so are the Naudet brothers in with the criminals?

mason-free party

obviously if their video film of 1st plane crash is faked then these two are high up in the 9/11 scam and should be arrested and brought to trial.

Can someone post any infomation they have about their background?

Saturday, May 12, 2007
NO PLANES @ WTC on 911! Interesting watch!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------From: FREE FALL (system's down)Date: May 12, 2007 9:07 AM
earthica'>http://earthica.mypodcast.com/">earthica star's podcast-talking about 'No Planes'.. click here to listen
No Planes

Audio'>http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/696E7CE2A75542258DDAD5 6F24776E2B/192158/audio-proof-of-no-planes-theor.aspx">Audio proof of no-planes-theory

911 Involved more than what meets the EYE!!! Open your MIND!I worked on this for months, please take at least a few hours to go over the material here, it ALL has to be looked at to understand the BIGGER picture... ( I made it as concise as possible, and that wasnt easy)...so PLEASE, make some popcorn, put your feet up, and discover why there is so much controversy now about the 'No Plane' evidence... or 'lack of' plane evidence. I'm NOT saying that 'No Thing' hit anything... i AM saying that 'No Plane' evidence, is present if you consider the entire scope of evidence, and the 'lack' of plane eveidence.
There's no quick answer for this info... it ALL needs to be reviewed together before you just read the title and reject it. There is good reason for this article also, i know we all know that 911 was an inside job... but there's a lot more to it than what is being told by the leaders of the truth movement, and it should not be over looked.

The articles which i have linked below, are well worth reading... and in this bulletin are the videos and interviews of Jules Naudet... please see all, and read all... the article's about Naudet fakery, are a 65 incidents of luck, and point by point effort to explain how Jules Naudet, couldnt have possibly gotten that shot... and i myself have questioned and scrutinized the Naudet footage and interviews, as they never did add up in my mind either.
e star*
My letter to a 911 'no plane' skeptic, and all 911 truthers.
This is such a big animal... maybe thats why i have such a fondness for" 911 Octopus" (see video at bottom of page)... i wrote some articles a while back about the truth movement fragmenting, partly due to some who are making large sums of money and getting lots of air time captilizing on 911 and with the GCN being owned and funded by ABC and Disney, we have to consider they may have an agenda of their own, ... the other being the scholars, who are intelligent men and women arguing over what can, and cant be proven with physics.
There are a lot of theories out there, and a lot of physical evidence, inspite of what was destroyed.. eyewitnesses have been a large part of my focus due to the lack of matter to examine, but certainly ones eyes can tell us a lot, and i am an eyewitness also, and so are you, if you consider what we saw on the only footage we have to work with.
Consider this, there is only one shot of the first plane crashing,(and 1/2 of another as was discovered much later).And as these 'Plane deniers' keep cropping up, so do more films of planes hitting the towers, (and thats curious in and of itself that a few months ago, these clips ahd never been seen before... until 5 years later, and only when the questions about the planes started getting wind?) The people who pulled off 911 in the first place are making TRILLIONS! I think they can make as many doctored films as it takes to cover their asses after the fact.(and after all is said and done, remember that all the planes disappeared off of radar, sattelite, and air traffic control blips).
First of all we all know that 'No Plane' hit WTC 7, 'No Plane' was discovered in the HOLe in Shanksville, 'No Planes' were scrambled to intercept, 'No' availability of the 'Plane's' black box recorders, as questioned by
