NO SEPTEMBER CLUES MENU ABOVE? CLICK HERE TO RE-NEST IN forum.septemberclues.info. OR CLICK HERE to go to SeptemberClues.info


Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4  ( Go to first unread post )

 FAKING THE RUBBLE, Ground Zero photo fakery
fakers911
  Posted: Oct 25 2010, 09:14 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Member No.: 335
Joined: 29-September 10



QUOTE (walkingwizard @ Oct 25 2010, 10:13 PM)
user posted image

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

Duh.. Robotractor... ofcourse!
Mini Profile
Top
fakers911
Posted: Oct 25 2010, 10:07 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Member No.: 335
Joined: 29-September 10



Ouch... another good example. Look at the rusty bolts .. near the center of the far right side. And why is that guy in the blue FDNY jacket not wearing his mask? No wonder alot of them got sick this way...

user posted image

And this one... omg!

user posted image

This post has been edited by fakers911 on Oct 25 2010, 10:16 PM
Mini Profile
Top
Terence.drew
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 01:19 AM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 205
Joined: 10-April 10



There is another aspect to the WTC rubble which stinks. The Height of it.

In 1998 in Detroit the J.L. Hudson Department Store fell to controlled demolition. A building with a footprint of 220 feet sides and a height of 420 feet, roughly 3 times smaller than one WTC building but of a similar girth ( and also a structural steel building).

It fell and everything went deadly ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

Quote:
When the dust cleared, a debris pile averaging 35 ft tall and as high as 60 ft tall where the tower had stood was all that remained of the venerable Detroit department store.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hu...epartment-store

The images of the rubble we are looking at are seemingly dated a few days after the collapse. There are search dogs still and buckets and the entirety of the rubble.

The WTC is not a sprawling complex and the WTC buildings fell into an enclosed bowl shape.

Yet we see the footpath in a lot of the photos. People standing around with a bit of rubble behind them and recognisable footpath and road features like traffic lights etc.

user posted image




So how high should the rubble be?

Given that the Hudson building left a debris mound of 35 feet on average and that it is a similar enough design has a similar footprint but is 3 times shorter, the WTC rubble pile should average over 100 feet and as high as 180 feet in parts, even allowing for some of the wreckage to collapse into the underground area.


Whats does that look like?

100 foot Viking-proof dwelling in Ireland.

user posted image

100 foot lego tower.

user posted image

100 foot wave (or depiction of one)

user posted image

200 foot dog laugh.gif

user posted image


If these Rubble photos were shot near the WTC they were shot months after the collapse.More than likely they are all staged somewhere and photo-shopped.
In fact there is a kind of Brokeback mountain feel to some of them so maybe they were created post 2005!
Mini Profile
Top
reel.deal
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 02:41 AM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Member No.: 282
Joined: 15-August 10



QUOTE (Terence.drew @ Oct 26 2010, 01:19 AM)

So how high should the rubble be? ...What does that look like?



user posted image
user posted image
user posted imageuser posted image
Mini Profile
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 04:25 AM
Report Post


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,062
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



Cripes, you're right!

It's like the Shanksville airplane story. "90% went into the ground!" Very doubtful. These pictures are suspect for that alone.

Was there enough room underground for the wreckage of those buildings? Would they have really flattened out like a sprinkling of steel that settled in the shape of the buildings around them?

There is a missing set of images between the collapse and this set. Are these supposed to have been mere hours after the "attack"? If so, how is that possible?

Some of the big perps like Webfairy and her motley lot claim to have been allowed to take pictures of the machines removing such enormous amounts of steel to be turned into those Northrop Grumman military ships. Maybe those are supposed to explain the time difference.

But what kind of process was that?
Mini Profile
Top
nonhocapito
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 06:42 AM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Member No.: 249
Joined: 10-July 10



QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Oct 26 2010, 04:25 AM)
Was there enough room underground for the wreckage of those buildings? Would they have really flattened out like a sprinkling of steel that settled in the shape of the buildings around them?

For absurd as it seems, I think the official story is that most of the rubble did go underground.

Some of the pictures do show deep caves that descend within the rubble:

user posted image

Not that i am taking the above picture at face-value: notice for example the perspective error in the size of the little men down in the hole (the one in the upper right is way too small compared to how narrower the beam he is standing on becomes). I am just showing that the lack of rubble on the surface was implicitly explained with it being underground.

