| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi wokeman... I agree that this is strange, but think about all the tourists who visit NY and run around with their Video Cameras constantly shooting anything that moves. (particularly the Chineese and Japaneese if Edinburgh is anything to go by)... what amazes me is that the first plane strike was not caught on film by a whole lot more amature's/tourists!
I'm afraid that this, although strange in the way the camera pans etc, is too weak an argument... particularly since those who agree in the 'luck' theory will point out that the Nordet's were professionals and able to react and were in full control of the camera functions during this shot.
I agree though that it still remains that there is something fishy surrounding the whole Nordet Documentary (A hunch if you like) regarding their access to the twin towers among other bits and bobs, but I also think that the evidence to prove any underhanded goings on is merely supposition.
I think we have much stronger evidence to be concentrating our efforts on! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to agree with you, Bongo, I don't think there is much mileage in pursuing this.
I think the shot would be much harder to stage than capture by accident.
If somebody can produce footage of a Naudet lining up the shot and running through it prior to the plane's impact, I might change my mind. But there are too many imponderables for this to be credible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Someone once remarked in respect of the official story on 911, a large number of coincidences have to be accepted as just that, coincidences. Well, in the case of the Naudet Brothers film, there are 69 of them, (Les Raphael calls them Conveniences) all of them had to be fulfilled. Have a look at them, they are all numbered. Take number 13, for example. The plane flies alongside the next street west, when it could have been twenty blocks away. But would they have heard it? If you do read the 69 all through, I'm sure you'll feel something in you head is being stretched! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samantha J Fox
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have heard this idea a few times, that the Naudet film was staged. Yes there may be a number of strange coincidences, but for me when you see the Naudet brother in the tower as the other tower falls that suggests they couldnt know too much about what was going on, because you wouldnt be hanging about if you knew the towers were coming down...
or maybe Bush and the Naudets never knew the towers were coming down
..Maybe different people all had their own plans on 9/11 knowing noone could say anything anyway or it would all come out.
Maybe Bush was actually watching the towers thinking.. "hang on, that werent supposed to happen"
_________________
SAPERE AUDE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disco volante
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes it was staged...........and they also wanted to get down to the demolition site asap in order to breath in as much toxic pulverised concrete,glass,exotic metals etc etc.......as they possibly could............
you seen em with all that toxic dust around em?...............
no chance was naudet staged...............then again maybe it was................
provide evidence in this thread....................
_________________
http://www.8thestate.com/
richard andrew grove
one of the best 9/11 truthers.....must see this site |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: Obscure Naudet 1st Hit PEDESTRIAN REACTION Shot |
|
|
My proof of Naudet complicity is that they had a SECOND camera running at the same time on the same street.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
As for having to work among the dangerous conditions, there's no proof they knew everything that was going to happen. There's just proof that they were assigned to film some things that were going to happen. If they had not been inside Tower 1, they could not have completed the assignment of filming the up-close and personal murder of Chaplain Judge.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: Obscure Naudet 1st Hit PEDESTRIAN REACTION Shot |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | My proof of Naudet complicity is that they had a SECOND camera running at the same time on the same street.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
As for having to work among the dangerous conditions, there's no proof they knew everything that was going to happen. There's just proof that they were assigned to film some things that were going to happen. If they had not been inside Tower 1, they could not have completed the assignment of filming the up-close and personal murder of Chaplain Judge.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm |
Good work, Ray!
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | | what amazes me is that the first plane strike was not caught on film by a whole lot more |
The article's central point is that the Naudets weren't just in the right place at the right time, they were in the perfect place at the perfect time. I would say the timing was about seven seconds off, though. That's how long we see Chief Pfeifer and an unnamed fireman stalling for time, waiting for the 1st Hit to happen, between when they stop waving the gas-smelling wand and when they start reacting to the overhead noise.
