Naudet's 9/11 Plane Shot Staged

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/JULES-NAUDET-S-FIRST-PLANE-by-Drew-Terry-080529-597.html

But only three people in the entire city captured any kind of photographic image of that plane, and only one of those captured film of the plane actually hitting the building. But that one person captured the plane hitting the top third of the north face of that building, when he could only properly see the top third of the north face of that building (i.e. if the plane had hit any of the other 92%, he could not have filmed the impact).

Jules Naudet was the only person to film the first plane event. Mr. Naudet just happened to be a guest of the Fire Department of New York. Specifically, Chief Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion 1, responsibile for the whole Lower Manhattan area, including the World Trade Center. The photographer and his brother, Jules Naudet, had just been filming the Chief in the street as the jet flew overhead.

Chief Pfeifer gave Jules Naudet permission to carry on filming in the lobby of the North Tower, as the Chief helped to run the emergency response -- an emergency that later claimed the lives of 343 FDNY personnel, including the Chief's brother.

Let's repeat those facts: the only person in the whole of New York who filmed this passenger jet crashing into the joint tallest building in the city, in broad daylight, was with the second most senior fire officer (after his Battalion Commander) in Lower Manhattan when it happened -- and he filmed it hitting the building in exactly the same spot of his view of just 8% of the building's exterior facade.

[wildbilln864]

1. thanks SLaD.

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

2. ...

Isn't it amazing that life evolved in one of the only places that we could observe it?

[LARED]

3. That article was written by someone needing serious

mental health intervention.

The Naudet film happened because the cameraman was creating a documentary about the NYCFD. Not a thing is amazing about that. He is standing in the street working on this rather mundane project, hears a very unusual roar of the jet close by and picks up his carmera to catch a shot of the plane impacting the WTC.

This a absolutely no different than the thousands of weird videos captured by people all the time. They just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Heres's other photos that impacted the world

http://www.cameranaked.com/Photographs1930s.htm

http://www.cameranaked.com/









http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2006-12/murder-vietcong-saigon-police-chief-eddie-

[piobair]

4. One minor point

It's FDNY.

[seemslikeadream]

5. No way the same

[LARED]

10. That may be your opinion

but, were you around during the Vietnam war? Were you around when the Hindenburg burned?

So how do you know what the impact of those images were?

[seemslikeadream]

11. You are so condescending

Where you around during the Vietnam war? Were you around when the Hindenburg burned?


I was around during Vietnam and I was in DC protesting and I did get Maced in the face, I have a relative that suffers from Agent Orange, and friends that died, I do know a few things even though you and your crowd think otherwise. I was not around for the Hindenburg and I doubt you were either, but that has NOTHING to do with this discussion

[LARED]

14. You're the one posting garbage from

someone that is so devoid of critical thought that they are operating in a vacuum possibly deducting from the world wide reserve of critical thought. If you want to believe the Naudet video is somehow so remarkable, so unusual, so improbable it has to be part of a CT, knock your socks off.

[seemslikeadream]

15. You post nothing but garbage

If you want to believe the Naudet video is somehow so remarkable, so unusual, so improbable it has to be part of a CT, knock your socks off.



DID I SAY IT WAS REMARKABLE SO UNUSUAL SO IMPROBABLE


QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH

[greyl]

17. Just stand behind your posts, SLAD.

If they aren't worth standing behind, say so.

[seemslikeadream]

18. Stand behind this

.. ...

[LARED]

19. The author of the OP thinks so.

There is nothing like it before, and there has been nothing like it since.

In the putative "Complete History of Documentary Photography," in the chapter entitled "Accidental Pictures of Moments that Changed the World," the only name mentioned would be Jules Naudet's: how many other photographers have a whole branch of the art all to themselves? The unique 9/11 event was the subject of an equally unique photographic achievement.

This absurdity has been almost completely ignored by the world's media since the shot was first televised by Univision on the night of 11 September -- so completely that even most of the (genuine) people who have been telling us all along that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government itself have failed to pick up on it. The so-called investigative journalists remain ignorant of this story and its importance. They had the biggest story of their careers staring them in the face, and have they done anything with it?

I therefore must deny 'luck' as Plausibly Unbelievable; I invite you to do likewise.