But I think underground there would be in fact enough room, provided the whole block was sort of hollowed out...
If I should take down those building with a controlled demolition, since they are so huge, I'd make sure I first have all the room available underground to collect all the rubble.

First off, collecting rubble underground means beams and pieces are not cast around too much (damage to side structures contained). It also means the rubble is away from the eyes of the citizens. And I guess it is also technically much easier to pick pieces up from the top down, rather than trying to bring tractors and people up a huge pile to remove the pieces.

So, regardless the fakery of the pictures, I think flat rubble is a sign of demolition more than it is of fakery. Flat rubble like this is of course *impossible* with the buildings just falling down without demolition charges making room for them... but the contradiction is never brought up by those who endorse the official fable.

As to the question why did they not just simply "made up" a more credible higher pile of rubble, I think the answer is that a huge pile was not there in reality, was not visible emerging from above the screens covering the yard or at the end of the streets from afar in the city. Perhaps reality and fakery had to be consistent on that one.

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 26 2010, 07:06 AM
Mini Profile
Top
walkingwizard
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 07:20 AM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Member No.: 344
Joined: 3-October 10



user posted image

So whats up with the papers stuck on the copcars wiperarms? one thing that struck me regarding all these pics except from all the photo shop stuff, is that it almost always feels that something is missing in the pics. What i am trying to say is as if they were real you wouldnt get that feeling. they pics are to staged i guess you could called it, even the ones that are so poorly made.
Mini Profile
Top
nonhocapito
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 07:39 AM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Member No.: 249
Joined: 10-July 10



QUOTE (walkingwizard @ Oct 26 2010, 07:20 AM)
So whats up with the papers stuck on the copcars wiperarms?  one thing that struck me regarding all these pics except from all the photo shop stuff, is that it almost always feels that something is missing in the pics. What i am trying to  say is as if they were real you wouldnt get that feeling. they pics are to staged i guess you could called it, even the ones that are so poorly made.

Yes pictures of the rubble are of course fake, compositions, but for the moment I tend to believe that they are fake within certain limits, as it might not have been entirely feasible to hide the rubble completely from the city, which means that certain parts that were visible from outside (because they were sticking out, so to speak) had to be visible in the pictures, and the same goes for those that visible were not (you could not invent things that were "sticking out").

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 26 2010, 07:41 AM
Mini Profile
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 07:50 AM
Report Post


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,062
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



That's true.

It's possible that the exercise post-9/11 was even more strenuous for the perps than during 9/11 because it meant keeping a constantly vigilant guard around the area. I wonder how it all went down. Strange to think about how much people were taking something casually while the perps might have been working 24/7 to keep the situation tight and under control.
Mini Profile
Top
Terence.drew
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 12:04 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 205
Joined: 10-April 10



QUOTE (reel.deal @ Oct 26 2010, 02:41 AM)

user posted imageuser posted image



LOL Reel.deal, brilliant.


Lets not do the work of the perps for them.

The 911 narrative runs like this; two giant buildings were hit by planes and collapsed from the top down onto the street below.

It does not say that two giant buildings were hit by planes and collapsed from the top down, AND that 90% of the building fell into an underground bunker and that is why 90% of the rubble in the photos taken a week after the collapse is missing.

The foundations were strong enough to hold up 500,000 tons of building (plus a factor of safety of probably 2 which makes each foundation good for a million tons).

The rubble is the same weight as the building minus the dust.

A typical debris mound of a steel structure building appears to be between 6 and 10% the height of the original building.
There should be a wall of debris at least 100 feet tall. There isn't. Explain Mr. Perp please?

Then we find pictures and accounts of the underground area of WTC which 'appear' to be walk aroundable and not completely squashed with rubble.

Here Kurt flashes a bit of muscle for us. (pic taken with a pinch of salt however)

user posted image

If 90% ( just my guess - rubble pile 10 foot instead of 100 foot) has disappeared for whatever reason in the immediate aftermath of the collapses (Sonnenfeld's photos typically have dates like 18th or 19th September )that is another glaring omission from the 911 narrative. The Shanksville airplane story is a great analogy Hoi.