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm
Incidentally, since when is it FDNY SOP to step out directly ONTO a street grate, in garrison clothes (not full ff suit), when you suspect an explosive gas is leaking underneath it? That's what Pfeifer is doing.
| Quote: | | I think we have much stronger evidence to be concentrating our efforts on! |
It is the Naudet footage which directly shows that Tower 1 was struck by something other than a plane. I can't think of much stronger or more important evidence than that.
http://missilegate.com
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thing is, Ray, the majority of the members of this forum will swear that these are pics of a plane hitting the North Tower, when in reality it is just a blob. This is how far gone some people are on here.
http://missilegate.com
It's completely obvious that those french swine were complicit in all of this. They need to be tracked down and interviewed. If you need any help with your campaign let me know.
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What would be the point of staging the filming? Why would whoever they are involve the Naudet brothers?
To set up filming with the NYFD would probably be a lengthy process. Some questions, if they were ever to be interviewed.
What projects had they worked on prior to the NYFD project?
What was there interest in the NYFD?
How long had they been filming with the NYFD?
What did they hope to do with the film - where did they hope to sell it on to?
What projects have they worked on since?
Last edited by kookomula on Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kookomula wrote: | | What would be the point of staging the filming? |
To accomplish the most ghastly aspect of the whole ghastly plot: making a snuff film out of the day's events (using dramatic, "accidental," "lucky" footage that no one else would be able to get) and selling it back to us as a respectable documentary. Then they bask in our praise, for their courage and historical luck, at the same time as their film almost openly mocks our own credulousness. Personally I suspect they also feel a deeply depraved sexual gratification in rewatching their footage of their own crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
| Quote: | | Why would whoever they are involve the Naudet brothers? |
I don't think they would dare/bother to try to trick/corrupt two actual documentarians. I think the Naudet "brothers" are just a role played by two of the agents.
http://tinyurl.com/y53bhj
They made exactly ONE prior documentary, and NONE since. They have not been seen in public since mid 2003 when they were still promoting and accepting accolades for their DVD's late 2002 release.
http://tinyurl.com/2gfntv
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet 911: The Art of the MOCK-YOU-Drama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK I've read some of the link posted by Wokeman, if I read more it would probably give me the answer however, if you know the answer and would like to save me some effort.
Would it have been the Naudet brothers who said lets go to this particular street, what were the NYFD doing on that street? How did they get to be filming on that street? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kookomula wrote: | | Would it have been the Naudet brothers who said lets go to this particular street, what were the NYFD doing on that street? How did they get to be filming on that street? |
Allegedly a call came in to the firehouse at 8:30 for an odor of gas at that intersection (junction of Church & Lispenard Streets).
http://tinyurl.com/yty9ln
Jules Naudet went along to get "basically camera practice," according James Hanlon, the narrator/Naudet-buddy/fireman/interviewer/co-director/PROFESSIONAL-ACT OR-WITH-A-RESUME-DATING-BACK-TO-1995.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0360137/
In setting up at the O'O'Gas scene, Jules just happened (wink wink) to get the world's last known photo of the WTC NOT under attack. See first four screenshots at
http://www.spingola.com/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%204.htm
The movie never tells us whether or not a gas leak was ever actually detected. It is just a plot device, a CATALYST, a thing which enables something ELSE (the filming of the 1st Hit) without undergoing any change itself. We are not supposed to wonder what became of the possible gas leak. Chief Pfeifer is quoted in a later interview saying it was indeed a gas leak
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/pfiefer.html
But he seems strangely unconcerned in the actual footage, with his hand in his pocket, and stepping out directly onto the street grate where the odor is presumably coming from, where they are waving their apparent gas-smelling instrument around.
