I agree.

This is one of those weird fakes ... like if it's real, it's not good. If it's fake, it's not good.

The message in general is not good. Haha!

Yes hoi .... but your post is a little unclear methinks..

again,,,

ANY pic of ANY 911 event is suspect? even when the guy/girl agrees with our particular point of view?

thats all.

In my opinion, every picture ever made is suspect at this point.

You can use one to prop up your particular point of view, but you'd better have a damn credible story about how believable it's supposed to be.

Personally, not a single image connected to 9/11 has been convincing to me as representative of reality. Care to propose one that is?

This post has been edited by hoi.polloi on Oct 23 2010, 03:27 AM

cant really think of any! anyway this is not 911 but Blairs recent book signing in Dublin..I think it is real because I was there!
El Muppet flew in ..the most surprising thing was all the people lining up to get their books signed by El muppet.

The aim of all this hoax stuff is to make people not know what to believe ... the 'truth' being something which fits in with 'one's lifestyle'

woke up this morning sitting in Kitchen chair...respect!

I don't know if that's the aim of all of it right this instant, otherwise they wouldn't be putting so much effort into Alex Jones ... but it will change the paradigm to one you describe eventually when people wake up to the fact that AJ is a pile of walking bullshit.

"[T]he 'truth' being something which fits in with 'one's lifestyle'" is an idea that could definitely change our long-term thinking.

But even if that's so, people have always doubted history. And as it turns out, that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?

Personally I think this stage isn't the evil conspiratorial aim of the perps, it's the inevitable evolution of the Internet - a technology that allows for near perfect anonymity but can be overseen by the military from many angles and therefore they always have the advantage of information.

So much for WTC6 RUBBLE IMAGERY. Clearly forged horseshit. Period.


Let's now have a good look at the alleged WTC4 RUBBLE IMAGERY.
The idea was, of course, to provide alarming, gloomy and gripping sceneries to the public.


As many as 3 professional press photographers lent their names to these manipulated pictures. Shame be on them all. (I'm quite familiar with James Nachtwey since the late eighties - back then I was an avid reader of both Time magazine and Newsweek...):

Clockwise from top left: 1:Allan Tannenbaum - 2:Aris Economopoulos - 3 and 4: James Natchwey

As we take a closer look at these shots, here's what we may observe.

White spots are seen - and not seen - on top of the alleged WTC4 building.
You are free to believe that some goofy dude spilled his latte on the pictures...


In the below photos, we see (on the left) two pieces of WTC2 who apparently tumbled down and landed upright, smashing into the tarmac slightly east of WTC4. On the right, we have a piece of rubble supposed to be a chunk of WTC4. Is it black? Is it white? It depends on which picture you prefer!



Do the perps drink too much Coca-Cola?

(Note: I have lightened the right half of the 2 above shots to show more details)

Here's the basic, same view again - seemingly at Christmas time...


But let's stay serious and analyze these pictures with due rigour.
Here we compare two views which feature a moving traffic light:


Now, please get familiar with RUBBLE "A", RUBBLE "B", and RUBBLE "C":


Ooops!... Does RUBBLE "C" (meant to be the largest intact chunk of WTC4)
look like the very same building in both of these pictures? What the heck is going on here???




And just to round it off...

Well, this is kind of what I concluded, they seem to be a collection of objects and people put together to make one image. Its quite easy to do with Adobe Photoshop software.

This post has been edited by simonshack on Oct 24 2010, 01:24 AM

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 24 2010, 03:12 AM

They seem to be doing some kind of "lunar landscape theme" with rubble in blurry detail-free monochrome and the art asset inserts (coke truck, police car, soldiers, etc.) in color.

It reminds me of the flag raised on the moon shot, with the flag in red-white and blue while the "moon" was in near lline-scale high-contrast B&W.




Why are all these buildings in black-and-white? Look at any real picture of the WTC complex or a demolition, there were plenty of beige tones etc. The whole "nuclear winter" scene is some deliberate art director's choice, IMHO.

Non-monochrome rubble from regular buildings: real rubble is colorful.





Where are all the silk neckties from the 3000 murder victims? Maybe you'd see some arms and legs and head or two, a couple of feet, some high-heeled dress shoes... think about it.

Didn't some of the fancy offices have ceramic tile or marble? How elevator cables... how do you have a giant building collapse and the only color you see is a Coca Cola truck or the door of an NYPD car? It makes no sense to me.



This post has been edited by fred on Oct 24 2010, 06:29 AM

cont'd



You would think that there might be a leather sofa or a wooden bookcase or a red coffee mug or an oriental rug somewhere in that big building. Did all that stuff get vaporized too along with all of the vicsims?

I'm not sure how you blow up a building full of all kinds of different material on a sunny day and have everything turn black-and-white except a handful of Americana objects in the foreground. (flags, police cars, coca cola, etc.)

