The men who fabricated 9 11 3d Specialists, CGI Movie Makers

Zalianlike this

Paulstal service does a good job. Wonder why he thinks there were victims if the planes were faked.  


H/t Who Fabricated 9/11? 3D Specialists And CGI Movie Makers questioningourreality.blogspot.com…

3 thoughts on “The men who fabricated 9 11 3d Specialists, CGI Movie Makers

  1. ZalianZalian

    This title grabbed me

    Then after 1 minute watching, i realized some context was needed.

    so lets take it from the top.

    First issue i have is scott meyer :

    No 3d artist would ever describe themselves as “3d effects specialist” unless being talked about by a guy with no clue (we refer to ourselves as modellers, riggers, animators, etc) so i went checking what he actually does. after some googling, i could only find him being refered to in another loose term ” 3-D motion expert and software designer” which means at best hes a coder of software not a actual creator of any 3d imagery. No portfolio or anything (we all have one, even mine is online if you know my real name). So i would ease down on claiming him as some “3d guy”

    He looks to me to a be a coder of simulation software (in and of itself interesting, but not the smoking gun paulstal makes it out to be)

    also i found this : www.aristeia.com…
    where he claims to know c++ (the most used coding language in the world, and one of the most complex) , so i guess we can confirm him as a coder.

    next up is : Devin clark. a motion graphic expert.

    i know to the untrained ear that sounds like the goto guy for fake, but motion graphics is literally spinning logos and abstract stuff like this : www.youtube.com… (not his actual showreel, but one i found on youtube for illustration)

    so at best he created some overlays like ABC logo in a corner or something.

    Next up luc courchesne :

    On him i find a bachlor of design (not 3d animation mind you) and a master in science and some credit in creating a media lab. nothing i would classify as a 3d artist, seems more like another coder/vr guy
    so i tried digging for a portfolio and found this :

    “https://vimeo.com/user2099885″(copy paste the link yourself, didnt work on fakeologist website as is)

    a pretty weak portfolio with some questionable “vr” work.

    now we hit the 2 minute mark and Nathan Nathaniel a cgi specialist its claimed, so lets investigate.

    on his own website : www.nakanathaniel.com…
    there is no portfolio like a 3d artist would have, nothing. just an about section and some links.
    and in the about he describes himself as a multimedia journalist, nothing cgi in there (remember it takes a long time to get good at cgi, 10 years at least).
    he does however have a interesting icon , occult?

    so i went digging more and found this : www.facebook.com…

    where he is mentioned as : Multimedia journalist at New York Times. Specializes in ‘desktop virtual news.’ Embedded with US military in war zones.

    NOTHING ABOUT CGI. so that must have been inserted by mister paulstal, either by mistake, poor research or because calling everything cgi is all the rage these days.

    next up he makes some satirical animations, but he animates the “plane” only, explosion and tower is being kept as they were.

    Then he starts showing some bad evidence (the no boeing thing, come on…..)
    and some good connections with that nathaniel guy knowing the guys from zeitgeist.

    Then when asked in the interview naka corrects the interviewer on being a “video animator”
    and in his own words profess to being a “motion graphics artist” <— key statement, that means spinning logos, not 3d artist. he couldnt model a plane or a building if his life depended on it.

    what he can do though is the same thing paulstal did, splice footage and maybe insert some planes and some news logos ontop of the exploding buildings footage.

    wherever that footage came from , models? or demolition of simular building patched in maybe ?

    the point it, the towers and the explosions are NOT cgi, its obvious to the trained eye. doesnt mean they are not fake though, but stop calling it CGI, at best its spliced footage by a motion graphics artist.

    and when this is being lauded as cgi, people get confused and think you can literally make 100% real stuff in computers. And to an extent you can, but you can yourself side by side effects from san andreas (the movie) that is cgi building demolition from 2015 vs the 2001 wtc thing, and san andreas looks way more fake (the smoke gives it away).
    (and i highly doubt its because the military have the best artists in the world, its most likely just faked in a diffrent way, most likely practical like the moon landings)

    anyhow carrying on.

    further in the interview he claims it would be totally easy to fake those videos, and i can agree to that.
    making the video from exsisting footage is easy, espcially for a motion grphics guy.

    making the footage in itself from scratch with "magical" CGI is next to impossible to that detail level, especially in 2001, get the diffrence?

    next trouble spot is around 7 minutes when they start angling that luc guy as some 3d messiah, when all he has is the surround screen system and a remote, and no acutal 3d modelling knowledge, just some coding experience and a general art degree.