These building were a quarter of mile high each. The idea that the rubble of these monstrosities packed itself up neatly and fit almost entirely into a much much smaller area beneath it is like me saying that last night I stood on a biscuit tin and hey presto! in a huff and jiffy I deconstructed my whole body and it packed itself into the tin with just my eyebrows and hair peaking ova the top.

This post has been edited by Terence.drew on Oct 26 2010, 12:07 PM
Mini Profile
Top
reel.deal
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 04:46 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Member No.: 282
Joined: 15-August 10



user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
Mini Profile
Top
reel.deal
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 05:00 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Member No.: 282
Joined: 15-August 10



9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPpiT9yMBXk...layer_embedded#!

@ 04:44; ...@ 04:50: "the debris is just unbelievable!"
...followed by a 'snappy' lawson 'soundbite' !!!

what is it about ground zero that makes it look so much more like a flat deserted used car lot
outside vegas, than the equivalent of 20 scrap-metal junkyards, piled on top of each other,
50 metres high? if thousands of tons of steel ripped right down 7 floors of basement foundations,
the whole 70 metre-odd high jagged-heap would be impossible to walk on. you would need to spend 6
months filling the 'hole' with about 2 billion tons of concrete just to get a level 'ground'
again, back up to the same height as the plaza. in reality, you could ONLY access ANY rubble
from above via cranes, and the whole unstable pile would have to be so carefully removed
piece by piece from the top down. like a GIANT game of kerplunk! theres so much bullshit.
the gnarled and tangled steel would make it impossible to walk around, let alone drive any
vehicles onto the whole wtc complex. all the twisted-up steel FEMA shots completely oppose
all the other plaza intact shots. i'm with terence, they all got made years later...'05 >,
using blended mixes of some actual debris with tons more stock & templated scenarios, staged
& created later on a set, a thousand miles away from NYC, a big pay-day art-project for a
team of perp photoshop-illustrators to spend years getting 'just right' ...FAIL !!!
the angles are wrong, the dimensions, the relative scale, the natural lighting, everything!
augmented reality. unreal...
Mini Profile
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Oct 26 2010, 07:57 PM
Report Post


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,062
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE
These building were a quarter of mile high each. The idea that the rubble of these monstrosities packed itself up neatly and fit almost entirely into a much much smaller area beneath it is like me saying that last night I stood on a biscuit tin and hey presto! in a huff and jiffy I deconstructed my whole body and it packed itself into the tin with just my eyebrows and hair peaking ova the top.


Well, if you removed all the water from your body - which is 70 to 90% water - you might fit in a cookie tin. Since the World Trade Center is approximately a million times larger than you, it was made of approximately 70 to 90 million per cent water. Therefore, even before the jet fuel explosion evaporated the water, there was virtually nothing composing the towers pre-attack, and the remains of the airplanes fluttered down into the pit in the form of scraps of glittering, paper-thin shards of metal, where it coalesced into steel beams and terrorist-passport shaped rubble. There are no actual beams and cheap bandanas, but they resemble them. This is why everything looks a little "off".

You are debunked, terence!

Where's my NASA ticket to Mars, Simon?
Mini Profile
Top
idschmyd
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 01:15 AM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Member No.: 15
Joined: 19-October 09



QUOTE (Terence.drew @ Oct 26 2010, 01:19 AM)
There is another aspect to the WTC rubble which stinks. The Height of it.

In 1998 in Detroit the J.L. Hudson Department Store fell to controlled demolition. A building with a footprint of 220 feet sides and a height of 420 feet, roughly 3 times smaller than one WTC building but of a similar girth ( and also a structural steel building).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg


Nice squibs!

This is the problem Judy Wod was trying (quite successfully) to deal with - set phasers to 'discredit'. It was still working on me since I'd chucked out the 'lack of rubble' aspect with the rest of her bathwater.

do I trust the images enough to observe a paucity of rubble at GZ? Yea, I think so. It seems unlikely the lads would have produced bogus images of a low-rise or totally missing rubble pile to represent over 2500ft of demolished building if there had in fact been a predictably tall pile, and it would have been risky to try to hide 100ft of rubble with bogus pictures since the real pile would have been towering into the sky vulnerable to rogue and genuine photographry. So I accept the low-rise aspect of the otherwise phony and doctored images. I'm not clear why there is so little rubble, but as yet prefer the 'pre-gutted buildings' explanation to beams and nukes.
Mini Profile
Top
Terence.drew
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 02:20 AM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 205
Joined: 10-April 10



QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Oct 26 2010, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE
These building were a quarter of mile high each. The idea that the rubble of these monstrosities packed itself up neatly and fit almost entirely into a much much smaller area beneath it is like me saying that last night I stood on a biscuit tin and hey presto! in a huff and jiffy I deconstructed my whole body and it packed itself into the tin with just my eyebrows and hair peaking ova the top.


