Hi, Aldo:

I know you have experience in analyzing photos, so please riddle me this - why do the "planes" in the video clips taken by Michael Hezarkhani and Evans Fairbanks indicate a light source from the south, behind and starboard and slightly above, when the backgrounds of the same videos and the known illumination conditions (9:00am sun, easterly) reveal that the light rays should be coming from in front and starboard and slightly above?

FYI: There is even a cast shadow emanating from the fuselage's contact point with the shaded southerly facing wall of WTC2 in the Fairbanks vid. This, in itself, is an impossibility; An object cannot cast a shadow in front of itself if its light source is in front of it.

In the interest of Full Disclosure: I am a Computer Graphics professional with many years experience in the film industry, FWIW.

Looking forward to your answer, respectfully, Saturna.

Do you have the full resolution digital tape of the Hezarkhani or a copy of it with documented chain of custody? If not, this question is bullshit out of the gate. If you want to make a point in this forum and acquire any kind of credibility for yourself, you'll use your credentials as a professional to acquire the original tape or a facsimile that has not been altered by compression along with documented chain of custody. Without that and skills for forensic digital video analysis this thread will be just one more pointless circle jerk. I have half a mind to lock it already.

im having trouble seeing/picturing what you're saying saturna.
some screencaps, labled perhaps?
would be quite helpful.


thanks!

Oh because the "planes" were blue beam holograms that were CGI'd on the TV.

Riddle me this, how come not one POS no planer, has got off their lazy ass and went out to NYC and INDEPENDENTLY found their own witnesses to determine the what happened???

You people are kooks and are part of or are pawns in a disinformation operation, that allows scumbags to lump us in with your horseshit theory/disinfo and call us "no planers".

Hi, Painter. Here is a list of HQ published versions, authenticated and copyrighted, of the material in question. I would hope that this is adequate as the basis for a debate thread.

HQ version of Hezarkhani can be found on the DVD: CNN Tribute, America Remembers, Commemorative Edition

Various HQ versions of the Carmen Taylor (matching shot) still photo, with the same anamolous lighting visible on the plane, are widely available and a print version can be found in the book, 'Photos That Changed The World' edited by Peter Stepan, published by Prestel.

HQ version of Evan Fairbanks can be found on HBO's In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01

A print version of Fairbanks still frames, where the fuselage shadow is present, can be seen in the book, 'New York, September 11 by Magnum Photographers'.

The distribution of highlight, tone and shadow in the above-mentioned film segments and stills clearly indicates a light source that is behind, above and to starboard of the planes which is in stark contradiction to (1) where the source is known to have been and (2) the background material as presented in the samples.

Most damning of all, as far as I am concerned: An object can NOT cast a shadow in front of itself when the light source is in front of it. This happens in Fairbanks!

Also, please check the rear highlight on the starboard underside wing fairing in Taylor and Hezarkhani (matching shots). It is ONLY consistent with a light source from behind.

I believe that I am correct on this, I believe this is significant, I welcome objective rebuttal.

Sincerely, Saturna

Aldo, am I to understand from the above that you are declining to answer my question?

Is that 'affirmative' on decline?

Who are these tin-foil hat wearing kooks that think that aluminum can fly through steel, 767s can fly at 500-odd mph at 700 feet altitude, planes can melt into buildings without breaking apart, and that the media (who have always been so honest with us) would ever stoop to showing doctored video?

They must be the same crazy, disinfo-peddeling nut cases that think that a quickly burning, hydrocarbon fire can melt 110 stories of steel and turn steel and concrete into dust! They can't even look at a photo and determine that the columns aren't even all severed and the plane shape doesn't fit in the hole!

These divisive, anti-truthers probably even want to tell us that crazed muslim 'hijackers' can pilot passenger jets all over creation before homing in on their targets, when they probably weren't even able to pilot a Cessna.

This country is crawling with nuts who can't think for themselves and quake at the very idea of actually examining media involvement and the selling of 911 to the passive citizens who, thanks to their fine American educations, have the same grasp of elemental physics as a house cat.

I could go on, but I need to sign off and sharpen my aluminum diamond cutter.

ogrady, are you aware of the posting rules for this forum?

If not, I suggest you read them: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8354

consider this a warning.

Painter, I understand your comment as ogrady may well have been a tad abrasive with his comment in his effort to make a point but it is easy enough, for me at least, to separate his purposefully ironic "truth from fiction" statements into true or false:



BTW: why are most near all of the people here at P4T being so quiet on the evidence I have put forward in this thread?

If you read through the Alternative Theories section you will realise that the avoidance of the issue is due to exhaustion from previous threads. You aren't adding anything new and you certainly aren't providing evidence that can be used to disprove the official theory. The fact that you addressed this theory at Aldo whose specialist subject is the Pentagon suggests that you want to distract him? Is that the case?