The second is Undeniable Intentionality - that the shot was arranged in advance, by some of the very few people who did know about Flight 11 before it appeared above New York. If Jules Naudet filmed its appearance, Jules Naudet was one of them, and is therefore an accessory to mass murder.

I just assumed you agreed with the author. Was I wrong?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

22. I was just giving you an easy out - nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedSock]

6. actually, there is another film of the first crash

taken by someone in a car about to enter the brooklyn battery tunnel from the brooklyn side.

it's not very clear, but it exists.

your "facts" are not correct.

[seemslikeadream]

7. They are NOT my facts and please produce a link to back up YOUR fact

Didn't you notice I provided a link? Those are his facts.

[RedSock]

12. here you go - LINK!

The link to the second video of the first plane is here. I'm surprised you do not know about it already.

"The only videotape known to have captured both planes slamming into the World Trade Center, and only the second image of the first strike, has surfaced days before the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Pavel Hlava, an immigrant construction worker from the Czech Republic, shot footage of the first plane hitting the north tower as a sport utility vehicle he was riding in entered the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel en route to lower Manhattan." - Webshots/AP (09/06/03)


You wrote that "They are NOT my facts ..."

These are your own words: "Jules Naudet was the only person to film the first plane event."

That sentence is not true.

[greyl]

13. Unless SLAD is Leslie Raphael or Drew Terry,

they aren't SLAD's words, exactly. SLAD just doesn't quote things well. However, it is clear that SLAD agrees with those words and believes them to be true.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

21. Is it possible for you to stick to discussing the subject of your own OP? nt

[seemslikeadream]

24. not with you

I never take you seriously, I just can't understand why you haven't figured that out yet



Unless greyl is Leslie Raphael or Drew Terry,
they aren't greyl's words, exactly. greyl just doesn't quote things well. However, it is clear that greyl agrees with those words and believes them to be true.

[greyl]

25. I suspect you don't take your own posts seriously. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. how come it's been removed?

[defendandprotect]

69. This video has been removed by the user.

[LARED]

8. You are correct

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Hlava

[SidDithers]

9. Good find...

guess that means the "facts" in the OP, to whomever they belong, are just plain wrong.

Sid

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. The Naudet film was shown on TV shortly after 9/11

in that film it showed a gray plane about the size of an old DC 9 not a passenger plane. I haven't seen this since? What happened to it? Now we see a fuzzy far away shot of something hitting the WTC.

[hack89]

27. The smallest 767 and the largest DC9 are the same length

there is no huge difference between the two - not one that would be really noticeable unless they were side by side and you were right next to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-9#Specifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. totally gray?

I thought it was a passenger plane?

[hack89]

29. Was it a close up or a distant shot?

American Airline had a silver color scheme - depending on the lighting it could be mistaken for a light grey.

What is your point - that they went to all the trouble to swap planes and forgot to paint the second one the right color?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Also, United was a greyish blue - especially compared to that sky. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. I haven't seen this shot since

no it wasn't silver, it was all gray. I've been trying to find this recording since but cannot find it on the web. I am curious why they don't show it now? The common footage from Naudet is a blurry image.

[hack89]

33. So the plotters forgot to paint the plane the right color?

is that what you say happened?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. well I wasn't there but a neighbor of ours was

he was at the Marriot

I wonder if Naudet had faked the plane that was on TV? I'll look to see if I can find it on National TV?

[Realityhack]

47. Is this the shot we are discussing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

If so, even at full uncompressed resolution I doubt very seriously you could tell the difference between silver and gray. Silver would tend to look gray from the ground as it reflected the cityscape.

[SidDithers]

31. So, we're all in agreement that the OP is wrong...

and that the Naudet film is not the only video of the first plane hitting the towers?

Surely, slad, now that a link has been provided to the Hlava film, you can admit that Naudet is not the only video?

Sid

[Laurier]

34. It is definitely wrong

Getting seemslikeadream to admit it, though, well, that is another story...

