What is the motive behind Naudets' fake video?

[feeler]

Most of the Avalon members here are already aware of the 9/11 false flag operations. I just want to share something new I noticed today.

Notice the building (290 Church Street) which blocked the view of the North Tower. In Naudets' video (A), close to half of the east facet of this building is in the shadow, compared to none in the photo (B) taken by a photographer (only part of the corner, not the east facet, is in the shadow in Photo B).

The video and the photo were taken at most 17 minutes apart (elapsed time between the first crash at 8:46 and the second crash at 9:03), so there was not enough time for the shadow to move significantly (The shadows casted on the 310 Building in both photos are in very similar positions).

________________________Naudets (A)__________________________________________(B)__ ________________


Why did the Naudet Brothers turn in a composite (fake) video of a plane crash?

-feeler

[tone3jaguar]

Looks like the sun was at enough of an angle to account for the increase in the shadow over that time frame to me. Plus I knew a few people that where in New York when it happened. Planes hit the towers.

[Seth Haniel]

There where thousands of people in New York that day and thousands of people who didn't see planes strike the towers - there are those who actually thought they saw something - but each one differs in the decription - colour - size -whether it had windows or not whether there was a protrubance under the fuselage etc etc -


1500 cars totalled burnt to a crisp while tons of paper escaped unsinged


time to wake up

[feeler]

Originally Posted by tone3jaguar

Looks like the sun was at enough of an angle to account for the increase in the shadow over that time frame to me. Plus I knew a few people that where in New York when it happened. Planes hit the towers.

If you are correct, we could be looking at a shadow that moves 5 inches sideways every 15 seconds.

________________________Naudets (A)__________________________________________(B)__ _______________


-feeler

[Egg]

This thread gets a 1 star vote from me, and I'll explain why.

Perspective. Those two pictures are from two completely seperate places, with completely sepearte angles of perspective.

The red stop sigh is a dead give away - look how it is positioned. There is nothing wrong with either picture, they are just taken in two seperate places about 40 feet and an 18 * seperation of arc.

Sorry, 1 star.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

This thread gets a 1 star vote from me, and I'll explain why.

Perspective. Those two pictures are from two completely seperate places, with completely sepearte angles of perspective.

The red stop sigh is a dead give away - look how it is positioned. There is nothing wrong with either picture, they are just taken in two seperate places about 40 feet and an 18 * seperation of arc.

Sorry, 1 star.

From either perspective, the east facet of the 290 Church Street building is not obstructed.

In both photos, you can see and count the number of windows in the sun and judge the difference.

-feeler

[recallone]

I'm not sure if the intent of this posting is to back up the phantom-plane idea or what.
Bottom line: those building went down in controlled demolition fashion. It was planned and executed by our government, regardless of whether or not the planes were real.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by recallone

I'm not sure if the intent of this posting is to back up the phantom-plane idea or what.
Bottom line: those building went down in controlled demolition fashion. It was planned and executed by our government, regardless of whether or not the planes were real.

What is a "phantom-plane"?

Do you call a CGI animated Spiderman, the "phantom-Spiderman"?

-feeler

[Egg]

Feeler, you are the first member of Avalon I have ever come across who has made me go '#### it, ignore them and they will go away. Also, just to make sure of this, I hit the Iggy button too.


The first and only one.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Egg

Feeler, you are the first member of Avalon I have ever come across who has made me go '#### it, ignore them and they will go away. Also, just to make sure of this, I hit the Iggy button too.


The first and only one.

Egg, I only suggested to you counting the number of windows in the sun and judging the difference.

Why the overreaction? Why set an example of me and announce in public?

We could be a group of very evolved individuals with good understanding of spirituality, but that doesn't stop the Illuminati from running wires, planting explosives, turning out fake videos - on us.

[Seth Haniel]

"Perspective. Those two pictures are from two completely seperate places, with completely sepearte angles of perspective."


Common Sense: the sun has moved half way round the building (slight exageration on my part)

Reality these photos are not taken at the same time or anywhere close.

Good find Feeler

[nagual]

The building on the right is similar in both pics (including number of windows and shadows) but the one on the left is different...
this happen when the photos are taken with a totally different focal length, meaning the lens used are different and the photographers were located in two different point of view, that's why some elements seem to be similar between the two pics and some are different.

The focal length is the distance from the center of the lens to the principal foci (or focal points) of the lens. For a converging lens (for example a convex lens), the focal length is positive, and is the distance at which a beam of light will be focused to a single spot. For a diverging lens (for example a concave lens), the focal length is negative, and is the distance to the point from which a beam appears to be diverging after passing through the lens.

Lenses are usually categorized as having a wide-angle, normal or telephoto focal length.

The first pic was taken with a telephoto lens and the second one with a wide-angle lens, therefor some elements are similar in both shots and some are not (the photographers were located in two very different places)

Also the shots were taken at different time , in despite of the shadow on the first right building appearing to be the same.

[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 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...

Its in an email - '100 best animal avatars' The bouncing panda is also in their and pretty smart too. If its some ones copy righted work, link me and i'll remove it, if not, that could of been sent in a PM.

[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

___