDF). Which begs the question, why the wrong hat?
Joseph Pfeifer on 9/11:

(I'm not sure this is the same guy)

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 21 2010, 08:11 PM

The chief 52 on his helmet is a Photoshop mess. It's blurry, and the angle is just wrong.

too right, i hadn't noticed



it is not centered either, even the way the whole plate sticks to the helmet seems wrong, at least in the upper part. Even accounting for "custom" plates it seems too large and of a too simple shape.

By the way, funny how vicsim Joseph Grzelak, "Battalion Chief", dies in tower one at 52 years old.

For your entertainment: in 2002 Grzelak got this message from his "daughter": http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/guestbook....=2&entry=706054

and this letter from his "wife": http://www.silive.com/september11/advance/...es/grzelak.html

Poor sim.

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 20 2010, 08:03 AM

nonhocapito,

You're right - sorry for acting like a human being yesterday, pardon...
I'll duly retract my undue statement and replace it with: "I'm glad we're more eyes looking at this ridiculous imagery to expose it ever more conclusively!"

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

reel deal,

You're absolutely right : A1 is not supposed to be A2! At further inspection, it's even crazier than that... Will soon post due correction and much more accurate analyses. Stay tuned - those rubble pics are quite preposterous!

lets nail this sh#t to the wall. even if it is trying to act like jelly.

the twin wtc shards have always bugged me, they're everywhere! and now the more
i look at it, their constant attendant slumped black building corner, has been
lifted & grafted in from elsewhere. to be specific, A1 does not exist. at least,
as an entity in its own right. it appears to have been a corner of either wtc6,
wtc5, or wtc4, that has always been an everpresent black bodyguard - to the
2 skinny white boy wtc 'star' tower-shards.

they get around, wherever you are at ground zero, they're always right there.
i think they started out supposedly near building 5, near the cortlandt st subway
entrance stairwell?, i dunno! but they seem to be down virtually every main street
surrounding the wtc complex, mugging for each & every photo-op goin...
they sure do get around! they're here, they're there, they're every f*#kin where...

man, i wanna bring those suckers down!










nonho... great take on the parallel fakery dichotomy,
simon... no-one can debunk anything you uncovered. respect, chief!

new rising sun overture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPcit14AScQ
.

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 20 2010, 02:35 PM

Super-thank you for this thread! I have been sitting around here -- since April 2009 --- and I am not professional at the Photoshop enough to analyse also the still pictures. This video comes to mind: WTC Ground Zero Fakekvideo

If we continue the thought, the "Rescue workers" that is supposed to be "hurt" and "dying" form the "poisonous dust" is almost surely also included in the lying also, and I'll bet we cannot contact a single "rescue worker" that actually in the physically true world was on the scene.

*******
Take a look on the pictures from the top of the thread. Look at the studio floor (or the "ground"). The WTC complex had the ground level 7 floors up, built of steel and concrete. Completely impossible all these pedestrians and trucks and whatever. Then we have the steel itself, that you can see in the pictures. It is not bent and demolished as it should be (ref: GRN movie; it is in Swedish). Not even consistent with a real controlled demolition of the WTC building. So, when you see the steel lying or sticking up, he picture is fake. It is not from the real rubble pile.
The red rusty appearance is also probably wrong; this would be easy to check?

Ref: public_images_WTC Photos.zip.torrent/FEMA_photos/ foto no 383,386, 389, 375, 381, 353.


This post has been edited by Tufa on Oct 20 2010, 05:04 PM

Yeah I'm loving this thread. OK, here is what I understand (apologies if I am stating the obvious).
The buffoons are posing-shopped in Church Street next to Liberty Street corner

roughly here in Google street view (notice the federal building in the back):

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=U...2,2.26,,0,-1.27

So in the WTC map, they're here


So the black building in the back would be building 5, the closest building 4.
The way I see it, the 2 white steel columns frames do not belong there. They would be "parts" of the south tower that "fell" right there above building 4 and "stood".