    This does not mean he is innocent, and most likely they used his system for "something" but i can only speculate as to what.
    given even that though, luc's system still needs actual images to display in his system, and none of the guys listed so far has the credentials to create anything of the sort.

    I dont even know what to make of that information, but ill note it down.

    next area of interest is when he displays page 2 of scott meyers portfolio, something i couldnt find online, doesnt mean it doesnt exsist but i couldnt find it on google myself, though admittedly i spendt around 5 minutes looking.
    A real 3d artist would have his portofolio up there closely tied to his name (its how you get hired)
    but obviously not this guy.

    where he is claiming he knows photoshop , cinema 4d and carrera 3d.

    Now we are entering my domain here, these are all software im very familiar with and actual 3d software.

    Carrera 3d : architosh.com…

    now this program can be elliminated almost entirely as having been used on 9-11.
    The software was old when i was young and its weak and never used professionally, by hobbyists only.
    And if you saw animations from this you would realize it very fast, since the program was never considered good in the 3d business.

    Cinema 4d : www.maxon.net…

    This is the real meat of this case, this is one of the big software (maya,max,cinema4d)
    and CAN be used to make movies like San Andreas, it has some of the features like the other big ones (though not on the same level entirely, Maya is the top software, no one will argue that)

    Now this is where he got confused.
    Films nowadays use 90% Maya, some use max , most use some inhouse tools that they buildt ontop of those programs, and no movies i can think of use cinema 4d.

    What cinema 4d is used for in the 3d industry tho is….. you guess it, MOTION GRAPHICS.

    it has a procedural (auto generation) module called "mograph" (motion graphics get it) that neither maya or max has, for abstract shapes and art.

    example : www.youtube.com…

    and this is the sole reason that software is still in business the MOTION GRAPHICS part.

    not the hyper real movie effects part (that the program does have the ability to do, but not as good as MAYA, so "experts" would just, you know … use maya)

    and this is the only reason i personally learned cinema 4d aswell way back when, to get my hands on that motion graphics module.

    (Last year, Autodesk, the makers of both max and maya, put a similar feature in Maya though, so cinema 4d is probably dying software at this point, since that was everything keeping it afloat financially, that info is neither here nor there, but i guess its fun 3d industry trivia for you).

    Now in conclusion :

    – Neither of these guys are "3d specialists", they are coders and motion graphics artist and that french guy is doing some wierd vr thing with some 360 screen.

    – They can NOT create accurate models of twin towers, explosions or planes.

    – They can easily splice footage of lets say a plane ontop of other footage, and the motion graphics guys can make it look like any Newsfootage with theire motion gfx backround.

    Basically we already knew this.

    What he supplied was the names (that part was good research), and quite possibly some disinfo by calling it "CGI" and "3d" without specifying the extent. So the un- researched can go around screaming cgi at everything for no reason again.

    we are still no closer to figuring out how they did the actual towers collapsing and explosion footage, all this video does is more or less seal the deal on inserted planes.

    That was my 3d artist perspective

    -Zal

    1. ab Post author

      My thought was most of these “experts” are just actors or sims playing the role. They even have spook coded names like Jennifer “Spell”man. Thanks for confirming that this is partial misdirection.

      1. ZalianZalian

        The guys i discuss might be real and might very well have done the things perscribed to them.

        they are still a layer removed though from the actual effects guys making lets say the crumbling tower footage (unless it was filmed in reality from a controlled demolition,, i wont rule that out either)

        These are the polish and “putting footage togheter” team, putting the logos on the footage and dotting the “I” s (and whatever they used that luc guys screen system for)

        asfar as the “filmmakers” i didnt dig into them at all (everyone can call themselves a film maker).
        3d is my area of expertise and its what i can shed the most light on, so i stuck to that.
        interesting point on the name spellman though

        it sure does seem like the “film makers”” are all fake front people

        (and on this site we kinda take that as a given anyway, but its nice to see signs of being right i guess)

        -Zal

Leave a Reply