Well, if you removed all the water from your body - which is 70 to 90% water - you might fit in a cookie tin. Since the World Trade Center is approximately a million times larger than you, it was made of approximately 70 to 90 million per cent water. Therefore, even before the jet fuel explosion evaporated the water, there was virtually nothing composing the towers pre-attack, and the remains of the airplanes fluttered down into the pit in the form of scraps of glittering, paper-thin shards of metal, where it coalesced into steel beams and terrorist-passport shaped rubble. There are no actual beams and cheap bandanas, but they resemble them. This is why everything looks a little "off".

You are debunked, terence!

Where's my NASA ticket to Mars, Simon?



At 20,000 dollars per Kg just to get something even into space, a waterless and trimmer biscuit tin Terence would be a lot cheaper to get up there into________ and less taxing on the R.Shack coffers!

I could then just hitch a lift to Mars on the soon to be launched and fabulously over hysteria-engineered Alex Jones Alien crafts! I might just leave my ears behind if I have to listen to him on the way though.

This post has been edited by Terence.drew on Oct 27 2010, 02:21 AM
Mini Profile
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 05:08 AM
Report Post


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,062
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



Pre-gutted buildings makes the most sense. It makes sense in light of vicsim research and no victims. It makes sense in light of no real documentation allowed. It makes sense in light of the secret bidding war for the block of buildings that Silverstein won and got insurance on. Easier to buy a pre-evacuated building rather than a contract with tons of businesses and government organizations pre-attached. Can you imagine buying a building that the FBI worked in? Yeah right!

It was hard enough for the perps to hide 7 seconds of "real time" and convince us an airplane flew by and crashed in that interval.

It would be epic win for the perps if they managed to hide a gigantic pile of rubble for weeks let alone months or years.

Actually, I am normally not willing to say something like this, but I am pretty sure it would actually be physically impossible - no way - no how. You just cannot hide that kind of thing. There was no giant 100-foot pile of rubble by the time average citizenry was allowed on scene.

What was placed there in the so-called "aftermath" was probably something like a sprinkling of maybe real debris, along with pre-cut pre-fab beams from the actual debris (or maybe pre-made in a propaganda lab in some base) put there in a post-modern artistic display of "ruin" complete with a potentially real "Beam Colosseum", a definitely real cheesy metal Christ cross made of welded-together beams which I saw physically with my own eyes in New York when I walked by Ground Zero many years later, and probably a bunch of other bizarre performance art in the wake of the actual buildings getting a Copperfield style disappearance act on the morning of September 11, 2001. Perhaps there were actors like Steve Buscemi, Daniel Day Lewis, unelected "President" George Bush or scum like Giuliani passing buckets of ice to one another, tossing a few cold ones back and wondering about just how big their next contract paychecks would be when they are rewarded with movies and TV series for posing live at the scene.

The fake photos are as invented as the broadcast imagery to control the dialogue and the visual narrative. More opportunities for subliminal messages, more opportunities to make the photos and videos seem to come from less controlled and managed sources by the simple act of crediting more people, crediting sims and pseudonyms and people in your employ/control, and more opportunities to continue their simulation with people dressed up as fire fighters and hometown Amerukins, or digitally inserted, posing with print-outs of their never-existing "loved ones" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Mini Profile
Top
nonhocapito
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 06:42 AM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Member No.: 249
Joined: 10-July 10



QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Oct 27 2010, 05:08 AM)
What was placed there in the so-called "aftermath" was probably something like a sprinkling of maybe real debris, along with pre-cut pre-fab beams from the actual debris (or maybe pre-made in a propaganda lab in some base) put there in a post-modern artistic display of "ruin" complete with a potentially real "Beam Colosseum", a definitely real cheesy metal Christ cross made of welded-together beams which I saw physically with my own eyes in New York when I walked by Ground Zero many years later, and probably a bunch of other bizarre performance art in the wake of the actual buildings getting a Copperfield style disappearance act on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The pre-gutting of the towers, removal of furnitures, cables, machines, carpets, whatever, makes sense... But only the external structure, the core, the floors --of the two towers falling on each other-- should account for a pretty gigantic rubble pile anyway.