You opinion means nothing to me.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10766898

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10767464

Absolutely not, KP50. Aldo brought up no planes and holograms, not me, in an attempt to ridicule me. I was trying to bring things back to a rational level by putting to him a reasonable question. As far as I know, an object can't cast a shadow in front of itself if the light source is in front of it. This is a fact, not a theory and Fairbanks' image does exactly this. In other words, is my position that the videos are fake as ridiculous as Aldo claims, when there is strong evidence like this to support that I am right? If this evidence does not support fakery, why not? This is a serious question. If any one has a rational answer then I am open to listen to it. Aldo's and Painter's derogatory/flippant comments on this thread do not constitute a rational answer, IMHO. Do you disagree?

BTW: I do not believe holograms were used. I believe the WTC Tower fraud was contrived using real missile impact footage with superimposed Computer Graphic Images of Boeings, along with strategically placed false witnesses, and supplementary C-4 explosives for cosmetic effect.

And how would you use this belief of yours to change the views of someone who still believes the official tale? How would you present it? That's all I care about.

Hi, KP50.
Anyone I have shown the erroneous shadow to, along with an objective and rational explanation of where the false light source is coming from relative to the tonal values, and some well considered corroborative evidence, becomes convinced. Most near everyone understands the principles of light and shade. Believe me, this fact, simply but clearly presented, opens the door to a flood of understanding even with people who previously have never even questioned the official story.

Saturnaspider, there's nothing weird about the light source in the Hezarkhani/Fairbanks videos. The plane is coming from the south, the sun rises in the east, ergo, the light source is to the right in the Hezarkhani clip and from behind the camera in the Fairbanks clip. The plane is banked to the left and so the underside of its wings are lit up.

As for the "shadow", it is very faint and only appears at the last moment (in both vids). Is the earth like the moon, where there is no atmosphere to reflect/refract light all over the place and things are either lit or in pitch-black shadow? No, of course not. Why can you see the sides of buildings that don't face the sun??? Shouldn't they be all in total shadow? No, because light bounces around in the atmosphere and permeates every space that isn't totally sealed off from the sky. So, if there is secondary light illuminating the sides of the building which don't face the sun (and if there wasn't we wouldn't be able to see them), then wouldn't a plane right up next to this building block out some of that secondary light? The answer my friend is YES, and that's why you see a faint shadow from the plane at the last moment.

You, or whoever pointed out this alleged anomoly to you, have NPT/Fakery-on the brain. We have dissected all of these types of NPT-Fakery related arguments here on this side ad-nauseam, and have little patience for it anymore. Post some REAL evidence of SOMETHING, and that doesn't include youtube copies of vids or half-baked theories, and people might give it a serious look. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you get grilled.

.................

EDIT: While I am aware of the obvious problems of a normal plane slicing through the exterior steel and concrete floor slabs, and subsequently am open to the idea that in certain cases (close-ups) video was messed with (I'm not saying they did, I haven't seen any direct evidence for it ... I'm saying I'm open to the idea), this faint "shadow" you point to is actually good evidence that there WAS an aircraft that actually hit the building - that is unless you give the alleged videographers credit for portraying the phenomenon I described above into their little "fake-job".

painter:

I apologize. I am aware of the forum's rules and, if you will look through my sparing posts on this forum, you will see that I follow them.

My post was a misguided attempt at humor, poking a bit of fun at Aldo. I used some of the words he used - 'kooks', 'disinfo' - but skipped others like 'scumbags', 'pawns', and 'horseshit'.

I am aware that attacking others without responding to their questions is rude and against the forum rules. People who do this are, I believe, accused of being 'shills' and 'trolls'. Of course, using such language in forum posts in response to honest questions is wrong and I will not be doing it again.

Thank you, Sanders, for supplying an intelligent response.

As for directional info, specifically: The plane was flying from the south west and towards the north west. The sun was shining from east south east, i.e. in front of the plane. In accordance with the orientation of the building, the sun was shining on the so-called north face and more fully on the so-called east face (so-called because the building is oriented several degrees clockwise off from North: see diagram below).



This being the case, there is absolutely no way that the plane should be displaying its high light values at the rear of its forms and the low darks at the front (Denman Ross "9 step value scale" nomenclature utilized) as is the case in Hezarkhani, Taylor, and Fairbanks.

As for a secondary light source (capable of casting a shadow) at that altitude there was no such source according to all available topographical references.

There was a shadow cast on the so-called south face in Fairbanks, as you acknowledge. It was cast from the moment the plane's fuselage contacted the so-called south face, as would be expected from a light source originating from above and behind the plane. That same rear light source was illuminating the form of the plane (as it was in Hezarkhani and Taylor, also). However, it is most significant that this light source was at variance with the known and authentic light source i.e. the sun (which was irrefutably above and in front). It inevitably follows, therefore, that the light source illuminating the plane and casting the shadow, was synthetic.

Sanders: this proven anomalous light source is conclusive evidence of forgery according to my expert understanding.

Thank you once again for your above response,

Respectfully, Saturna.