What is the motive behind Naudets' fake video?

[Mercuriel]

Y'know Egg...

That Avatar You're using is pretty Nifty. Its exactly like the one that Dr. Postman - A www.godlikeproductions.com Moderator uses...

[Seth Haniel]

why is everyone ignoring the second building down on the right - where the shadows clearly show that there is a vastly different time between the photos -


Those that don't want to see ????

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Seth Haniel

why is everyone ignoring the second building down on the right - where the shadows clearly show that there is a vastly different time between the photos -


Those that don't want to see ????

The sun moves. 16 minutes is alot of sun time - put a stick in the goround and mark a shadow, take 16 minutes and mark it again, and trust me, it would of moved. In a city scape like NY, buildings are tall and throw alot of shadow.

Perspective and time / shadows equals no problem with that picture.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

The sun moves. 16 minutes is alot of sun time - put a stick in the goround and mark a shadow, take 16 minutes and mark it again, and trust me, it would of moved. In a city scape like NY, buildings are tall and throw alot of shadow.

Perspective and time / shadows equals no problem with that picture.

In 17 minutes (or less)...

The shadow on the 310 Building moved half a window.

The shadow on the 290 Building moved half a block.

Go figure.

Note: These are the shadows of buildings from across the street.

________________________Naudets (A)__________________________________________(B)__ _______________



-feeler

[Egg]

1) The sun was rising - it had risen by an extra 16 minutes in the hour by the time the second plane hit.

2) The photographs are taken from seperate places.

3) Shadows thrown onto the buildings move because of the sun rising.

4) As the two pictures were taken in seperate places they are going to have seperate perspectives just to make sure you understand point 2.

Ok - so your still saying the shadows are wrong. well, have you looked at the buildings around the area? have you looked at the high rises to the left of the photgraphers position? have you checked your google street view and stood at the two locations as close as google can get you?

I just did - I advise you to do the same as you will then look at the area and say uhhh well the sun was rising and it depends on what was casting the shadows. Do you get the point? the sun may of risen, and instead of that shadow being from one building it is a multitude of buildings throwing more shadow.

I'll let you go have a look at google view before I carry on.

[Egg]

This set of pictures both are taken at the same time frame but 16 minutes apart. The road block is still in place, all the vehicles are still where they should be, and if you go on google you can also find the names of 18 fire fighters who were at the scene of the gas leak call that meant they had to block the road.

[Egg]

Look at the picture. Count the windows, look how the shadow has changed and is sinking in the 16 minutes the sun has risen. Add this to the buildings around it, there is nothing more in my eyes to argue.

1)Different perspectives.
2)Different times.
3)Sun rising accounts for shadows moving.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

Look at the picture. Count the windows, look how the shadow has changed and is sinking in the 16 minutes the sun has risen. Add this to the buildings around it, there is nothing more in my eyes to argue.

1)Different perspectives.
2)Different times.
3)Sun rising accounts for shadows moving.

Egg, I am looking at your photo (thanks); the shadow moved sideways by approx. only 5 feet on the 310 building, which you marked.



On the 290 building however, the shadow moved sideways by at least 20 feet! (see larger photos below)



Again, we are looking at the shadows of the buildings from across the street. I have no doubt that the Naudets' is a composite video.

-feeler

[Egg]

I'll go have a look at the video. I saw it years ago but will go do so again.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

I'll go have a look at the video. I saw it years ago but will go do so again.

Egg,

At 8:55 a.m., on September 14, 2008, the entire upper half of the 290 building was in the sun, not in the shade.

LOL, Rosalee Grable "The WebFairy" was 9 minutes late (the first crash at 8:46) to the scene for the ultimate comparison.

So glad I am not the first one to notice (or discuss) that 20 foot wide shadow on the 290 building (Tribeca Grand Hotel).



Church and Lispenard September 14 2008


Naudet Fakery: Too Much Truth?

*The 310 building is the Telegraph building.