If we imagine that the interiors of the floors were removed in advance based on our observation of the photos (too uniform in itself, as it is made only of rusted beams and pieces of concrete), we implicitly admit that the photos of the rubble make sense as they are (except maybe for the super-imposition of "heroes" at work, and a few "dramatic" elements). Which might as well be, but in that case, we need to find a rational explanation for the disappearance of the debris that does not involve David Copperfield.

I again suggest that, as part of the controlled demolition, it is not unconceivable that enough room underground was open to fit most of the rubble into it as it fell down.

Since the towers certainly did not fell down the way we see in the videos, which is an impossibility, there is no reason to exclude that the controlled demolition had a part that included making room for the debris in the basement that extended itself five floors underground probably in the whole block.

Since after the rubble was removed from "ground zero", the whole block showed itself as being entirely under the level of the street for many feet. How would that be possible, if it was not already basically voided of structures during the demolition of the towers?

This post has been edited by nonhocapito on Oct 27 2010, 06:48 AM
Mini Profile
Top
reel.deal
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 11:08 AM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Member No.: 282
Joined: 15-August 10



user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
Mini Profile
Top
simonshack
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 02:23 PM
Report Post


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,274
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



OMG - a ghost-like policecar ! ohmy.gif

"...Who you gonna call?..."

user posted image


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Mini Profile
Top
brianv
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 02:40 PM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 730
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 09



That's preposterous! Great find!

A simple overlay of both images.

user posted image

This post has been edited by brianv on Oct 27 2010, 03:18 PM
Mini Profile
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 03:03 PM
Report Post


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,062
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE
Since after the rubble was removed from "ground zero", the whole block showed itself as being entirely under the level of the street for many feet. How would that be possible, if it was not already basically voided of structures during the demolition of the towers?


Copperfield is a great explanation for something we don't understand. A trick is a trick because we don't know how it's done, so there is no reason to exclude the term now just because we don't think the man himself was involved. (Wow, everyone is turning into literalists these days! Our job is going well. tongue.gif )

If I were using my own default logic, however, I would agree with you. I see no other explanation at this time except a combination of expedient removal, posing of propaganda elements (real or digital) and a large amount of debris going into the holes. There was - after all - a subway connecting employees to the WTC. Can something better be suggested than what you say yet? I don't know.

How was the thing shipped? In the Naudet film - which we might only believe because it would be hard to hide - they had construction cranes there for lifting to ships.
Mini Profile
Top
nonhocapito
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 04:29 PM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Member No.: 249
Joined: 10-July 10



QUOTE (reel.deal @ Oct 27 2010, 11:08 AM)
user posted image
user posted image

The contradiction between the two pictures is striking... anyway there could be the following logic:

The shot with the photoshopped firemen is proposed as an "earlier" picture, judging by the larger quantity of possibly photoshopped smoke. Maybe from the evening of 9/11. The picture with the car is proposed as a "later" shot, maybe of the morning after, when the first excavators have started making way by moving the larger pieces of rubble to the sides of church and cortland street (including the cars and other big chunks of metal).

Maybe, just maybe, this is supposed to be the same car, shown in cortland street before being piled up with other rubble:

user posted image

Never forget that to be useful in providing clues, the imagery should be clearly positioned in time, and when it comes to the rubble, the time can span across many days.

But maybe my assumptions are totally wrong. reel.deal, what is the source for the pictures? Are those screenshots from a documentary or something?

This post has been edited by simonshack on Oct 27 2010, 07:27 PM
Mini Profile
Top
simonshack
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 07:07 PM
Report Post


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,274
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE (nonhocapito @ Oct 27 2010, 03:29 PM)
Maybe, just maybe, this is supposed to be the same car, shown in cortland street before being piled up with other rubble:

Never forget that to be useful in providing clues, the imagery should be clearly positioned in time, and when it comes to the rubble, the time can span across many days.