So this picture

would be taken from here (notice that we are in line with the sidewalk)

the black crushed thing being a piece of building 4

and this one presented by reel.deel

would be taken from here [EDIT: I corrected this one again: now I imagine it to be taken from Cortland street because of the various "street corner" elements, plus the visible edge of the building to the right]

which would mean that building 4 was sort of split in half by the debris of the south tower.
But how those huge heavy column frames got stuck like that? There is no reason that I can see except for the dramatic effect they convey

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 20 2010, 10:05 PM

Errata corige: I previously stated the the buffon to the left "wasn't obviously smoking". I now retract this since I noticed that he does have a cigarette



although between the wrong fingers (as a former smoker I remember that to rarely but occasionally happen). But noticing this, and appreciating yet another reflection, I also noticed how unbelievably small the yellow tape becomes as soon as it goes down the sidewalk. Gee. How high a sidewalk can be?

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 20 2010, 09:25 PM

question: where exactly is that 'slumped black building' 'debris' supposed to be, in reality?
answer: no reality. no location. a variable. a template clone. an illusion. photoshop.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=115522

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 22 2010, 01:03 AM

So what's the deal with this last post of yours, reel deal?

the physical impossibility of the perspectives, and the homelessness of the shards. its exactly like you said, the craziness of the photoshopped rubble photos. all 12 of the 'photos' at the beginning of the thread seem to roughly 'correlate', to some greater or lesser degree, 'anchored?' by wtc5... 'inside the plaza'... so the last picture with the XYZ & question mark is referring to the first 12 'photos', and questioning this supposed 'apparent' location. nothing more, nothing less. so thats picture 3 in the above post. an intended 'summary' of pics 1-12, that 'positions' the supposedly 'actual' A1 & twin-shards between wtc5 and wtc4. yes, i should have written this accompaniment description text with each last picture.

picture 1, from above, the 'close-up' of the (photoshopped in) military guys, has similarly got the same black 'A1' 'slumped' 'damaged building' detail as every other pic in this thread. a fraudulent photoshopped fabrication, which you so astutely mentioned has fake written all over it, as do all these alledged 'photographs'. picture 2, from above, which is itself a crop from the wider 'landscape' pic posted by nonhocapito, zoomed out from pic 1, is itself a zoomed-out fake detail.

i'm learning as i'm going along here, i'm not at all as 'savy' to ALL the fakery as your good selves, i guess i'm not half as much surprised by the blatently fake 'photographs' in this thread, than i'm surprised at just how OBVIOUS & DUMB it is!
seeing IS believing!... that everything really has been manipulated, and is a false & fabricated version, a sick twisted 'spin' on the real, actual reality.

i reckon that the military pic is a complete composite fabrication, the landscape format more or less dissected straight down the middle, with wtc debris applied. the perps used photoshop for their 9/11 psyop, extensively & absolutely, as you say. hearing that is one thing, but seeing it for myself, demonstrated, really confirms it to me. i hope i can help disseminate & demonstate the debris fakery too.

to look at it using an art-term, to deconstruct it, and break it down, makes it a lot easier to demonstrate to ourselves and each other the all-pervasive photoshop-fail of 9/11. this debris fail is brand new to me... i'd never really looked properly at any ground zero 'rubble' or 'debris' myself.

the perps love photoshop, their choice of weapon, so why shouldnt we? fight fire with fire... simon, you are the master of breaking it all down into easily-digestable, eye-widening astonishing pieces. dont ever change! i thought the pictures i posted above spoke for themselves. i should realise that we all perceive differently, and need to communicate exactly and accurately what we are trying to say. i dont know how you guys do it, english is my ONLY language,and i can barely ever use it properly. but back to the rubble, its looking so false & phoney, really really bad! lets trash it!

edit: it seems david copperfield turned up and actually sawed wtc 4 in half, then 'vanished' it, so have withdrawn my own 'mock-up' clone-stamp wtc4 version. oops! damn! i should have guessed...

the deal with the skyscraperforum link is as a resource for real pre-9/11 wtc images. yes, theres also lot of 9/11 crap on there aswell. maybe 1 day reality shack will be the only 9/11 research site where the word 'photoshop' is still allowed... this has got to be the only site you can link to that doesnt contain unchallenged fake 9/11 images and imagery. realityshack is the only site thats keeping it real - exposing the fakery.

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 21 2010, 12:51 PM

From a quick glance at the photos in this thread two words sum up what wrong with them; Perspective and Photoshoppery.

Thanks, reel deal

That's just what had me worried for a minute:That image you had photoshopped yourself...