Besides, shouldn't there have been a couple of burst water mains anyway? Wouldn't the standpipe in the building flood?



Wouldn't there be a spot or two of mud instead of just all that dust? Did the firemen turn off their hoses right before the "collapse"? Why is the scene so dry? Shouldn't something be on fire? If they put water on it to extinguish the fire, shouldn't parts of it look hosed off? Shoudn't we see partially burned stuff that we recognize?



I just don't get it. It's almost like the whole thing doesn't look real.



What kind of raging fire turns the whole background to grayscale but leaves the yellow traffic signal and red no-parking sign alone? Very curious.



This post has been edited by fred on Oct 24 2010, 07:13 AM

Splendid dissertation, Simon. And there's still the West street side to cover

I think a good starting point for West Street, incidentally, can be the photos one "anonymous photographer" supposedly took on October 3, 2001, and Cryptome AKA John Young later posted

http://cryptome.org/wtc/wtc-photos.htm

"AP" apparently followed the dotted routes:



For now I will note that one photo includes one "Battalion chief", without battalion number (photoshopped out to protect an identity?):



and a photoshop color replace error seems to have affected the tip of the can in the back.

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 24 2010, 06:49 PM

simon... bravo! bellissimo! encore! this threads warming up nicely...
getting very interesting...
& chiming with a lot of what i think i 'see' aswell.
much more to come very soon...
b&w monochrome rubble? very slick & eighties... all moody ultravox-'vienna' era =)
what no sepia?
think 'this' is wtc '5' ?
(in as much as this horseshit can be broken down into easily-digestible pieces!)
photoshop f**kery! gotta love it !!!
chiaroscuro amicos...
"uses of light and dark to achieve a heightened illusion of depth"
(ask caravaggio..... the master!)

god damn! looks as if wtc 4 and wtc 5 are INTERCHANGEABLE !!!
more laters... !

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 24 2010, 01:44 PM

In this Sonnenfeld 'photo', the exterior cladding of the WTC in the center background is cylindrically shaped. In fact it looks like the Colosseum has landed in NY central to help with the clean up.



On a humorous aside, Sonnenfeld's asylum in Argentina and claims of being persecuted by US intelligence agencies turns up this 'photo'!




Quote"Sonnenfeld and his family are frequently harassed, followed, and photographed, as shown in this photo."

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

Poor Kurt, the slings and arrows! From being a one time idealistic young man doing your very best for your country, to life on the run being followed by shady men whose hands we know not what they do under the cover of that bush. And all the while you have that dark shadow hanging over you - the matter your wife's mysterious demise and your possible involvement in it! The only piece of the story missing, is that you turn into a big green hulk man when you get understandably angry.



http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13811770

The story of Sonnenfeld is so ridiculous, because the reason he pretended he was harassed, were exactly the photos later released inside the "WTC photos.zip" archive, and showcased in half a dozen meaningless videos as if they were the unpublishable ultra-secret long-awaited missing piece of the puzzle.

The photos, according to Kurt "el perseguido" Sonnenfeld, would prove "without a doubt" that the WTC had been demolished. This explained why his wife was "suicided" and he had to take refuge in Argentina like a fleeing nazi. Nothing less (but these scary things though, never really happen: and if they do, you don't really hear about it in advance).

Too bad his photos don't prove squat, except, like Simon showed, that it was "forbidden" to take pictures on the WTC "crime scene", and that the rubble looked very anonymous and strangely featureless, like Fred rightfully pointed out.

And too bad this was already well known, and for this nothingness we had to endure the Sonnenfeld fable for years while he was "brooding" (as in "compositing") this useless and confusing material.

For those who don't have them yet, the Sonnenfeld photos --> http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/WTC-Photos.zip

If you need help to fall asleep tonight:
The Sonnenfeld story --> http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-23/vide...onnenfeld-story
and the Sonnenfeld interview -- > http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 24 2010, 04:28 PM

Ugly path tool copies and insertions. Look at guy's outline!

Woof!



This post has been edited by brianv on Oct 24 2010, 05:11 PM

I don't get it. What could the purpose be for the perpetrators to photoshop the rubble? What does this mean?

Simple. The real post demolition "rubble" wouldnt quite fit the bill with the public perception of a "terrorist attack" on fully loaded buildings. This lends to the idea, which we have examined, that the buildings weren't quite what they were made out to be -- ie empty and already gutted! All that needed to be removed were the exterior steel shell walls.

This post has been edited by brianv on Oct 24 2010, 05:55 PM

I think that not having the rubble imagery under total control would mean leaving potential clues unattended. It was OK to hint at the fact that the towers could have been demolished (to confuse people), or, apparently, even nuked (as new stories have to be made up over time to keep the confusion fresh): but not OK to actually make it provable by letting everyone judge with their own eyes the true nature of the rubble.