[greyl]

35. Yep, everyone who is honest about it agrees. nt

[leslie raphael]

37. naudet film and lared response

To : Naudet Raphael Conspiracy Research (?) thread
To the contributor who thinks the Hindenburg crash can be compared to the Naudet shot of the

first 9/11 plane, I mention that very case in my article, and reject the comparison. There

is NO analogy between the two events, because the Hindenburg was already a news event BEFORE

it crashed : that's why there were cameras there to record the crash when it happened. The

same with the shot of the Vietnamese police chief shooting the suspect in the head : there

was a war going on, and the country was crawling with journalists with cameras - that's why

that shot was captured. There was no major news event going on at the junction of Church and

Lispenard Streets in Manhattan on the morning of 9/11 - no Hindenburg, no Presidential visit,

no war zone. All this is in my article, which you obviously haven't bothered reading. The

home page of all my recent editions invites readers to offer ONE example of a piece of film

comparable to the Naudet shot : I'm still waiting, and you can scrub all the examples you

offer - they don't fit the bill. Nobody has ever filmed anything like that BY ACCIDENT -

there are simple reasons why folk capture sudden bizarre events - reasons that don't apply

to the Naudet shot, and they're the reason nobody else in New York filmed that impact, of

the millions who could have witnessed it. How the hell do you go from filming firemen in the street to filming a Boeing jet flying into a gigantic skyscraper three quarters of a mile away at the end of the next street - and get the impact right in the middle of your picture, in focus, followed within two seconds by full close-up, without it being set up in advance ?

Talk bloody sense, for Christ's sake - that has no resemblance whatever to the Hindenburg film, or to a guy being shot in the head six feet away. In Naudet's case, it's not just ONE accident, but a whole string of them - right street, right side of street, right time, outside, nobody in the way, no traffic in the way, etc etc - it's so unbelievably convenient, in so many ways, I say luck is not a credible explanation - and what you seem to think is a perfectly routine gas leak call for the FDNY, I show in my article, with stills from the film, is a group of guys standing around staring at the street, which is not how you deal with the kind of emergency that just weeks before that had killed three FDNY members - again, in the article, if you bother reading it. Is it pure coincidence - yet another, of umpteen - that of the 50 firehouses in Manhattan (200 in the city), the Naudets chose to make a film about the one that just happens to be the nearest one to that plane impact ? How much of a mug do you have to be to swallow this totally manufactured Accidental Hero story of theirs, straight out of a film ? Can't you tell when you're being insulted ? Last point : if you're going to pass comment on my article - and this invitation is also included in it - have the courtesy to address your remarks to the guy who wrote it - at [e-mail]

Anybody else have anything more sensible to offer ?

Les Raphael, Monday 15 Sep 2008

[hack89]

38. So seven years later

what other evidence have you discovered or is this still all you have? Aren't you surprised that such a massive conspiracy hasn't generated a few leaks, a few death bed confessions? Why hasn't the truth movement been able to come up with even one name of a possible low level operative?

Seven years with no new evidence - at what point are you going to admit that may be nothing there? All you have is your personal disbelief - at some point the validity of your logic has to be addressed.

[HamdenRice]

39. I was in lower Manhattan that day and it makes perfect sense

First of all, as a tourist destination and film center, New York City, especially Manhattan, is indeed "crawling" with video and film cameras. Hardly a day goes by walking around Manhattan that I don't run into at least one or more (1) actual film sets, whether mainstream films or documentaries, (2) students from NYU film school or other film schools shooting very small student films, (3) news crews covering local stories or court cases, or (4) most common, tourists filming their friends and families.

The Naudet film was an example of (1).

As for why they swung the camera up to capture the plane, it was because the plane was extremely, extremely, frighteningly loud. I was a few blocks up town in my office, having come in very early. I heard a plane engine noise getting louder and louder and louder until I realized it wasn't a normal plane flying over the city. My first thought was that it was a military fighter jet buzzing the city. Then I heard a loud boom, and thought a military jet had done a bombing run, and then dismissed the idea as crazy. Then I heard the news over my small office radio which I always had tuned to a news radio station, which started reporting the crash.

Assuming the Naudets were filming a documentary, it makes perfect sense that the camera man would have swung his camera up toward that horrendous, strange noise -- and thereby caught the crash on camera.

[KatieW]

40. You're being too logical HamdenRice, LOL

"Assuming the Naudets were filming a documentary, it makes perfect sense that the camera man would have swung his camera up toward that horrendous, strange noise -- and thereby caught the crash on camera." You are so right. It would have been almost a reflex action for the cameraman, after hearing the loud noise, to swing the camera up in the direction of the noise and capture what was going on.