See, you are not really disallowed to do such things here - by all means (although I know Hoi Polloi hates them) but please understand that - in such instances - you MUST state very clearly that you are the author of the photoshoppery!

However, I must thank you for starting this thread. The Ground Zero rubble imagery was something which I kind of didn't 'dare' tackle - but it has always puzzled me no end. Your welcome input gave me the 'courage' to take a good look at it - and I feel it has been quite rewarding. I will soon post the results of these last days of efforts and musings dedicated to this whole issue.

I have been scouring through hundreds of Ground Zero pictures and - as they say - a picture says more than a thousand words... So just imagine what hundreds can do !

There is all kinds of propaganda buried in the rubble, from the "Cross at Ground Zero" to the "missing rubble" that Ace Baker tried to use to sell Judy Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapon paper, to the "molten metal" and "cut beams" that Steven Jones used for his thermite assertions.



One can either believe the official story: that for some reason photography was officially prohibited and yet there were photographers climbing all over each other taking pictures--or one can look and see that the rubble photos are as controlled and fake as all of the other September 11 images.

While I am a "fan" or "believer" in exotic weapons, a bunch of fake photos does not an exotic weapon prove.

It's pretty obvious at this point, for anyone willing to look, that these "rubble" and "rescue" photographs are all part of the psyop.

While somebody may in fact have gotten injured on the job site, I tend to think that most of the "dying rescue worker" stories are propaganda as well.

Obviously there hasn't been a whole lot of actual work going on at Ground Zero, because almost a decade later it's still just a vacant lot.

One might think that covering the cross with graffiti would be a little gauche, but hey, a prop is a prop.



For those who haven't seen it. Here's a link to mega-shill Ace Baker's hunt the rubble page: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...es/HTRHome.html
Oddly, for someone who made a whole career out of 9/11 it's still claiming that some 3000 people died in the towers. I guess since he tried to fake his suicide on Jim Fetzer's radio show he's not getting paid to keep his site up to date...



This post has been edited by fred on Oct 22 2010, 04:39 PM

It appears that NO PHOTOGRAPHY was allowed at Ground Zero, as of an official order signed by NY Major Giuliani.
I am inclined to believe that this was actually the case:



So, what sort of justification would such a menacing WARNING SIGN have? What kind of problem would anyone cause to anyone by snapping pictures of the premises of such a historically defining, public event? One official motivation given was that "it was a crime scene". Oh yeah - it sure was !...

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: If you have had your camera seized by the authorities around Ground Zero, please get in touch!

thanks for the endorsement... and you're so very welcome. i really admire & respect all that you do here,
and its an honour to have this opportunity to be able to participate in the unmasking of the whole
'war on terror' scam. you guys are such an inspiration, this, right here, @ reality shack, IS
the REAL 'operation just cause'...
really appreciate getting the 'green light' on the whole photoshop subjective/objective.
really looking forward to future dissections of plenty more '9/11 photoshop fail'... =)

Simon Shack, human being extraordinaire ! And I mean it!

human beings are under attack from all angles and there is an all encompassing attempt to lock us all into a non-mysterious, heartless, techno materialistic existence -

capitalism and communism are the same argument over property and DNA after all!!! .... big f*(king deal!!!!... what about soul heart and passion ?

Lets have a party on line at an agreed time and all get drunk and post on one thread ! we can always delete it!

Simon you are great man.
non obsequious here.
For the greater good.
I/we appreciate your efforts and it has been a major part of my life to host your vids on line for the last 3 years online and follow that line of truth

I may not the sultan of sobriety writing this post but the need to go to level 2 is evident.
In confidence .

All they have is the periphery of your imagination and nothing of the physical ....

Simon man I have to say this. Your brilliant work aside .

Lets be 100% consistent. This' pic' is another 'pic' taken at ground zero and so must be a contender for 'fake'. Just because the message agrees with what we want to say don't mean it is real) if you get my drift...

Which is why he's asking for anyone who had their cameras confiscated to come forward, just in case, I guess.

For sure Dcopymope) but lets all be 100% clear though that anything 100% claiming to be what it is - is 100% back up - able of what 'it is' . This photo of the guy pointing at the no photo sign is prob fake also given what we know about the rest of the fake symphony! Know what i mean? it agrees with our OUR narrative but a football match is not believable unless there are 2 FOOTBALL TEAMS !