When Light is not Doing What it is Meant to Do? A Study of the Second Plane Images on 9/11

An Independent Investigation

This is a short study showing the inconsistent reflective lighting on the alleged second plane which allegedly crashed into the South Tower on 9/11. Please take your time to observe and study the images below. Consider how parts of the alleged plane should be in shadow, and compare and contrast how the light is not behaving as it should be.

Exhibit One: Note the difference of the reflective light off the alleged right plane wing.

Exhibit Two: The dark appearance of the left wing inconsistencies.

Exhibit Three: Inconsistent reflective light on the underbelly of the alleged plane.

Exhibit Four: The left wing is lacking any dark appearance. The anomaly was captured in Carmen Taylor’s photograph, which she took from the top deck of the ferry boat in Battery Park.

Exhibit Five: In the Luc Courchesne video, the left wing has completely disappeared.

The left wing should have a dark appearance, and not be invisible. Many researchers attempt to explain this anomaly away as compression, however this is not the case, as many other videos capture the disappearing wings anomaly.

Exhibit Six: The Naudet Brothers second plane video, which not only shows the plane’s wings and tail section has disappeared for 6 frames, but also the reappearance of the wing and tail section. It should also be noted that the plane is of dark appearance, which is completely inconsistent with the lighting and reflective light which should be consistent.

When light is not doing what it is meant to be doing, we have to question the optics?

Concluding:

We are not looking at a real plane in the videos or photographs of the second plane. People did witness what they took to be a plane, which rules out that the plane is CGI, or has been composited into the video.

The perps would have done a better job of inserting the plane into the videos, which to some degree would have been better matched to the actual United Airlines livery, to be more realistic to the viewers, and without all the glaring anomalies which can be observed in the many videos. The CGI theory makes no sense, other than was used to steer people away from ever knowing about the secret technology that was used to execute the plane illusions on 9/11. The CGI theory certainly does not address nor answer what the eyewitnesses observed in the sky and crashing into the South Tower. It should be noted, that some witnesses observed a small plane, and some observed a missile or rocket. See video below:

See below: Synched Naudet Brothers second plane footage with Les Sweeting’s observation of seeing a rocket. [Video Synch Produced By Mat from Math Easy Solutions.

The real time plane anomalies can only be explained by the use of secret advanced 3D volumetric image projection technology. The glitches and anomalies seen with the technology largely depends on the location and position of where the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers were viewing the “illusion” plane from. Les Sweeting in the video above, obviously observed the plane in real time with the missing wings anomaly, and took it to be a “Rocket”.

There are serious implications for future use of this technology, and it is a clear and present danger to us all, as it could be used in a Project Blue Beam style false flag event. I have no doubt, 9/11 was a trial run, and it fooled the great majority of people of the world.

If you would like to study further and learn more about the type of technology used on 9/11 involving the planes, please see my two articles below.

Thanks for reading and caring!