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. I was at Chambers and Broadway when the plane hit the North Tower

It was very loud and very fast. As a New Yorker who grew up in the shadow of LaGuardia Airport, and worked in Lower Manhattan for years, I can assure you that I never heard anything like that in Lower Manhattan before. I was well south of where the Naudet brother shot that video, so the plane went past my location and crashed in I'd say about 2 seconds. You heard it coming and it was in the Tower just like that. Naudet was damn lucky to get that shot, and I'm not at all surprised that nobody else got a shot. It happened too fast.

This is, no doubt, among the dumbest of the conspiracy speculations.

[seatnineb]

88. You heard the plane ...but did you see it? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. Here you go

Was walking eastbound on the block east of broadway, maybe 40 feet from the intersection, north side of the street. So, back turned to the flight path. Heard the approach and pivoted to my left (because the approach was from the north) and caught a flash, then pivoted right, and just caught sight of it before it hit. Like I said, from that location, it crossed the entire trajectory in like 2 or 3 seconds. On the plus side for the conspiracy theorists, I would never honestly say that i could identify the make and model or markings of the plane. What I saw was a flash of a plane, but having grown up with jets overhead all my life, I knew it *was* a plane - just not what kind. Immediately, the people who were walking westbound were saying "A fucking plane! A fucking plane!" They saw it more clearly. People on the ground, in the seconds immediately after it hit, not yet "brainwashed" by the supposed "media propaganda" or whatever. Eyewitnesses. The only arguments on the ground at that point was whether it was a small plane or a big plane. I thought big plane, but I might have been influenced by the giant fucking hole it left in the building. Some people said "small plane," but most said "big plane." The guy who was closest to me, a black messenger-type dude, who was walking westbound and saw the whole thing was saying "Bullshit, that was a fucking 767...I know a fucking 767 when I see one." Maybe he was in on it, too...

[seatnineb]

90. Thanks...I don't want to sound pedantic...did you actually see it

...hit the North Tower....or was the impact obscured by the other buildings..from your vantage point?

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. Clear view of the North Tower from where I was

Absolutely clear view from Chambers and Broadway. The southeast corner of Chambers and Broadway is already on to City Hall Park (or whatever that park is called), so there were no buildings in front of me. The impact was clear as day. If you look at where the Naudets are (which I take to be somewhere between Houston and canal, and maybe West Broadway), I was about 15 blocks south of there, and maybe a block or two to the east. There was nothing blocking the view of the Trade Center from that spot. I saw the impact as clearly as I see the computer screen in front of me right now.

If you want to reenact how I saw the first plane, stand up, whip your head to the left like you're looking very quickly at something behind you and high, and then immediately whip it around to the right. It was that fast.

[seatnineb]

92. thanks 4 responding again...so i guess your vantage point was similar to this?:

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. Nope

I was much further south and much further east.

[William Seger]

41. "anything more sensible to offer"

This is sensible: The difference between "improbable" and "impossible" is that while impossible things never happen, improbable things happen all the time. There isn't any need whatsoever to resort to paranormal, magical, or conspiratorial explanations for this phenomenon; all you have to do is consider all the billions and billions of improbable things that don't happen every minute.

To put it in terms of this discussion: How many cameras in Manhattan that day didn't get a shot of the plane? You'd need to know that number to even begin to do a statistical test for random chance.

Instead, you try to inflate the apparent implausibility of the shot with disingenuous claims: Your claim that they were in some rare "right place" is the result of your ignorance about how visible the tops of the towers were all over Manhattan. Your claim that the shot was perfectly framed and focused was apparently the result of an inability to even look at the video itself objectively.

But nonetheless, you accuse Naudet of being an accessory to murder.

Your article is just another good example of why the "truth movement" gets the contempt that it richly deserves among sensible people.

[LARED]

42. A few comments

>>>>>have the courtesy to address your remarks to the guy who wrote it

Perhaps in the UK folks are not familiar with how forums like DU work. Someone posts an article, story, fantasy they think is interesting and folks make comments. Some will comment directly to the author if they feel like it, but most direct their comments to the OP. In short I did nothing discourtous by not contacting you directly.

>>>>>>> Anybody else have anything more sensible to offer ?