Here's a tribute to the "Shadow Warriors" (this video puzzled me at first but YougeneDebs' commnets led me to Coffinman's site and Grable's video)
Naudet Shadows

-feeler

[Egg]

The video proves my point. As the sun rises, the shadows move. Just like I showed you. Add to this its three days later and the sun rises a little later each day, and yes, thanks for proving my point for me.

Sun comes up, shadows move, shadow sinks.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

The video proves my point. As the sun rises, the shadows move. Just like I showed you. Add to this its three days later and the sun rises a little later each day, and yes, thanks for proving my point for me.

Sun comes up, shadows move, shadow sinks.

Egg, You expect to see that 20 foot wide shadow (on Tribeca Grand Hotel) on Sep 11, but not on Sep 14?

Applying your logic, the shadow on the ATT building (the "Big Brown") would be 20 foot away on Sep 14.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE:

The time doesn't matter, or the date.

What matters is that the shadow on the ATT building is the same as seen in the Naudet clip. Then we look for the impossible shadow. And there it is. I still do not know how this shadow could be cast, as the shadow on the ATT building clearly indicates that the light is coming from left of shot, and the "impossible shadow" seems as if it can only be cast by the ATT building when light is coming from bottom of shot. That shadow was not the only problem I had with that footage, but it was what I battled with, and at present Rosalee has provided video that appears to show that the two shadows are not impossible together. I am puzzled but have to accept this. I will add Rosalee's clip to my Naudet page, and maybe list the other problems that I had with the footage.
by John Gault

___

[dagon]

[Egg]

Originally Posted by feeler

Applying your logic, the shadow on the ATT building (the "Big Brown") would be 20 foot away on Sep 14.[/COLOR]

Let this be a lesson people. Here is the classic 'pull sh1te out of thin air when unable to supply a decent argument' tactic.

Its done by the desperate to try and snow under a thread or topic. The internet is full of them - especially from 'twoofers' or those that have no comprehension of cold hard facts.

Feeler - you better come up with the money shot to show where 'my logic' (and you better damn well quote it in big bold letters) would show a leap of twenty feet. I'll be waiting for it. 20 feet - I want to see where any numerical values are given by myself.

[Egg]

Oh and dagon, I agree 100% that 9-11 was an inside job.

[Egg]

Look - here is the building that would of cast the shadow that moves. It even fits the shape of the shadow thrown in your image. It even is in line of direct shadow casting ability - look on google street view - some thing that the video (airy fairy or what ever its name is ) never did.

It is not my problem you fail to comprehend the basic mechanics of how the sun moves in the sky and obects cast shadows and those shadows move. That is for you to settle with who ever educated you.

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Egg

Look - here is the building that would of cast the shadow that moves. It even fits the shape of the shadow thrown in your image. It even is in line of direct shadow casting ability - look on google street view - some thing that the video (airy fairy or what ever its name is ) never did.

The shadow fits the building perfectly. It would throw a different shadow due to its unusual shape. The shape is the same.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

The shadow fits the building perfectly. It would throw a different shadow due to its unusual shape. The shape is the same.

Egg, here's a second opinion (from YougeneDebs) I came across after I started this thread.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4zO3k0r9WI

YougeneDebs (3 weeks ago)

The shadows in question [by coffinman] are on the Tribeca Grand Hotel, at Church and Walker, the next block down from the big brown building, the Telegraph building.

The shadows on the brown building can be used as a reference set for judging the shadows on the Hotel.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

Let this be a lesson people. Here is the classic 'pull sh1te out of thin air when unable to supply a decent argument' tactic.

Its done by the desperate to try and snow under a thread or topic. The internet is full of them - especially from 'twoofers' or those that have no comprehension of cold hard facts.

Feeler - you better come up with the money shot to show where 'my logic' (and you better damn well quote it in big bold letters) would show a leap of twenty feet. I'll be waiting for it. 20 feet - I want to see where any numerical values are given by myself.

Egg,

"Sun comes up, shadows move, shadow sinks." But Rosalee Grable was able to "catch" the sun in the position where the shadow cast on the ATT building was in virtually the exact same location (+/- 3 feet) as shown by the Naudet Brothers.