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm
Note the SEVEN-SECOND STALL between when they stop waving the gas-sniffing instrument and when they start reacting to the overhead sound. Clearly they finished their "gas"-checking charade early, and are just waiting for their cue to react to the event which they have been told is about to happen.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | I think the shot would be much harder to stage than capture by accident. |
Maybe the shot would be easier to capture by accident than to stage CONVINCINGLY. But no one is saying they staged it convincingly. It's full of anomalies. Add to these, the anomaly of the two OTHER known pieces of footage from NYC at that same instant:
the pedestrian reaction 11 blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET (Church)
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
which appears ONLY in the Naudet movie, nowhere else, and is NEVER EXPLAINED, they simply insert it as a snippet;
and
the so-called alleged "Pavel Hlava" footage, which was actually SHOT FROM A FIRETRUCK
http://webfairy.org/pavel/
| Quote: | | If somebody can produce footage of a Naudet lining up the shot and running through it prior to the plane's impact, I might change my mind. |
I submit Jules Naudet is doing exactly that--except it wasn't a plane--in the first four screenshots at
http://www.spingola.com/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%204.htm
SEE ALSO the Naudets' OTHER deliberate foreshadowing shot of WTC, DAYS PRIOR:
http://tinyurl.com/2anoru
aka
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_8.asp?intPage=45&PageNum=45
in which we are asked to believe a veteran fireman (co-conspirator James Hanlon at left) commandeered a ladder truck, incapacitated it by putting it up on jacks (thus rendering it unusable for any actual fire that might happen), blocked a sidewalk, and partly blocked a street, all just to take ONE ROOKIE (co-conspirator Tony Benetatos at right) up to the firehouse ROOF at NIGHT and TALK about the job requirements!
When you listen to the actual dialogue in that rooftop scene from the movie it is even more transparently staged; Hanlon is just improvising some gibberish, while Benetatos does nothing but nod and say the word "Right" TEN TIMES. Yet they had TWO CAMERAMEN (presumably both Naudet "brothers") covering this total non-event--AS IF it were important--one on the ground and one along for the ride up in the ladder-bucket.
That 911hoax site belongs to Scott Loughrey, the first person (2002) to publicly cast suspicion on the Naudet "brothers."
The b****** need to be arrested: Jules Naudet, Gedeon Naudet, James Hanlon, Tony Benetatos and Chief Pfeifer are the top five perps behind this most evil movie ever made. Note that Hanlon was still getting TV acting gigs as recently as 2005. Les Raphael writes to them and many of their associates but never gets a fruitful reply. You'd think the FDNY would sue us for libel by now, if they were innocent.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
Jules and Gedeon Naudet: Accessories to Mass Murder
[/GVideo] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kookomula wrote: | | What would be the point of staging the filming? |
ps
Besides to accomplish the ghastly evil of selling us a snuff film as a respectable documentary ... and maybe more importantly ...
the making of this movie allows to the guilty, the release of CONFESSION WITHOUT CULPABILITY. They leave so many blatant clues, come so close to open admission, yet they masterfully keep the majority of us enthralled with their bravery/luck/stoicism, that the production serves to RELIEVE THEIR CONSCIENCES.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
UFOs and FDNY did it. Seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | those french swine |
What does their race have to do with anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
London Mick
Moderate Poster
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 139
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nationality, not race.
Just a thought....why were firemen checking for gas leaks? Doesn't New York have a gas department or company that sends their own people out on emergency calls to check gas leaks? That's what happens here in London. The gas company are the experts surely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: GAS |
|
|
| I think the point that's being made is that there was no gas leak! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| London Mick wrote: | | The gas company are the experts surely? |
Here in America only the fire department are expert enough to remember to step out DIRECTLY ONTO a street grate, in ORDINARY OFFICE CLOTHING, when a highly explosive substance is suspected to be leaking below the grate.
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm
The gas company would probably also forget to have a second employee on hand to stick his FACE directly over the same grate.