Sensible? Are you making the argument that the Naudet film being part of a choreographed scheme to film the impact (for what purpose is unclear) is more sensible than the someone making a documentary in New York hearing the plane and pointing the camera in the right direction? If that the case I refer you to post three.

[anigbrowl]

72. Zzzzzz

I work with film and video. Doubtless, it's a lucky coincidence that Naudet was outside at the time and had a clear line of sight to the building. But in a city the size of New York, that's not really so startling, that one person with a decent-quality camcorder would happen to be near enough to the scene to capture it. There's more than a million people in Manhattan on any given day, the odds that someone with a decent camera should be in the area are quite good. I've filmed car crashes just because I happened to be on the scene and been shooting random stuff at the time the fender bender occurred. Doesn't mean the crash was staged.

"How the hell do you go from filming firemen in the street to filming a Boeing jet flying into a gigantic skyscraper three quarters of a mile away at the end of the next street - and get the impact right in the middle of your picture, in focus, followed within two seconds by full close-up, without it being set up in advance ? "

Well, you just point the camcorder at it and twist the zoom ring, possibly also the focus ring. Most camcorders are not like film cameras which have a fixed-focal length lens and a shallow depth of field. Video cameras usually have a quite deep depth of field (plane of focus) because they focus light onto such a small sensor. This is (one reason) why film people don't like the look of video; it's not easy to blur out the background in order to artistically focus attention on the subject in the foreground.

Getting something far away in focus is no great achievement; most cameras default to infinite focus, and you can see from the footage preceding the appearance of the plane that the camera is already at a wide angle. Zooming is a simple matter, most cameras have the zoom controls right under the operators fingers...so they can get a close-up of something, amazingly. And a semi-pro camera good enough for shooting documentary will usually give you a pretty extensive zoom range.

Maybe you should try talking some 'bloody sense'. You're trying to paint this as some grotesquely unlikely coincidence when all that's involved is pointing the camera in the right direction and pushing on the zoom button. That's the whole joy of video cameras, they're extremely fast to work with if you don't mind the trade-off of video being less beautiful than film. This doesn't require any unusual ability from the camera operator beyond basic competence.

[RadioFlyer]

80. Good explanation of video work

Sorry for coming to the thread so late ... I had to reset my forgotten password after my email inbox got flooded with spam!

I do a moderate bit of video work, and from what I remember about the Naudet shot was that he did swing the camera up in reaction to the noise. It's much harder to capture a fast moving plane from farther away, and to keep it within the frame. He was below it, and had a smaller field to focus on. Every time I take either video or stills of airshow performances, at least half of the shots are of the plane's tail or nose, or just empty sky because of the distance, and trying to track the plane with the focus pushed in tight. From Naudet's point of view, he didn't have to chase it as much.

Any decent professional videographer would instinctively swing the camera towards an extremely loud noise.

[dailykoff]

43. That very much appears to be the case.

No planes except on teevee, and even then, damn few. I never saw any plane footage on 911, though others swear they them over and over. Collapses, yes. Explosions, yes. Planes, no.

[victordrazen]

44. it's funny how the only convincing plane footage came out

AFTER the "live" shots, and how supposed "amateurs" took better footage of the "planes" than professionals. That's cuz they had lots of time, they didn't have to quickly stick some wingless oddity in "as it happened".

[dailykoff]

45. Yes, odd isn't it?

There are a few clips of live local news footage from that day floating around, but they're very very problematic, for instance, the screen will briefly go completely dark just when the plane is supposed to show up and other funny business. but in any case, I didn't see any of it on 911, and I was basically channel surfing all day, along with everybody else.

p.s. now that we can rate 911 forum threads, I'm giving this one a "must read." :thumbsup:

[dailykoff]

46. And somebody else just nuked it.

This system is going to take a little getting used to.

[seemslikeadream]

48. I just posted to Skinner about this

It is extremely obivous what is happening here, I've asked it we could do away with the rating in this forum, it will just be use for unintended reasons


and now it's back to skip, this is stupid and unfair

[LARED]

49. What do you think is going on? NT

[seemslikeadream]

50. I don't think, I KNOW and so do you

[LARED]

51. I can only guess, you think people that have a different opinion of the

value of your posts are rating it differently than you would like and you whined to Skinner about it.