Therefore, it is simple logic to expect to see the same 20 foot wide shadow cast on the east facet of the Tribeca Grand Hotel in essentially the same location (give or take a few feet). But the 20 foot shadow simply wasn't there, in either photo (B or C)! You can only see that 20 foot wide shadow in the Naudet footage.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVy7LJj-BUk

________________________Naudets (A)____________________________________George Weld (B)__ _______________ Grable (C)____


-feeler

[Egg]

Originally Posted by feeler

Egg,

________________________Naudets (A)____________________________________George Weld (B)__ _______________ Grable (C)____


-feeler

First picture is the first aircraft strike. Big shadow on building agreed? fully in shadow. The sun rises for 16 extra minutes UP into the sky. The building I shown you, thus SHORTENS its shadow footprint. The shadow MOVES as the sun does because its the light from the sun that causes shadows to be thrown.

When the sun is low, shadows are long, when it rises, shadows get shorter because the angle the light is coming from is steeper. That tall building would of started out throwing a big long shadow, and then over 16 minutes the sun rising would of shrunk it and it would of moved.

Hence, in the first strike pic the shadow is deeper, darker and wider than the second.

The third picture shows an almost identical shadow to the first - so whats the problem there? none. why? because although its later, it is also 3 days down the year - hence the sun rose later and this would of compensated for it a small bit.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

First picture is the first aircraft strike. Big shadow on building agreed? fully in shadow. The sun rises for 16 extra minutes UP into the sky. The building I shown you, thus SHORTENS its shadow footprint. The shadow MOVES as the sun does because its the light from the sun that causes shadows to be thrown.

When the sun is low, shadows are long, when it rises, shadows get shorter because the angle the light is coming from is steeper. That tall building would of started out throwing a big long shadow, and then over 16 minutes the sun rising would of shrunk it and it would of moved.

Hence, in the first strike pic the shadow is deeper, darker and wider than the second.

The third picture shows an almost identical shadow to the first - so whats the problem there? none. why? because although its later, it is also 3 days down the year - hence the sun rose later and this would of compensated for it a small bit.

Egg,

Think in terms of position. Don't confuse yourself with "16 minutes," "3 days," etc. If I have a flashlight to cast shadows, as long as the objects (including the flashlight) are not moved, you'd expect the same result. Correct? It doesn't matter what time or day of the year I perform this experiment; it won't alter the result.

If you have two photos that show shadows in virtually the exact location on a building, but one photo shows a 20 foot wide shadow on the adjacent building but in the other photo the 20 foot wide shadow is entirely missing, you would have questions, would you?

-feeler

[Egg]

OK do me a favor? could you go into paint, and draw a yellow line along that shadow you keep talking about. I may be missing it, so to be fair, can you do that for me please.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

OK do me a favor? could you go into paint, and draw a yellow line along that shadow you keep talking about. I may be missing it, so to be fair, can you do that for me please.

[feeler]

Egg, another thing... The traffic light is not in the shadow in either Weld's or Grable's photo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVy7LJj-BUk

________________________Naudets (A)____________________________________George Weld (B)__ _______________ Grable (C)____

[feeler]

Egg, I am looking at the satellite photo at the following site, which shows the shadows lowered all the way to the pavement. The tall building you pointed out is included in the photo. Even with the shadows now cast on the ground, the side to side (south to north, not up and down) movement/positioning of the shadows is only +/- 5 feet (hardly changed). The shadow of the tall building would cast its shadow on the corner of the hotel early in the morning. Corner only. Definitely not 30% of the east facet of the hotel. Definitely not a 20 foot wide shadow on the east facet of the hotel. -feeler


http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVy7LJj-BUk

________________________Naudets (A)____________________________________George Weld (B)__ _______________ Grable (C)____


BTW, before Naudet shot the gas leak footage, he went further out into the center of the intersection to get a good focus on the twin towers. Evidence: