There Necessarily Ought To Have Been Shadows.

Round and round we go.

Alongside all the other evidence, this surely and
conclusively settles the case in favour of 9/11 video manipulation.



There ought to have been shadows. This is not a matter of opinion, and it
cannot be denied.
If you are new to this reality, an awful lot of new questions will be raised, but
maybe an awful lot of older questions will be answered.

We were duped, bigtime.

Im gonna need some more data for this shadow business . 9/11 the thorn that won't go away lol. Thanks for sharing the vid. 9/11 was the day the world changed , and we have not had our questions answered yet.

for me personally i do not subscribe to the official story , but even the conspiracy side has a few holes . I'll stick to neutral for now

my problem with the no planes theory is the thousands who witness the event that day . They would rip there eye balls out before saying no planes lol

reply to post by pshea38

Interesting video and one I hadn't seen before although I had heard the "no planes", hologram, cgi theories. I don't really know what to think about this but similar techniques and plot (completely different circumstances though) was actually used in a 15 year old Hollywqood movie with Dustin Hoffman called Wag the Dog. Unfortunately the videos aren't of such great quality that it is obvious, even when watching full screen but that could just be my bad eyes.

Good find anyway!

I'll admit this is the most plausible argument i've heard yet regarding tv fakery, but I have to ask the obvious question, if it was faked how do they stage it without people knowing? I can't believe 9/11 was filmed at area 51 like the moon landing maybe was. I believe the planes were military and not commercial planes but I can't believe the planes didn't exist. Pentagon and shanksville are different stories though.

Calling BS on the video. It wasn't faked, nor CGI. Claiming this was a conspiracy is an insult to the victims. There are plenty home made video with lots of sound and it clearly sounds like a plane. The shadow thing is a load of BS.
Yea @ 9 am in the morning the sun isn't in the middle of the sky. You don't even have to watch the whole video to know that. The first video they show the sun is on the other side of the building, how exactly would the plane on the dark side of the building make a shadow?

Then don't forget the Nudget brothers video CLEARLY showing an airplane engine that cracked the pavement and was found around the towers As shown here..

Yea that was all cgi guys... come on get real.

I've always thought there were planes and a conspiracy.
This is an interesting find OP. Let the games begin !
This is gonna be a big one.

reply to post by yourboycal2


Eliminate the impossible. Then deal with the rest.
This argument in the clip eliminates the possibility that the plane is real.

Look into how many direct eyewitness to events on 9/11, and video and photograph
producers that had direct ties to the media. Uncanny.
A myth becomes reality.

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by yourboycal2

 

Eliminate the impossible. Then deal with the rest.
This argument in the clip eliminates the possibility that the plane is real.

Look into how many direct eyewitness to events on 9/11, and video and photograph
producers that had direct ties to the media. Uncanny.
A myth becomes reality.

I doubt you have been to new york, do you think everyone that lives in new york is looking up all the time?

Ohh wow you can't see a shadow on the building where it is CLEARLY dark.. on a video with really bad quality..Then you see the wing on the video and it is illuminated, and on the other side should be a shadow but there isn't. Ohh wait maybe because the building is dark? And the sun is only shining on the right side of the building.

NO SHADOW ITS ALL CGI! Even the engine on the ground was CGI, cracks in the concrete too.

Wow.

I have never given even the least bit of credence to the "no planes" theories, I dismissed it all out of hand as stupid bs.

Well, this video just proved it to me, absolutely. It is not saying the plane should have made a shadow, the plane should have gone INTO the shadow of the building before hitting it. But the plane remains in bright sunlight the whole way. Absolutely impossible. Doesn't matter how grainy the video is, the plane is in full sunlight the whole time. Impossible.

I would call this rock solid evidence.

reply to post by GR1ill3d

I'm calling BS on your vitriol.

Believing the official story is an insult to the victims.

There, fixed it for ya!

I have heard other people postulate that the images of airplanes were present on that day, some sort of holograms that were projected so that they coincided with explosions set off inside the towers. As for the jet engine that was found to have fallen, it could have been placed in one of the towers and set to be blown out in the explosion that people were led to believe was the plane's impact. Between that and Dr. Judy Wood's conclusive proof that 80% of the mass of the towers was vaporized and you see that some startlingly advanced technology was used to dupe us all into giving up our rights and civil liberties. Sickening, isn't it?

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


And flat out saying there were no planes is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. While I'm not 100% with the official story. Saying there were no planes and it was all CGI, is like saying 2+2 = 5..