[seemslikeadream]

52. No you can only guess wrong

You wouldn't have to guess if you looked at all the threads on the first page here and see what ones have been rated, how many times. "Somebodies" would have gotten away with it if I hadn't questioned Skinner about it. That brought attention to the fact that it had been rated skip and I guess a few friends of mine then came over and got the rating up. It's all a game you know it I know it. "Somebodies" little plan to skip my thread has now failed but I am sure the game will be tried again and again and again..................


Ad nauseam


When I first came by this afternoon there was 14 ratings which lead to a skip. I know for sure at least 7 of those were a skip and who in all probability rated it. I ask myself now why this thread and not others and why all the skips so damn fast, this is a pretty slow moving place, not like GD we don't get a lot of traffic here. I can't believe there was SO much interest in this thread, it wasn't the topic it was the poster. In case you didn't realize it we're not suppose to use this rating system to continue bad blood

[LARED]

53. It's not clear how you know this is happening, plus

you seem to have a problem with folks expressing their opinions. Shame on you.

[seemslikeadream]

54. It is not opinion it is sabotage

after 2233 views ya right skip, if it was worthy of a skip it would have never got that many views in the first place

[LARED]

56. I doubt there is a strong relationship between views and rating at

this time given that the ratings systems just started.

[greyl]

57. Try not to take it personally.

For one thing, you didn't write one word of the OP.

Second, in my opinion, all "no planes" threads and their relatives are disruptive to the purpose of this community. Speaking for myself, I didn't single yours out when I rated it.

[seemslikeadream]

60. Not all conspiracy theories equal then?

Then you would object to a thread and rate it Distruptive, about no plane at the pentagon?

[greyl]

62. No, I think they cover a spectrum like most everything else in the world.

I don't think they can be divided into 2 neat categories such as Great or Terrible, 100% True or Totally False.

[LARED]

58. Trust me it is unlikely that it's the poster.

There are many people including myself that firmly believe no-plane nonsense and it variants are worthy only of a disruptive or skip it rating.

Seriously, and I'm not saying this to be mean, but no serious minded person takes no-planes CT's as any thing other than completely ridiculous.

[seemslikeadream]

61. Do you take MIHOP seriously?

[LARED]

63. Do I take MIHOP seriously?

No.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

55. me too! nt

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

59. I remember Ray Ubinger writing about this here...

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=125&topic_id=61794

[defendandprotect]

66. Naudet's film is too pat a fix . . . otherwise, they would have had only the poor

quality fakes TV was showing.

I think they needed the delay to improve the quality ---

Has Naudet's film been subject to inspection -- ???

[anigbrowl]

73. His footage looks fine

I'll even hazard a guess that it was shot on a Sony Betacam. I see nothing unusual about it, and I look video, film and special effects footage on a regular basis (enough that it kind of ruins going to the cinema for a lot of blockbusters, because I can pick out the effected portions of shots too easily).

[defendandprotect]

81. They need a clear view of a "plane" to divert attention from explosions --

quality of other films certainly doesn't do it --

[defendandprotect]

67. Agree ---

[defendandprotect]

68. k&r -- snd agree ... questionable ---

[torgos_pizza]

70. Why not admit all the footage of the planes crashing were fakes?

A 'Truther' friend offered me this interesting theory

"Clearly the number of 'home movies' distributed to news outlets moments after 'the attacks' were fakes, ala CGI effects- And there are scores of photos of officials planting wreckage around the Pentagon and WTC.
Conclusion? The buildings were brought down by bombs- there were no planes, people who claim they saw them lied.":


personally i think it's a load of BS, but it proved Truthers never stop thinking about what happened...

[defendandprotect]

82. I'm with the "Truther" ...

Certainly, no one but Bushco + friends would have had access to

WTC elevators and interiors to plant bombs and explosives ...

or do we think OBL planted them--?

Same for Pentagon -- "Kordite" odor was present inside Pentagon --

and looks like a "Bunker Buster" was used to blow that ridiculous

round hole in wall of Pentagon -- from inside.