By Jove, Watson! You're darn right! That's most probably (meant to be) the very same police car.
Hmmm, so let's see....this is what must have happened:

Dialogue between firefighters/demolition-cleaners Bob and John:

Bob: "Hey, that police car looks too clean. Let's set it on fire and flip it on its roof!"

John: "Cool idea, Bob! Let's do it !"

Bob: "Ok, and now d'you see that white-spotted, leaning black building?"

John: "Yeah?"

Bob: "Let's set it on fire too - those chalky white spots are just silly ! "

user posted image

Never forget, Watson..."Step one: Eliminate the impossible" - or, in this case, "the utterly preposterous"... dry.gif


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Mini Profile
Top
nonhocapito
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 07:28 PM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Member No.: 249
Joined: 10-July 10



QUOTE (simonshack @ Oct 27 2010, 07:07 PM)
Never forget, Watson..."Step one: Eliminate the impossible". (or, in this case, "the utterly preposterous"...)  dry.gif

You're right, it makes no sense. My bad.
And in this picture at the same scenery, we have the firemen and the "civilian" car, but no police car on top of it.

user posted image
Mini Profile
Top
simonshack
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 07:55 PM
Report Post


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,274
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE (nonhocapito @ Oct 27 2010, 06:28 PM)

And in this picture at the same scenery, we have the firemen and the "civilian" car, but no police car on top of it.

Yes, nonhocapito, "we have firemen" in this last version you posted.

Firemen. Firemen all over the place. Idle, absurdly and ridiculously inactive firemen - just STANDING around doing nothing. The recently released, high-quality "Rubble Imagery" is sprinkled with these uniforms - and so was the old, horrid, low-resolution, aquarell-colored 9/11 imagery which I have become intimately familiar with over the years. In fact, we (imagery researchers) were all EXPECTING that they would release wonderfully crisp, high-resolution imagery at some stage. That's precisely what they have done - gradually - and now in 2010 we are offered superbly sharp imagery...

A frame from an older History Channel documentary:
user posted image

It's all a flamin' joke. angry.gif


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Mini Profile
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 07:58 PM
Report Post


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,062
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



What could be the reason for a big player like History Channel to use such atrocious quality unless they were trying to cover up their CGI technology?
Mini Profile
Top
reel.deal
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 11:13 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Member No.: 282
Joined: 15-August 10



the 'stills' are all basically found simply by googling '9/11 ground zero' or similar, every so often i had a blitz & just saved a bunch of random pics i found intriguing. so unfortunately i cannot precisely source that advice... but the images i posted on this thread are all (so far) not screenshots i have done myself, although i do have some i would like to put up. so as far as i'm aware, each shot has some 'official' capacity to its release. actually, there is 1 screengrab i made, the one directly below snoop dogg kicking wtc'2' over, which i quoted the youtube vid & point in time it appeared. bizzarely though, & i couldnt swear on it, but i think the 1st of the second batch of pics i posted in this thread, which looks like an obvious screengrab, MAY have been credited to our old friend rich drew. its possible i bookmarked it, but probably not. anyways, this is all good clean fun dudes, thanks for throwing the great party, & lettin me crash! we're seeing a lot of photoshop fakery, & could it be we also seeing some photo-PROP f#*kery...? (disregarding the upside-down burned-out photoshop cop-car, i mean, more generally... ) photoshop & props, in the mix, in the re-mix, together? the plazas state? the debris? interesting...
theres some FEMA shots, and others, of these shards aswell, i'll get them up soon, trashing the trash, dudes!!! taking out the garbage! 9/11 photoshop fail...
Mini Profile
Top
reel.deal
Posted: Oct 27 2010, 11:55 PM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 96
Member No.: 282
Joined: 15-August 10



user posted imageuser posted image

This post has been edited by reel.deal on Oct 29 2010, 10:48 AM
Mini Profile
Top
Terence.drew
Posted: Oct 28 2010, 01:34 AM
Report Post





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 205
Joined: 10-April 10



Rubble in the Jungle. ReALIty versus ...?

Here is an account of post 911 Manhattan from the point of view of the impact it had on a business.

The story of a gym.

"Then, on Sept. 11, things went from bad to worse.