It is also only at the Fire Academy where they rigorously teach you NOT TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE INSTRUMENT for any kind of reading after you wave it over the suspected leaking gas. The important thing to do at that point is to STICK YOUR HAND IN YOUR POCKET. Only firemen get that kind of advanced training. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Re: GAS |
|
|
| Wokeman wrote: | | I think the point that's being made is that there was no gas leak! |
whats strange about that? firemen get called out to fires and there is no fire, or people are called out to gas leaks because a member of the public thinks they can smell gas but there isnt a gas leak.
ive called out the gas board my self because i was sure i could smell gas and it was better to be safe than sorry, it turned out...guess what? there was NO gas leak.
there maybe be something strange about the documentary for all i know but certain things ive read dont make sense compared to what was being stated prior to this being under suspicion.
please correct me if im wrong but the naudets were making a documentary about a fireman, they followed him through the process of training to working at the depot he was stationed and even after, 9/11 happened in the course of the filming and it then took a twist by ending up being a 9/11 documentary, the fireman they were following(not throughout the day of 9/11 but the reason the documentary was made) ened up becoming a chemical clean up person of sorts as after 9/11 he wanted to help and respond in keeping americans safe from terrorist attacks after 9/11 and was offered the job.
on the morning of 9/11 in the shot everyone is going on about this "NEW RECRUIT"(the fireman the documentary was to be about) and others went out doing routine checks on grates to check for gas leaks and or to show the new recruit the ropes and whats what?
now i may be wrong but from what i remember of the documentary and other things before this was under suspicion something along the lines of what i just said was the case.
why has that now changed to they were phoned up with reports of a gas leaks etc?
just list why anything ive heard before is wrong.
i saw the page on the killing of father john(not sure if i got the name right)
i found it intresting and must watch the documentary again to see if i can see what is being pointed out, but even if he was killed by those around him dosnt mean the naudets knew this was going to happen and could of ended up catching it by accident.
so just list the reasons why the naudets are implicated and proves wrong everything ive heard before about this before it was suspicious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: Re: GAS |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Wokeman wrote: | | I think the point that's being made is that there was no gas leak! |
whats strange about that? firemen get called out to fires and there is no fire, or people are called out to gas leaks because a member of the public thinks they can smell gas but there isnt a gas leak.
ive called out the gas board my self because i was sure i could smell gas and it was better to be safe than sorry, it turned out...guess what? there was NO gas leak.
there maybe be something strange about the documentary for all i know but certain things ive read dont make sense compared to what was being stated prior to this being under suspicion.
please correct me if im wrong but the naudets were making a documentary about a fireman, they followed him through the process of training to working at the depot he was stationed and even after, 9/11 happened in the course of the filming and it then took a twist by ending up being a 9/11 documentary, the fireman they were following(not throughout the day of 9/11 but the reason the documentary was made) ened up becoming a chemical clean up person of sorts as after 9/11 he wanted to help and respond in keeping americans safe from terrorist attacks after 9/11 and was offered the job.
on the morning of 9/11 in the shot everyone is going on about this "NEW RECRUIT"(the fireman the documentary was to be about) and others went out doing routine checks on grates to check for gas leaks and or to show the new recruit the ropes and whats what?
now i may be wrong but from what i remember of the documentary and other things before this was under suspicion something along the lines of what i just said was the case.
why has that now changed to they were phoned up with reports of a gas leaks etc?
just list why anything ive heard before is wrong.
i saw the page on the killing of father john(not sure if i got the name right)
i found it intresting and must watch the documentary again to see if i can see what is being pointed out, but even if he was killed by those around him dosnt mean the naudets knew this was going to happen and could of ended up catching it by accident.
so just list the reasons why the naudets are implicated and proves wrong everything ive heard before about this before it was suspicious. |
Marky, I hope you dont mind me saying but do you realise you are turning into the 'Telecasterisation little me'?
Just wondered...?
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
i dont mind you saying anything, even if i dont understand the reasons why sometimes.
all i am trying to do is understand why i should ditch what i think in place of what others think on this subject, if thats the same as tele then all i can say is he questions things and trys to understand things before believing they could be true, as thats what i am doing here, if we sound the same then thats the only simularity, my wit isnt as sharp for a start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | i dont mind you saying anything, even if i dont understand the reasons why sometimes.
all i am trying to do is understand why i should ditch what i think in place of what others think on this subject, if thats the same as tele then all i can say is he questions things and trys to understand things before believing they could be true, as thats what i am doing here, if we sound the same then thats the only simularity, my wit isnt as sharp for a start. |
What about NPT? Are you in??