Pilots'>http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/">Pilots for 911 Truth-click here
and 'No' one SAW a 'Plane' hit the Pentagon, other than 'mock' witnesses...as seen in the true Operation'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tNcsjoy0m4&eurl=http%3A%2F% 2Fbulletin%2Emyspace%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ecfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dblog%2Eview%26 friendID%3D32694618%26blogID%3D234102050%26Mytoken%3D3064A7C0">Operati on Northwoods style of flase flag ops- CLICK HERE (declasified document outlines a plan to fake planes, and create 'mock' witnesses, victims, and staged funerals)
yet we also know there were 84 cameras surrounding the PENTAGON, all high quality digital. we do have some 'mock' testimonies, (how convenient, since they wont show us the footage)... while the testimonies of people like Sam'>http://www.erichufschmid.net/EyewitnessToFlight77.html">Sam Danner .. who described a Global Hawk hitting the Pentagon, get retracted, (if they were threatening your son, youd probably do the same).
So we have 'NO Plane'footage of THE Pentagon,, yet all of a sudden, years later, we have 44 clips of planes hitting the towers, most of them from a good distance, and only the second tower, so they are smokey, grainy, far away, and unclear. Ok, a few people, 'sat' on these films and didnt want to share them with the world, till years later.... that makes sense.... not.
So why edit planes INTO the WTC footage, yet NOT show us planes at the Pentagon?
Thanks, i was hoping you'd ask THAT question... and if you bear with me, i think i can explain it.
Consider this guy in 911 Mysteries, claiming he "witnessed a Boeing kareenining into the towers", and subsequently explaining "and then they collapsed , due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense". (Thus giving the 'Official story', a foundation for the public to 'buy').http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnhuKKl5Fvw We were TOLD it was Passenger planes, and THAT story had to be corraberated.
You see, It was easier to fake some footage of planes hitting the towers, without anyone questioning or scrutinizing them, than to edit a plane into the high quality Pentagon footage... which would surely show what 'really happened THERE, in clear digital format, .... experts could PROVE, it was edited... whereas, if we were psychologically made to believe we saw planes in New York, it would be very difficult to convince people later, that THOSE films were edited... even if THEY were PROVED, to be faked... the idea had been planted in our minds, and 'set in', (once we believe something it's much harder to un-believe it, ...and even harder to admit we may be wrong).
More people were at the WTC, so why are there so few who actually 'SAW or HEARD' a plane?... Most of the NY witnesses, only say they saw or heard 'an explosion'... and most of them say... they 'didnt' see a plane at all, but witnessed the explosion, and thought it was a bomb.
Are you beginning to see where im going with this now? Please bear with me a little longer, and watch the videos and read the articles below.
Naudet'>http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm">Naudet film Staged... Clcik Here, this is excrucuatingly long, but without reading it, you may not get the FULL picturehttp://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm
also'>http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/fvfake/">also CLICK HERE for another very important article on Naudet Fake, great photos and videos too, a must see, to make this story complete http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/fvfake/
Naudet footage of 1st Plane crash
and GW Bush saw it first... hmmm, was that a direct feed from Jules Naudet's camera to the Presidential cam?