As Simon said, it is possible that elements of what we see in the pictures were taken from reality, but nothing in the final result can be "accidental" or honest.

This is not about 'photoshopping' the rubble' - as in 'creating the imagery from scratch' (as was - mostly - done for the 9/11 TV broadcasts). It is about telling the visual story that the perps needed to tell.

I hope this is not too difficult to grasp. I have been trying to express this concept for years now : there are MULTIPLE ways of forging imagery for a given end - and to sustain a given fantasy-script in the eyes of the public.

So let's see: what was the official story supposed to convey? We can break it down into the following 3 easy parts, in order to put some order in our reasoning processes:

1: "The towers were hit by 2 commercial airplanes".

2: "Devastating fires ensued, weakening the structure of the WTC towers and causing their collapse."

3. "The New York Fire Department (NYFD) heroically fought these fires and lost 343 of their men in the process."

We know, of course, that this is pure hogwash. Even those people still believing the official story will remember only some top floors of the towers 'on fire' and gushing some black smoke and soot. Yet, those people obviously needed the full visual tale to match with their beliefs - from beginning to end. "The end" was, of course, the aftermath with the Ground Zero scenery and everything that supposedly took place there. The lead actors of this movie finale had to be the FDNY firefighters (+ the various 'first responders and rescue teams') - and their heroic struggle to put out the devastating fires and the 'painful search for survivors'.

Since what took place in reality was a plain controlled demolition, NONE of the above heroics would exist on film. This part of the tale HAD to be told - somehow - and backed up with imagery. I will now start a new thread dedicated to "THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS" - and to the imagery which was (and had to be) put together for this all-important part of the official saga.


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

To specifically address the question of "Why Photoshop the Rubble?", I will propose the below image and text. Please understand that I am not saying that this building never was struck by WTC debris and that what we see is totally fake. However, there is a huge problem with this picture - and I suggest a possible explanation as to WHY we are presented with such absurd imagery:

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 25 2010, 01:12 AM

The Colosseum in Rome is subconsciously mimicked to lend jingoistic weight to the "fall of Empire America" theme. It matches the stadium wall that declines from left to right. It's an icon of the West of the monument flattened and ingrained in our memories so well people don't actually know what the East side of the Colosseum looks like! Just try to find a picture taken from the other side. 99% are taken of the West-Northwest wall.

Here is one of the only ones I found taken from the opposite side:
http://inwardsun.files.wordpress.com/2010/...-by-night-2.jpg

By giving the average American an apocalyptic image of "the decline of great power" mixed in the staged joke of 9/11, they open up our heads for "big changes".

Open wide for the Patriot Act! Say, 'aaaaah.'

To the right in the picture in front of the guys in green helmets there is 2 measurement tools on stands and a third one very far out only half visible in the picture. These tools are used at a construction site not on a demolition site...

Correct Walkinwizard. Also the guy in the centre appears to have no thumb on his left hand in addition to some unnatural looking blemishes on his face. Check out his eye socket, he doesn't seem to have any eye either.

Okay guys, thanks for your reply's. You see, sometimes I feel confused as to why some things seem to be faked as I can think of no good reason for it.

One question is still bothering my mind. What about FEMA pictures like this?:



This one seems to be a very good Photoshop or is this a real one? I question every picture now, but I can't seem to manage understanding why pictures like these are fakes too. I mean... was there a big smoke/dust cloud anyway? People who were watching from a safe distance should have seen this major cloud over Manhattan, didn't they?

On the other hand.. I've just found this one:



This one displays some nice straight edged dust cloud near the black building...

Source: http://www.cracktwo.com/2010/05/911-fema-v...round-zero.html

This post has been edited by fakers911 on Oct 25 2010, 08:50 PM

bin

This post has been edited by Terence.drew on Oct 25 2010, 09:01 PM

Those instruments are "laser range finders" or the analogical equivalent... they are used in topography, landscaping and any kind of construction yard. It makes sense to use them in a debris removal site since you have to measure the pieces and put them down on a map before you can plan their removal (it certainly would be interesting to see that map.)
I find it funnier to see a wooden chair and a shopping cart on the scene, but I guess they "had to do" with what they had: its' not like the most important city of the richest country in the world, with the best-equipped military, was involved
By the way, where is the military? Why they apparently were not involved in the logistics of the removal?

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 25 2010, 09:03 PM

And those super bright lights in the middle of the day at the lamp post that is in
horizontal mode, i wonder were it is connected...

I would not stand there guys... that's dangerous... even with helmets!

NIce fit Hoi!




In the original 'photo' below, the sky directly above the far left edge of the WTC Colosseum is darker. This could be a building behind but looks like bad matching in photoshop as the line of sky follows the line of the Colosseum.









EDIT:

Gladiator view.



This post has been edited by Terence.drew on Oct 25 2010, 11:43 PM

what kind of tractor has a left and a right working arm?