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | i dont mind you saying anything, even if i dont understand the reasons why sometimes.
all i am trying to do is understand why i should ditch what i think in place of what others think on this subject, if thats the same as tele then all i can say is he questions things and trys to understand things before believing they could be true, as thats what i am doing here, if we sound the same then thats the only simularity, my wit isnt as sharp for a start. |
What about NPT? Are you in?? |
i dont understand NPT as it stands, and i dont know if i ever will, it depends on what happens and what becomes availble evidence wise i reckon. i use to see no exsistance or very little evidence that energy weapons even exsisted, that evidence is now there, the building fake ive just become aware of in terms of seeing the point and at the first attempt of explaining the evidence wasnt clear enough and i thought it was impossible.
so some things do come to be that i thought at a previous time were impossible, so who knows what will become apparent in 2 moths time or this time next year. i will question things i dont see the evidence for or am not understanding all the same, but as it stands im not there or seeing NPT at the moment.
it dosnt matter who is right and it could be a mixture of differant current theorys, all that matters is the truth becomes clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | thought criminal wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | i dont mind you saying anything, even if i dont understand the reasons why sometimes.
all i am trying to do is understand why i should ditch what i think in place of what others think on this subject, if thats the same as tele then all i can say is he questions things and trys to understand things before believing they could be true, as thats what i am doing here, if we sound the same then thats the only simularity, my wit isnt as sharp for a start. |
What about NPT? Are you in?? |
i dont understand NPT as it stands, and i dont know if i ever will, it depends on what happens and what becomes availble evidence wise i reckon. i use to see no exsistance or very little evidence that energy weapons even exsisted, that evidence is now there, the building fake ive just become aware of in terms of seeing the point and at the first attempt of explaining the evidence wasnt clear enough and i thought it was impossible.
so some things do come to be that i thought at a previous time were impossible, so who knows what will become apparent in 2 moths time or this time next year. i will question things i dont see the evidence for or am not understanding all the same, but as it stands im not there or seeing NPT at the moment.
it dosnt matter who is right and it could be a mixture of differant current theorys, all that matters is the truth becomes clear. |
You take your time, Marky. No rush, it's not like we have to stop more deaths of innocent people abroad and at home, or run the risk of being the first to be imprisoned under the superfastdevelopment of an international fascist police state or anything. You keep mulling it over, anytime before 2012 cool with you?
_________________
| chek wrote: |
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: Re: GAS |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | firemen get called out to fires and there is no fire, or people are called out to gas leaks because a member of the public thinks they can smell gas .... ive called out the gas board my self |
Yes, you've called the gas board, NOT the fire department, when you've smelled gas.
Now maybe the Naudets could have pretended to be doing a documentary on a fake rookie gas company employee, instead of pretending to be doing a documentary on a fake rookie firefighter. Then maybe the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas could have been dispatched to the gas company. That way, the Naudets could still have gotten their world-famous shot of the 1st Hit, which was their intention all along, ever since they started filming in June 2001.
But, the gas company would not have ALSO then RESPONDED TO THE TOWER like the fire department did. That fact would have meant the Naudets would not be able to film the 1st Hit AND ALSO film INSIDE THE TOWER.
So they pretended fire departments respond to odors of gas, in order to be able to get both scenes on film, the impact AND the inside-Tower scene.
| Quote: | | please correct me if im wrong but the naudets were making a documentary about a fireman |
That's their COVER STORY. The truth is that the perps had a propaganda team comprised of the Naudets and rogue infiltrated elements of FDNY. (Probably CIAgents, maybe FEMAgents.) This team planned months ahead of time to make a snuff film out of the day's events, under false cover of a rookie-fireman story, and then sell it back to us as a respectable documentary. It is the most ghastly aspect of the whole ghastly plot.