Oh, Naudet happened to catch the second plane crash, which is strange also, keep that in mind for later...
Naudet-2nd Plane footagehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8327638485531107964&q= naudet+brothers+documentary*naudet 2nd plane
And this guy caught the second plane also... so why are so many saying there was 'No Plane"?
I often wondered why the Naudet Bros have been extremely reluctant to speak... after all, Jules could tell us more than almost any other person... he also filmed the lobby, and was supposedly one of the first to go into the towers with the other firemen... wouldnt he be anxious to tell the world what he saw, or is he that big of a coward, that he is afraid of being assasinated? After all, he was willing to go into a burning building, and risk his life to 'get the shot', ( did he rescue anyone? he IS a firefighter). Jules could certainly put a lot of myths to rest.
Nextel 911- Naudet's 'Inside the WTC' filmhttp://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6371069744838112957 &hl=en" />
Charlie Rose Naudet Interview
So we turn to the Scholars, precious Steven Jones, love the man, so very rational and careful, a truely sweet spirit, and appeals to the greatest audience.
A scientist with not only extensive knowledge in physics, but actually 'coined cold fusion'(which has been refuted by many, although I find it to be noteworthy, and one of the main discoveries which got me thinking there may be something other than just thermate, (along with Rick Seigals video of the helicopters appearing to drop something into the buildings immediately prior to the collapse.(this is very curious, and not even Jones, or JONES, has even mentioned THIS piece of evidence....why not? we all saw it if we saw 911 Eyewitness).
Thermate CUTS steel, but it doesnt vaporize it, or account for 75% of the buildings mass not being present in the aftermath. Even in Controlled demolitions, most of the mass remains in the debris.
Steven Joneshttp://www.youtube.com/v/dwKALqDhsL4" />
WATCH, AND LISTEN CLOSELY... THIS WOMAN SAYS SHE SAW AN EXPLOSION, BUT NOT A PLANE... also watch the object flying in the smoke.
Most of the 'truthers' are more concerned with being accepted by the rest of the truth movement, than examining ALL the evidence. So Steven Jones has dis-associated with the scholars, because some, mainly Jim Fetzer and Judy Woods, have chosen to consider some things that cant neccesarily be 'proven' but DO have substantial 'foundation'for consideration. Rick Seigel has asked them all to take lie detectors, but i can understand why they refuse.. (they arent always accurate, and therefore may 'backfire'). Personally, 'I'd' take one. The mere fact that Hollywood'>http://www.rense.com/general65/911mir.htm">Hollywood fakery and high frequency and particle beams exist, should be enough to consider them as playing into the equation... especially when the towers were a top down demolition, unprecedented, ...or were they? (see 911'>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2939164701791209176&q=91 1+eyewitness&hl=en">911 Eyewitness full movie with another example of a 'top down' demo, which looks very much like 1st tower starting to topple then exploding in mid air). So why are they even saying THAT was a first?
What did those helicopters drop into the Towers? And Why is nobody talking about it? (Hey, wait a minute, does this refute my 'No Plane' theory? Helicopters ARE Planes, and we DID see those!)
911'>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6333886887490767906">911 Eyewitness Trailer 10 minutes http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6333886887490767906
Rick Siegel didnt see the planes either, but was an eyewitness, and filmed the destruction of both towers, and WTC 7, (which he was told hours before hand, was 'going to' collapse). Siegel made a very interesting documentary, which analyzes his footage against news footage on 911.
911 EYEWITNESS (movie trailer)
Were they some kind of Cold Fusion device? (Why doesnt Steven Jones talk about them? I dont know.)... They sure were bright flashes, and uniform in shape. Did Siegel 'effect' them in? What would he have to gain by altering his footage?
Please, show me an eyewitness, (that you know personally), who was there, and saw, and HEARD a plane... i welcome that info, i havent found it yet, in over 7000 hours of my 911 research... (other than the MOCK witness testimonies, (on NewsCorp media), which were laid out in the Operation'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods">Operatio n Northwoods style of planning).
I hope that youve taken the time to scrutinize what i put together here, and hope that we all can discover some of these things on our own. some times it takes more than just experts...
It does no good to have an IMAGINATION, and not USE it!
The 8 Arm Monster of a LIE! 911 OCTOPUS!
IN PLANE SITE... debunking the debunkers
Chairman Joint Chiefs Myers says military knows that unmanned drones used in 911 attacks.http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" /> http://www.youtube.com/v/V3zBu86kdAY" />
What made this hole after crashing through 3 rings of the Pentagon?
It was 'NO PLANE'!
my respect to all
peace
Earthicastar*
911 TRUTH South Carolina
I have had my doubts as well, and refuse to discredit the NO PLANES idea as Dis-Info! it could and VERY WELL be TRUE!

