An Open Letter to Simon Shack and Hoi Poloi

Published by Steve De'ak on

This is a reprint of something I posted ages ago. Apparently, Simon Shack is still peeved about the fact that at the time, if you did a Google image search for “Simon Shack,” the first hit was yours truly. That’s right, if you Googled Simon, you got me. HAHAHA!

This was not my best work, which is why I deleted it, but for the sake of posterity, and for the sake of the truth, which is what we all allegedly have in common to begin with, I’m reposting it now. It has been a decade or more so, I can honestly say that this has nothing to do with knowing Simon Shack, AKA Simon Hytten, is still pissed-off about it. Maybe just a little bit.

On to the post that got me to the top of the Google search results:

 

I recently lost my temper and all decorum at the September Clues forum.

On my own blog I stress wanting to keep it civil and avoid “serious insult”; and consequently, my own hypocrisy is there for all to see.  So, I figure I have nothing else to lose by spilling my guts. 

This is why I lost my cool and went all “blue” on Simon Shack:

To Hoi Poloi and Simon Shack:

Let’s not mince words, September Clues blew me away; it was such a new and unexpected concept that to this day I can’t imagine how you were able to compile all the footage, watch it all, digest it all and release it all just six years after 9/11.  It’s no wonder some people genuflect to the Shack-Poloi dynamic duo; good grief you performed a supernatural feat!  I was once firmly on your bandwagon but now that the CGI mist has faded from my eyes, I am beginning see things more clearly.

For the last few years in celebration of Christmas I make a video “Christmas Card” to send to my family.  It contains photos and video of the previous year arranged in rough chronological order, which I attempt to edit to be entertaining.  Each year I pore over all my photos and videos I’ve taken since January 1 to find the shots to include in the video, discarding about 99% of them.

Simply put it takes me weeks of time to make a simple movie using footage I am already familiar with; sure it gets easier the more often I do it, but there are no shortcuts to watching a year’s worth of movies and photos.  I must watch them all in order to find that 10-second ‘gem’ out of the often dozens of hours of crap.  It may take the same amount of time to re-watch an event as it takes to record the event, but it multiplies if you re-watch it more than once.   

The same goes for the 9/11 footage; to create a movie like September Clues, you needed to watch ALL the footage many times over, backwards and forwards, faster and slower, and frame by frame.  After making my own little home movies, I realized how much time went into September Clues and not just in the editing, which would have been something in itself, but also in the compiling of all the footage.  It’s really impressive when you think about it.

I can speak for other truth-seekers who noticed the same thing; how did you hypothesize the fakery so soon, and then collect all the footage, and then sift through it all while the rest of we truth suckers were still talking about remotely-controlled planes and space rays?  Perhaps you are geniuses after all, which is something I once thought and would have continued to think had you not started pushing this whole “pure CGI” angle.  Honestly, the more you dig-in your heels and insist all the footage (every single bit of it) is a CGI rendering the more I suspect your real intent is to discredit ALL the photographic evidence. 

It was Vladimir Lenin who said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it”, and the elephant in the room is that September Clues was and remains the leader in the TV fakery business, so I am not out of line when I wonder; are you leading us off a cliff?

I was a member of the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” back when Fetzer and Jones still “liked each other”.  I watched the conversations back then, never joined in but it didn’t take long before they started disagreeing, then arguing, first about thermite then about energy weapons.  Soon they disbanded, leaving we suckers who signed-up for the club to feel the disappointment of realizing we’d been had.  All they accomplished was to gather up a bunch of names – like a honey pot operation – direct our energies and attention for a while and then disintegrate, dragging the remaining “members” into a messy intellectual divorce.  The scholars were my first experience with controlled opposition, and now I see the same thing happening with September Clues and this CGI claim.

You seem to label everything you see as CGI, which is just an acronym for “Computer Generated Imagery” which means it is an image GENERATED by a computer.  You’re not saying the photographs were taken with a digital camera or film camera and then altered with CGI, what you’re saying is they’re all purely Computer Generated Images.  When I began trying to use 3D models for my own movie projects and learned what goes into creating a true CGI environment I realized you guys are either deliberately obfuscating or you are a long way from being geniuses.