They devised a great cover, because they knew everyone would lionize the FDNY after the attacks. Yet having a propaganda team within the FDNY would give the perps the ability to get unique, dramatic, "lucky" "accidental" footage that no one else could get, with a tremendous propaganda value.
The article linked to in the first post in this thread exposes this nefarious plot, as does the site
http://911foreknowledge.com
Please watch the Naudet-FDNY movie for yourself and examine the catalog of evidence at these links, then come back with your questions or objections.
For starters, notice that the alleged rookie is not actually present in any of the footage from the training camp where they allegedly discovered him. And he is never shown doing one lick of actual firefighter work anywhere in the entire movie. In fact an elaborate plot device is constructed (the gloveless exit, wherein he sends THE CAMERAMAN back into the firehouse to fetch his "box of medical gloves," THEN DITCHES the cameraman) specifically to get him off camera for most of the big day. Also, he is INSERTED into some scenes that he was not really at, for instance the pre-S11 funeral of fireman Michael Gorumba, where rookie Tony's creepy bloody face wound CHANGES CHEEKS because the FAKE funeral scene where they FILMED HIM accidentally had the procession driving the WRONG WAY, OPPOSITE to the procession's direction at the REAL funeral.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral
He's just an actor, another CIAgent like the other "firemen" in this movie. He even gets a singing credit at the end!
| Quote: | | it then took a twist by ending up being a 9/11 documentary |
That reminds me of the most evil line in the whole movie. Narrator/fireman/interviewer/co-director/PROFESSIONAL-ACTOR-WITH-A-TV- RESUME-GOING-BACK-TO-1995 James Hanlon says:
"The strange thing is, the tape--the whole story--it kinda happened by accident."
I would say back to him:
"No, you smooth son of a bitch, the STRANGE thing is, the tape kinda happened ON PURPOSE."
| Quote: | | on the morning of 9/11 in the shot everyone is going on about this "NEW RECRUIT"(the fireman the documentary was to be about) and others went out doing routine checks on grates to check for gas leaks and or to show the new recruit the ropes and whats what? |
The new recruit was NOT at the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas. He was explicitly shown as being still back at the firehouse. The cameraman at O'O'Gas was there for "basically camera practice," we're told.
| Quote: | | why has that now changed to they were phoned up with reports of a gas leaks etc? |
You simply misunderstood. The movie specifically claims the FDNY were responding to a particular report of an odor of gas at Church & Lispenard ... where there JUST HAPPENS (wink, wink) to be a perfect unobstructed view of the top of the north face of the North Tower.
| Quote: | | just list why anything ive heard before is wrong. |
Les Raphael's article (the link in the first post in this thread) has a list 69 long, of coincidences that all came together to enable the Naudet 1st Hit footage.
| Quote: | | i saw the page on the killing of father john(not sure if i got the name right) |
Judge. Father Mychal Judge, FDNY Chaplain. Listed as S11 Victim #0001.
| Quote: | | i found it intresting |
Thank you; I discovered it.
| Quote: | | and must watch the documentary again to see if i can see what is being pointed out, but even if he was killed by those around him dosnt mean the naudets knew this was going to happen and could of ended up catching it by accident. |
They had two cameras right on it as it happened. There are TWO shots of the vigorous right-arm thrust by Mr. Backofhead at the space between Chief Pfeifer on the right and another man on the left, where they are holding Father Judge up. Judge's left hand can be seen sliding down Pfeifer's back in death. TWO shots of that stabbing motion, though they told us only ONE camera (Jules Naudet's) was there inside WTC-1. This is a snuff film masquerading as an Emmy-winning documentary. I call it a MOCK-YOU-drama.
| Quote: | | so just list the reasons why the naudets are implicated and proves wrong everything ive heard before about this before it was suspicious. |
There is an abundance of evidence discussed above in the rest of this thread so far. Dive in.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ray,
I believe that you are doing a great job. Keep it going! Ignore these creepies! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thanks for answering the questions, clearly some of what ive picked up along the way or heard before is incorrect, im of to watch the documentary again now with all the information in mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
