Monday, June 11, 2012

Evelien Gilbert

Storyboarding 9/11


  1. Did anyone get the geist of what the cat tried to say about building seven at 1;13.
    I dont speak cat.
    Good idea to reverse engineer the event, could help identify who could have engineered 911.
    My first reaction was that some secret gov orogram hd loaded the buildings with explosives in case of collaps. So when
    me muslims. But I know this hypthesis has holes.
    Interesting show as usual

  2. Good guest. Have lots of questions about her hypothesis, but guess place to discuss this more more completely is not here.

    Guest’s blog site is supposed to be
    but the message there is
    “ is no longer available.
    The authors have deleted this blog. “
    I am understanding “storyboarding” to mean here that a script was followed to make the Towers’ destruction-in-progress videos have a certain desired result on the perceptions of those who viewed the videos, either “live” on 9-11 television broadcasts, or afterwards.

    Whatever storyboarding that took place at the Pentagon (where she does not believe a real plane crash took place) and at Shanksville (which she believes is a Plan B type operation with no actual plane crash) was storyboarding for after-the-“impact.”

    I know for a fact that the most famous and most used video of WTC Building 7 that we have is a real actual video with no storyboarding connected to it because a local “patriot” activist person, Jeff Kantoff, took that video from his hotel room that fateful day.

    Since Ms. Gilbert believes so strongly that videos planned around the storyboarding program, these special effects videos, could be made to look so very real, or at least real enough looking to fool most viewers of them, I cannot understand why she believes real planes crashed at the Towers.

    If there were real plane crashes at the Towers, I do not think the plotters could have been sure that the planes would crash at the exact place and in the exact ways that their pre-planned storyboard for the event would cover, assuming the video would include the real plane crash but the rest of the video would be scripted. If the real crashes happened in an unplanned for way, I doubt if “Plan B” storyboards could have been quickly enaacted. (There are many other reasons why real plane crashes at the Twin Towers would not have been part of the plan. (See Morgan Reynold’s work.)

    Lastly, I was unclear on what successful completion of back engineering of the BlastCode computer program would accomplish. What would it prove for sure?

  3. Combine this research with research at and and the inescapable conclusion is that what we were privy to on our tv screens on 9/11/2001 was computer generated imagery integrating the advanced realistic demolition software talked about in the interview. Remember that so much of the higher quality 9/11 footage was not released to the public until much, much later, in some cases, as recent as last year!
    Let's get real. The buildings would have needed to be emptied and gutted before any demolition (involving hundreds of workers) could take place. 9/11 was a meticulously planned hoax from top to bottom, with no terrorists, no plane crashes, faked demolition video and other staged and preprepared video and FEW IF ANY REAL VICTIMS.

  4. If we assume that Ms. Gilbert was being honest and not being a disinfo shill, then her contribution to 9/11 fakery research is quite useful as yet another confirmation that the purported "live" TV imagery of the second hit and the collapses could, indeed, have been entirely computer-created.

    And yet she's a plane-hugger, who implies instead that the television coverage was all genuine! And then she bizarrely suggests that professional blast-simulation software be used to "reverse engineer" the explosions to learn precisely what detonation materials were used by the inside-job perps. To what ultimate purpose? To confirm that the TV networks' hands are clean???

    Jim, you were your usual gentlemanly self in letting your guest put forth some really problematic ideas with only a minimum of harsh challenges (unlike so many other radio hosts) but please follow up on this one -- with another interview that includes some tougher questions about fakery. And find out just what motion pictures she's actually done the special effects for.

  5. You can see in this interview Mark Loizeaux - President of Controlled Demolition Inc. is lying through his teeth.

  6. It was most irritating to have so many interruptions from you, Jim – the first 3 parts of the broadcast mostly. We have heard your pat phrases and anecdotes so-ooo many other times -- you really should have let Evelien complete her sentences and her train of thought.

    @Jeannon -- the correct address is as follows, with a link to the storyboard article Evelien wrote:

  7. Just found the comments.

    My SFX company which I and my husband ran for 18 years in the Netherlands did SFX for advertisement only.

    As I explain in this interview we only had to analyse one page storyboards for our work. So no big SFX films. Our clients were advertisement companies and we made adds for clients such as Coca cola, Proctor and Gamble, McDonalds, Greenpeace to name a few.

    Blastcode is a plug in for a program called Maya and needs to be used in conjunction with this program.

    My proposal to reverse engineer the events with this set up is to end speculation.

    While I believe that real planes were used as props I am not suggesting that they would have been able to fly in the buildings as we were let to believe.

    While I respect the opinions of everybody in the truth movement when I watched the events of 911 unfold I saw real buildings collapse and real people die so real events leading up to it must have happened. There is only so much you can do in 3D and even now spectacular collapses in TV series.

    Lately I have been watching a couple of TV series placed in medieval context which have been showing bizarre total freefall collapses of burning churches and castles all of a suddenly imploding like the twin towers. Like they want us to believe this has always happened and it still looks totally unbelievable and over the top.

    One of the reasons to reverse engineer the events is in order to understand what would have been needed in order to perform the SFX of 911 believably.

    The same goes for the attack on the Pentagon. While I personally believe no plane was used in the Pentagon reverse engineering might show us what really happened there as well.

    Generally I try to avoid discussions over these events as they are a waste of time and the source of much tension in the truth movement and I think we really should spend our energy on more research. the Maya, Blastcode combo would enable us to do so.

  8. I too was a little confused with the guests POV. Suggest she read Dr . Judy Woods Where Did The Towers Go. A real eye opener.