When you wave your CGI wand at 9/11 what you mean is that the planes, the buildings, the cities, the houses in the distance, the cars on the street, the people jumping out of the windows, the boats on the water; EVERYTHING was generated by a computer and none of them contain any real images whatsoever.  They are not videos and photographs of real objects, they are renderings of computer generated objects; nothing more than zeros and ones on a digital easel.  Here’s our conversation again:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2&start=420

Look at it this way.  I am a three-dimensional object but here is a two-dimensional digital photograph of me:

But if I take out the marshmallow does this qualify as CGI? 



The camera optics captured the light in a digital format, but it’s not CGI until you make me into a model you can manipulate.  The thing is, I’m already a 3D object; it would be much easier to just take a 2D photo of me than to create a 3D model just so you could then render a 2D image of it.  Considering you need to take photos of me from all sides before you can begin to make a digital model, it seems like a lot of work; that is unless you wanted to do something with the model that I couldn’t do in real life such as maybe lose a little weight or grow a thick head of hair.

To get an idea of what’s involved, here’s an example of a CGI project using a car:

Here are a couple quick timelines of the history of the advancement of computer graphics. 

Yes, it is possible the collapse videos are like Independence Day, the technology exists.  But think on this:

If they had complete control over the set, why was the set so shitty?   Why not make the building collapses look less like a top-down detonation camouflaged with pre-positioned dust?  With pure CGI, they could zoom in tight and we’d even see things not seen in the existing film…details like office furniture.

Now, obviously the Towers Could be easily modeled, in fact I have my own CGI model of the whole WTC.  To model New York and New Jersey would be an incredible effort for which Google needed to deploy fleets of cars mounted with digital cameras for their version. I’m sure the government has the same means but why would they bother?  They only needed to worry about faking the second plane shot, and that would be difficult enough.

By NOT modeling anything but the plane impact, they could guarantee the eye witness record would match the Television record.  Their herrf transmitters could stop the cell phones and some cameras, but they couldn’t blind the people who could see both the TV and the towers.  With an entirely fake world no one’s memories would match the TV, and people who could see both the TV and the towers would never have been fooled at all, ensuring failure before the day even ended.  

Pure CGI makes no sense in many ways, but what also makes no sense is your insistence that this is the only answer.   I notice that your refusal to consider any of the footage was real suits the apparent goals of the most likely suspects.  With a false CGI world they’d never be sure if they suppressed all the real photos, but with a real world they’d only need to worry about suppressing the South Tower impact.  Since no one was expecting a second strike, all eyes would have been looking at the North Face of the North tower when the South Face of the South tower was struck, so the odds of an analogue camera catching a missile impact were pretty slim.

Everything else needed to be a real-time play because there was no escaping the thousands of witnesses and their analogue cameras, so in my humble opinion they wouldn’t have tried to side-step the witnesses by creating a false world, they would have counted on them being there, and then used them to bolster the official story.  After all, they were successful with their nuclear hoax and their Lunar Landing hoax, why would they need a fully false CGI world for this one when their good-old layering techniques would have done the trick?

Here’s a good example of how much easier it is to use real video with some (not all) CGI:

It would be ridiculously complex to create a fully CGI world when a little green screen would do just as well.

For some time I was onboard with the concept that the collapses were “pure CGI” too, but no more.  I may not be as fast as you two wiz-kids, but I have managed to go over most of the collapse footage backwards and forwards, and frame by frame, and I don’t see “pure CGI” anywhere. What I see is real footage which has been deliberately tampered with here and there with the express goal of discrediting it ALL.

I don’t work for the DoD I can tell you that, so I don’t know how they work, but if I was going to try to keep to a minimum the people who were involved in the scam, it makes sense that the guys who tampered with the real footage to begin with would be the same guys who, six years later are leading the charge to have the whole lot discredited. 

 


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.