[penttbom]

71. new WTC impact footage

are these fakes too?

www.penttbom.com

[leslie raphael]

74. Naudet Film

To Hamden Rice : Flaw in your argument - if Manhattan is crawling with cameras, therefore no big deal in Naudet doing what he did, how come he was the ONLY photographer who filmed it ? Go back and start again.
To William Seger : The WTC towers were nothing of the kind visible all over Manhattan - and my article includes just ONE illustration of that point ; secondly, I also deal with the improbability argument in the article - you obviously, like other critics, haven't bothered reading it properly. Go back and start again.
To LARED : I identify the purpose of the Naudet film at a fairly early stage of my article : surprise, surprise - it was for the obvious, simple, predictable purpose of PROPAGANDA. Are you another one who can't read ? Go back and start again.
Six years later, I have still to hear one criticism that isn’t dealt with, and demolished, in my article, and six years later, instead of rational folk offering rational arguments, I still have to suffer smartalecks who think they’re pillars of ordinary common sense, but are just idiots who haven’t taken the time to think the thing out - they just instinctively know they’re right, and that’s good enough for them. And they’re surrounded by bigger idiots they can impress with that stupidity, so they never have their arrogance tested or their brains exercised. Is it worth my time trying to get through to folk with that attitude ?
Finally, my criticism about not being emailed was perfectly valid : I only came across this
website by accident. I don’t like being discussed in public without the courtesy of being
told about it, so that I can defend myself. I’ve told the Naudets about my accusation often
enough : if you’re going to rubbish somebody, or accuse them of involvement in mass murder,
you tell THEM FIRST.
Les Raphael, 27 November 2008

[LARED]

75. To Leslie:

Your article is not much more than a steamy pile of sophistry wrapped in a bright shinny package of wishful thinking and logical fallacies.

Your nonsense may be convincing to people with limited critical thinking skills or paranoid fantasies, but to the rest of the world it's a joke that those who "take the time to think things out" either shake their heads in disbelief or snicker at the perpetual willful ignorance on display.

[SidDithers]

76. Did you not read the replies upthread?...

Naudet's is not the only photographer who filmed it. Hlava also got it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k

Sid

[defendandprotect]

83. Naudet's film is only one which clearly establishes a "plane" ...

and that's what they needed --

Ovrall -- it is bombs, repeating explosions, demolition which are believable.

And probably much more to have reduced so much to powder...

[William Seger]

77. Sad and pathetic

So, first, we get some "truthers" claiming that the Naudets are accessories to murder because their video doesn't even look like a 767, so it must be a bad fake. Then we get you accusing them of being accessories to murder because it's just too improbable that they got such a great shot from the "perfect" location. Doesn't make much sense, until one realizes that the common thread is that you are both trying to make your delusions sound like rational conclusions, and you don't realize how miserably you're failing.

The only thing that stands between you and a slander lawsuit is that the Naudets would need to prove that your blathering on a blog has done them any damage. You should consider yourself fortunate to be so ignorable.

[Bulldawg6]

85. Still Conjecture At Best...

Les, Les, Les...

I'm familiar with your work. I see you've reared your head again to respond to some of your detractors. Looking at things logically, don't you see that your presence in online forums such as this (or in any medium having to do with 9-11 Truth/Conspiracy Theories for that matter) only robs credibility from those who have (at least comparatively) more sound arguments? Come on, do your allies a favor and make thyself scarce...

Cheers,

Bulldawg

[victordrazen]

78. Whatever happened to the Fraudet's anyway?

I do know that one of them - Jules - bought a house that formerly housed the Yale Club of Stamford, CT and he married into a family named the Longas from Brooklyn . They seemed awfully lucky for such inexperienced people didn't they? Sure didn't look like brothers.

This is supposedly his wife -
http://activerain.com/jacqelle

I've noticed that a lot of 911 connected folks are related to real estate estate agents and contractors, etc...That would come in awfully handy in establishing identities, etc...

Also , the Naudet's bought the house (5 Hickory Rd) from The Etherington family. Amy Etherigton was vp of the Yale Club and Geoffrey Etherington was convicted of insider trading in 2002, which is interesting because some of the 911 "cast" had IRS seizure problems.

[greyl]

79. What's your address? nt

[defendandprotect]

84. Interesting info ---

hope you stick around ...

[vincent_vega_lives]

86. "Fraudet's"????

Wow, what a brilliant and mature play on words. :eyes: