Simon on the fake jumper footage

If you browse you will find gems in every post by Simon like this.

Re: The Joshua Good “amateur” footage
Unread post January 11th, 2024, 3:00 pm

jon909 wrote: ?And as someone who knows that all of the amateur footage is staged, I can’t help but think maybe this one is real.

Perhaps it’s because of the amount of people in it. Or because of how long it is (33 minutes).
Hello jon909,

Let me first point out that the fact that the “Joshua Good 9/11 footage” is long (33 minutes) and features many people in it – does not confer to it any more authenticity than any other shorter “9/11 amateur clips”. This would be like saying that, since the spectacular specialFX-ridden disaster movie “Independence Day” runs for all of 145 minutes and features crowds of panicking folks running around the streets of Manhattan, everything in that movie must therefore depict REAL events that actually took place in reality!…

A 24-second clip from “Independence Day (1996) – check it out :



Let us first establish the origin & provenance of that 33-min clip credited to “Joshua Good”. Well, please know that it ‘just so happens’ to be one of the dozens of “9/11 amateur clips” released by NIST back in 2010 (that’s right, as many as 9 years after the event!). You may read all about this infamous NIST-released footage in my old 2012 post linked below. Suffice to say that in early 2010 (as the silly narrative goes), NIST was allegedly forced to release (following a FOIA request filed by none other than ABC News!) a huge 4.7-gigabyte batch of purported “amateur videos” which, we were told, NIST “had collected from amateur, professional and freelance photographers as part of its investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Centre”… At the time, I of course promptly downloaded the full 4.7GB file which had been made publicly available on the web – and have since analyzed all of its contents “to death”, i.e. from every conceivable angle and aspect (yes, I’m probably the world’s top forensic analyst of the “NIST-FOIA-CUMULUS” video batch…). The very first, striking aspect of this “NIST 9/11 amateur footage” (which NIST would have been sitting on and ‘kept in a drawer’ for all of 9 years!) was its remarkably sharp resolution – far superior to ANY previously available 9/11 imagery released by the mainstream media (between 2001 and 2010)…

The “NIST-FOIA Cumulus” batch (or “The Nine Eleven 2010 Movie Sequel”): viewtopic.php?p=2365938#p2365938

Let’s now take a good look at this “Joshua Good” video (which is but one of dozens of clips from the NIST-FOIA-CUMULUS batch, all with remarkably similar ‘aspect and texture’ – as if they were all captured with one and the same camera). To be sure, 2001 cellphones had no video capacities, so one would expect far more variety from private videos captured with the different consumer cameras available at the time. But these arcane technical considerations, as we shall see, aren’t even necessary to mention – in order to prove the utter fakeness of the so-called “9/11 amateur videos”.

At 10:21 into the video, “Joshua” (with his ostensibly hand-held camera) starts zooming in towards the WTC1 tower (just as everyone starts screaming around him) and, while doing so, catches a “WTC jumper” in his viewfinder. Then, in what would be a superhuman feat of skill, vision, composure and self-control – he gently starts panning & following that free-falling object downwards until it disapppears behind a foreground building. Unruffled but what he just filmed, he then gently zooms out on the wider scenery – the entire 8-second, hand-held zoom-in / zoom-out sequence (capturing that “WTC jumper”) featuring virtually no camera shake – in spite of the considerable distance to the WTC complex.


This view and location will mean nothing to you – until you’ll know that as many as 10 other purported “amateur shots” (credited to 10 different photographers and videographers) were supposedly captured from very much that same location. By all means, you are free to believe that this is all just a matter of plain coincidence. However, if you do accept that the WTC complex was rigged for demolition (a total of 9 buildings were destroyed), don’t forget to ask yourself whether any ‘Joe Public’ was allowed to access the area – and film the whole shebang at such close distance.



So exactly what – you may now ask – was the purpose of releasing this 4.7GB batch of (obvious CGI) “private 9/11 videos” – in 2010 ? What would the possible motives behind manufacturing a bunch of “never-seen-before amateur videos” have been? And how did they think they would get away with releasing this new (and much sharper) CGI material as many as 9 years after the event? Well, here are the multiple reasons I can see for this rather bold undertaking:

– Firstly, you need to know that until 2010, there was a mere handful of purported “9/11 amateur videos” circulating on the internets (virtually ALL of which credited to Steve Rosenbaum’s Camera Planet TV production studios): STEVEN ROSENBAUM’S $3MILLION ARCHIVE OF 9/11 “AMATEUR FOOTAGE”:viewtopic.php?p=2364110#p2364110 Those Camera Planet clips were horribly blurry & pixelated, i.e. of piss-poor resolution. There were no close-up shots to be found of either WTC jumpers or WTC collapses – surely the most “spectacular and heartbreaking visuals” that the 9/11 narrative relied upon to start the “War on Terror” and bomb Iraq and Afghanistan to smithereens – on the wave of the public outrage triggered by the “Binladen attacks” .

– Since a growing number of 9/11 researchers had justly been lamenting the scarcity of private / amateur imagery of the event, there was a mounting need for the 9/11 planners & perpetrators to do something about it. Naturally, what they chose to produce was a number of traumatizing CGI clips showing suicidal pixels jumping from the towers, complete with people screaming and running – and close-up shots of the towers absurdly / unphysically collapsing top down (!)… (in reality, no legit imagery of the tower collapses exist – as they were enveloped in artificial smoke well before they set off the demolition charges).

– How did they think they would get away with it? Well, in 1990 (that is 18 years after the last “Apollo 17 moonlanding”), they had already successfully tested the general public’s aloofness and credulity by releasing volumes of magnificent, never-seen-before high-res color images of the phony Apollo missions. It worked fairly well – and perhaps half of this world’s population still believe in NASA’s televised moon missions. However, here in Italy where I live, it really feels more like 25 %… NASA is on its way down – and so is the lame 9/11 hoax: a simple controlled demolition job of some old, fully-evacuated real estate – sold to the world as an evil “muslim terror attack”. 


More proof that Simon is the leading 9/11 researcher in the world. Bar none.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 months ago

stateside we take the horrific charge OFF,
and call them jumper fables

6 months ago

just finished watching that as you posted it ,great stuff but as always i give myself a hurdle ,i was trying to apply it practically in camera like hollywood does anyway the hurdle i gave myself was an easy way to make sure the zoom hits the stuntman falls ,so a progressive zoom ,closing in as the stuntman falls or stunt woman so obviously we think backwards first off ,so i thought start zoomed in on the stuntman gets lifted up on a wire as the camera zooms out as he is lifted then i thought of body movement being… Read more »