Give me a break.

reply to post by GR1ill3d

It is a theory, being examined, nothing more and no need to fly off the handle. There are many things that do not add up at all in the official story and slowly people are beginning to see the light. One day we might even actually get to know the truth of what really happened that day and who was behind it. Until then, we sift details and examine evidence. The evidence given by the various commissions and reports is sadly far from the truth and shrouded in secrecy.

reply to post by warpcrafter

Between that and Dr. Judy Wood's conclusive proof that 80% of the mass of the towers was vaporized

Apparently the good doctor has never seen what fire does to combustible materials. Did she happen to not include in her report that there was a lot more then just jet fuel burning in those buildings? Or were the papers and people falling out of the buildings CGI too?

reply to post by warpcrafter

I have heard other people postulate that the images of airplanes were present on that day, some sort of holograms that were projected so that they coincided with explosions set off inside the towers.

Cause in 2001 they had the ability to reflect a perfect hologram of a plane off the water vapor in the air. and make a nice plane shaped hole in that building. Then all the people and families on those flights were taken to a secret island somewhere and paid billions of dollars to fake all of their deaths and had the families silenced.

And weeks prior to this, they were setting up bombs inside those buildings and getting them ready for a demolition without crippling the structure to the point of failure before the day of the attacks. I mean no one would notice it, none of the maintenance workers, janitorial crew and thousands of employees working there.
I mean the government could have just paid them all off. Must of felt real good to sit around with millions in the bank watching all of your friends jump from 90+ stories up or be burned/crushed to death.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Yes, it's a theory, and the OP cannot see that even the video he posted gives proof that his theory is full of hot air. Give him a few months, he will come up with even more falsehoods to try and prove his CGI ideas.

reply to post by GR1ill3d


Must be nice to have the ability to blind yourself to obvious facts. Your violent knee-jerk reaction displayed in this thread marks you as a friend to the liars who are trying still to force the official story down everyone's throats. Well I'm here (Along with many, many others) to tell you that it's not working.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Now now truth debunkers, calm down or we will have to mention thermite and multiple explosions!

Originally posted by filosophia
I'll admit this is the most plausible argument i've heard yet regarding tv fakery, but I have to ask the obvious question, if it was faked how do they stage it without people knowing? I can't believe 9/11 was filmed at area 51 like the moon landing maybe was. I believe the planes were military and not commercial planes but I can't believe the planes didn't exist. Pentagon and shanksville are different stories though.

I would guess the same way they kept the Manhattan Project secret which also required the work and cooperation of thousands of government employees.

Fear and national security.



ETA Correction. "more than 130,000 people"

Originally posted by pshea38
Round and round we go.

Indeed. Mountains of no plane disinformation continue to be heaped upon the gullible, especially those with an aversion for or general incompetency in technical subjects. I watched the video. There is the ever annoying computerized voice. Is it necessary? Is somebody "in danger" of persecution? Perhaps, if the danger of being committed and consigned to a straight jacket on a psych ward is considered.

As always, the author of the video makes a boastful show of the introduction, only to hand his audience a mare's nest at the end.

Why derive the solar azimuth from photos and footage no planers say is all fake? Why are the shadows not deliberately faked to confuse you? These are questions the inhabitants of the ever expanding fakery universe can't hand wave. What legitimizes the double standard?

Finally, the author checks his azimuth and solar calculation with a website I coincidentally visited a few days ago. A website he could have visited immediately without finding a building parallel to the WTC to serve as a makeshift "sundial". What a waste of effort, and it seems like this was only included to dazzle the audience with pseudoscientific grotesquery.

We conclude with the the trademark grainy, pixelized and image deteriorated footage of UA 175 impacting the South Tower. Why is it that such self-styled video analysis professionals and hobbyists can't find decent quality source material? The answer is it's all over the web, for example, by Nathan Flach. Here are most known UA 175 impact videos:




But the reason they don't use such better quality video material is because it often exposes the NPT deception. Reduce UA 175 to a blob of nondescript pixels, or even to the point of vanishing, and you're good to go with the NPT bullcrap.

And here are the witnesses, personal effects and DNA identifications

When the no planer video concludes, UA 175 is shown crashing into WTC 2 as seen by many, many witnesses, rendering video fakery redundant. "There's no shadow!", The author suggests with great theatrical swagger. Well, I saw that shadow in the video clip you just showed, right where you said it wasn't. I guess the hypnotic computerized voice didn't succeed in doing the sensory interpretation for me.

NPT has long been suspected to be a PSYOP. I'm reluctant to make such assessments based on little or no evidence, and for the same reason I emphatically reject NPT. But it strikes me as odd that so many people could be spending so much time on something so blatantly obvious: on 9/11, planes flew into buildings.

There is no excuse for hand waving the cumulative evidence as an excuse for endless discussion about kooky, deeply offensive nonsense which detracts from the real issues. On the basis of the videos, the eyewitnesses, the DNA evidence, the phone calls on the planes, the plane parts, NPT can be chucked into the garbage bin, along with little green men, crop circles, Holocaust denial and Bigfoot.

There will always be an anomaly to fret about, which will eventually be resolved. It's not the anomaly that matters, or the miseducation of the cretins who promote it, it's the deliberate consumption and redirection of intellectual resources to fool's errands. The resourcefulness with which this malicious agenda is achieved is what makes me wonder.