Posted by Peggy Carter at 3:18 PM

mason-free party · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject:

http://overmuch.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-planes-wtc-on-911-interesting- watch.html

karlos · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject:

The video is not faked.
The naudet brothers were hired by the 911 conspirators to record the event.
In return they have been well paid by becoming famous and selling loads of dvds.
They should be questioned under oath as to who hired them

mason-free party · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:

http://overmuch.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-planes-wtc-on-911-interesting- watch.html

mason-free party · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject:

stelios...yeah well i'm definitely with the no planers...it makes perfect sense to me and why steven jones tried to divert attention from Particle beam weapons

gruts · Major Poster Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050

mason-free party · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject:

gruts · Major Poster Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050

that's not really conclusive of anything though is it? opinions are one thing - having the evidence to back them up is entirely another. do you have any evidence that links the naudets to the perps?

Ray Ubinger · Minor Poster Joined: 09 Apr 2007 Posts: 90

egw · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:56 am Post subject:

Spooky Stuff!!

Ray Ubinger · Minor Poster Joined: 09 Apr 2007 Posts: 90

mason-free party · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:46 am Post subject:

gruts..convinced now?...you should be

Ray Ubinger · Minor Poster Joined: 09 Apr 2007 Posts: 90

egw · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject:

"The Flash Frame changes history ... if we'll let it."

Sure does - I for one was never aware that the WTC towers had such crooked walls...

Ray Ubinger · Minor Poster Joined: 09 Apr 2007 Posts: 90

egw · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject:

Sorry, I'm a very lazy person. Would it be too much to ask that you tell us, in a few short sentences, what the specific claims are that you are making?

If the video is so "authentic," then what is your problem with it?

Ray Ubinger · Minor Poster Joined: 09 Apr 2007 Posts: 90

egw · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject:

So in one and the same image, the towers look like they're made out of plasticine (due to "motion blur and imperfect focus"), and whatever is colliding with the building does not look at all like a jet liner.

Might I point out that the towers were in fact not made out of plasticine?

And as a corollary to that, it's quite possible - probable even - that the "whatever" that was colliding with the building was, in fact, a jet liner.

Ray Ubinger · Minor Poster Joined: 09 Apr 2007 Posts: 90

egw · Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:19 am Post subject:

The spire on top of the north tower looks as if it's 20 feet wide (half the way up it) in those freeze frames.

Is it actually 20 feet wide at that point, or is that some wierd trick of the light?

* *

Given the angle of the camera and the bright summer morning sun, is it possible that the camera simply doesn't even pick up the wings of the plane, and that most of what we see - the bright blob - is actually sunlight reflected off of the body of the plane?

And could the portion of the apparent object which extends vertically above the bright blob simply be sunlight reflected in a different direction off of the body of the plane - this time landing on the building above the plane? Because if the vertical blob above the bright blob is supposed to be something more physically dense than rays of light, then it certainly didn't make much of an impression on the face of the tower when it hit.

egw · Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject:

It's wierd how in the original Naudet video the most noticible thing is how the jet jumps at the building just as it nears it.

But no mention of that in the analysis.

Instead we study the flash it makes as it hits, like flint on stone.

What's with that?

gruts · Major Poster Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050

gruts · Major Poster Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050

egw · Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject:

The thing that really cracks me up about the Naudet video is the guy saying "Holy sh*t!"

He says it once, and that's ok, but then there's the big fireball (around the 20 second mark) and he says it again - this time with emphasis - it cracks me up every time.

Holy sh*t!!

gruts · Major Poster Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050

egw · Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject:

Those perps give me the sh*ts.

Samantha J Fox · Minor Poster Joined: 08 Jan 2007 Posts: 68

There is a problem with this idea that the Naudets were somehow in on the attack.. One of them was in one of the towers when the other tower collapsed. We have all seen the footage of what happened and how essentially he and his footage was lucky to survive. Now if they were "in with the perps" they obviously were not too clued up on what would happen on that day.

Also bearing in mind that if they were to have been part of an elaborate plan to capture such unique footage at certain times, they would not have been allowed to go near the base of the towers incase their equipment and film was destroyed.. all that effort would have been pointless.

Not too mention that if the Naudets had any idea that both towers would be coming down then they would not have set foot near the towers especially once they already had the money shots of the first 2 impacts..

What point was there in them risking everything like that for what essentially would be more footage that could only damage the official story..?

We all talk of explosions going off in the towers, of controlled demolitions.. why would the "perps" even think of allowing the Naudets near the WTC after lining up the 2 main money shots..?

There was just nothing else for them to gain..? And the risk of losing everything would have been to great.

I cant buy in to this at all.

gruts · Major Poster Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050

what you are saying is common sense - so it'll never be accepted by the NPT crowd.... Wink

casey.p · Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: simple evidence

The large volume of very detailed & complex evidence being researched & discussed at this time will no doubt be very useful in the longer term & full respect & thanks must be given to the researchers for making this stuff available , However I feel that at this point we should be hammering home the irrefutable evidence of the speed of collapse & the molten steel/iron found in the basements of the 3 imploded towers..casey.p

KP50 · Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: Re: simple evidence

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2