Few businesses in the U.S. were unaffected by the tragedy of September 11, and none were affected more than those located in the shadow of where the Twin Towers once stood. Tribeca is one of those areas. Authorities shut down lower Manhattan, which looked as though martial law had been declared. All businesses not related to the financial markets were essentially closed because employees and customers could not get to their locations.

"It took us weeks to get back down there," says Wilson. "At one point, when we were trying to get our contracting crew down there, they wouldn't let them in without some sort of letter because the area was heavily patrolled. We couldn't get any trucks in. It was just very restricted."

Meanwhile, losses at 24/7-Tribeca would amount to almost $3,000 a day while the doors remained shut in the aftermath of the tragedy. At least 20% of the gym's prepaid members worked at the World Trade Center. To help offset the losses, Washington and Wilson had stopped drawing full salaries by the end of September. "As far as sales were concerned, that was the end of it," Wilson laments. Though there was no damage to the Tribeca location structurally, the damage to the business was dramatic. "We put in an application to the Downtown Alliance and we did get a grant from them for $25,000. They also gave us a $25,000 loan."

NEW BEGINNINGS

Tribeca would finally become more accessible in December, and 24/7-Tribeca would open its doors on January 2, 2002, one year after it was purchased, six months behind schedule, and $150,000 over projected costs."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m136...ag=content;col1

Martial Law. Papers please - or no entry. Only 'business' people allowed access to lower Man. Not until December before the situation eases. How difficult would it be to hide Godzilla under such circumstances never mind a realistic rubble pile? It seems a little corner of North Korea migrated to NY and settled merrily down there for some Autumnal session Sun King Kim loving.

(caveat on above post 911 account - "At least 20% of the gym's prepaid members worked at the World Trade Center. " ? maybe they were booked in but never turned up. This peppers this account somewhat. Anymore accounts of post 911 lock down?)

This photo looks real but is credited to FEMA! ? Yous lads eyes are more honed than mine.
Anyway the sides of the buildings facing the site are completely covered in enormous red curtains? Are there a few fellows working in here? These are on display in a number of photos. Officially to 'protect' these facades or something, but unofficially to 'shield' prying eyes? This picture looks real to me but the date of October 4th I would say is rubbish.


user posted image

And another dated October 15th?


user posted image


911 like the moon missions and nuke weapons is above all simply an illusion. The grip on the people is so tenuous and so abstract the illusion becomes necessary to balloon the tiny minority and balloon their power base. The hint of things 'missing' from the rubble ,office stuff etc. actually comes from the firefighters in the Naud brothers flimsy( c.f. the 'brotherhood') as does the boom boom boom controlled demolition part of the narrative. These are taken up seamlessly by the 'truther' movement. The desired result? Advanced technologies. To mesmerize. Manoeuvrings and high powered know how thermite firmware 2.2 from the Government. Wow
impressive and scary. Everything just turned to dust. Wow. A small dusty debris pile.

When in fact it probably took 3 months to get it down to this level and a million angle grinder rings.

The moon, 911, nukes, sames tricks different pony.

And then we come to this image. All paths lead back to Kubrick. The master and (evil?) genius of illusion.

The last Beam.

user posted image


A Discovery


user posted image


A monolith


user posted image

This post has been edited by Terence.drew on Oct 28 2010, 01:36 AM
Mini Profile
Top
idschmyd
Posted: Oct 29 2010, 03:15 PM
Report Post


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Member No.: 15
Joined: 19-October 09



QUOTE (Terence.drew @ Oct 28 2010, 01:34 AM)
Rubble in the Jungle. ReALIty versus ...?

Perhaps it was the joke that knocked everyone out? Interesting post, showing the smoking flatland that was GZ. Red curtains seem not to have been issued to all buildings with view of the site, but perhaps there wasn't really much to hide from viewers in the buildings, assuming explosive residue would have been invisible, and missing bodies, plane parts and rubble not noticed or questioned. The Manhattan lock-down seems clear enough, but looking for more info. First hand account, anyone?

"Lower Manhattan, south of 14th Street, was off-limits, except for rescue and recovery workers.[24]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_and_re...mber_11_attacks

Still not clear why the lock-down, except to keep people out of GZ itself.
Mini Profile
Top
Next Oldest | PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD | Next Newest

Topic OptionsPages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1177 seconds