Remember watching a clip of motorcyclist courier head cam or a dash cam that caught first plane. But it was footage that only surfaced a year or two after. The driver was just about to enter a tunnel Cant find it on youtube
Not just the Naudet brothers who would be implicit but also the firefighters with them who pretend to look up at the sound of an imaginary plane. Having watched the Naudet bros documentary it would also mean they had to be scheduled to be in the right place at just the right time and that they were directing where the fireman would be but it seems to be the other way round in that the firemans day to day routine dictated where they would be at a given time.
First video. The first time I've seen that. Yes, easy to add sound effect. At 1 minute in, the guy in the background said "It's just an explosion" - dismissing the suggestion it was a plane. Probably why the clip was never used again. Apparently that was "live" yet the camera was pointing at the ground. Live TV pointing at the ground? Doesn't make sense. Notice nobody was looking up when the "plane" noisily passed over.
Second Video. Classic Naudet Brothers. Yes, one firmean (I think only one) looks up but not in the right direction. If we could trace the fireman then it could bring this discussion to a close quite quickly.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 5699 Location: East London
Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 1:54 pm Post subject:
Here's a site that argues that Naudet brother's footage was fake (and reiterates it is the ONLY footage of a 'plane' striking the North Tower):
http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I say the Naudet film is one of the keys to 9/11 that will expose the true perpetrators. It is not just a documentary record of the crime, but an integral part of the crime. What can we do about it? For one thing, we can call for the issuing of FBI and international warrants for the arrest of the Naudets and everyone else involved in the filming of Flight 11. For another, until that happens, we can carry on asking questions about them.
The brothers themselves — Jules Clément Naudet (allegedly born Paris, 26 April 1973) and Thomas Gédéon Naudet (allegedly born Paris, 27 March 1970) — and what are they doing these days? Is their "Seamus" project ever going to become their third film, six years after their last one and twelve years after graduating from New York University film school in 1995? What have they been living on since then? Barring expenses, the proceeds from "9/11" were meant to go to the UFA Scholarship Fund: how much has been raised so far? Why such a low profile when they should be American, if not international, celebrities? Was their first film made solely to establish a fake career for themselves as film-makers, as a front for their real occupation? Did they ever in fact attend New York University? Did they ever in fact work for Canal Plus TV in France? Can we even believe the above dates of birth — or the place? The Mayor's Office in Paris has no trace of birth certificates relating to the above names for any date between 1960 and 1980; that means that they were not born in that city, and the claim is false.
Their father, Jean-Jacques, has a profile just as low as the brothers', for someone who "has personally known most of the great photographers of our time" (David Schonauer, American Photo, November/December 2006). Even lower, if anything, in that I have yet to see a single photograph of this photojournalist: his picture does not even appear in his own books. He is said to work for the Hachette Filipacchi agency in the USA, to have been Editor-in-Chief of French Photo magazine 1976—1988 and to be currently Editor-at-large of American Photo, but I can find only two articles by him on the Internet, a review of film director Wim Wenders' book "Once" in American Photo, November/December 2001, and a piece on the highest-priced photograph in the world in Paris Match, 23 February 2006. Only three books: "Icons of the 20th Century: 200 Men and Women who have Made a Difference" (originally "Portraits du XXème Siècle: 200 Personnalités qui ont Marqué leur Époque"), with Barbara Cady, 1998/1999/2003; "Marilyn," 1999/2003; and "Marlene Dietrich: Photographs and Memories," with Maria Riva, 2001. Two articles and three books: like Goldfish Films, based at his Upper East Side home in New York (see picture, below, and the red inset showing tenants' names), with its grand total of two, not a lot of product to explain the Naudet lifestyle or the circles they move in.
I have written to all these people, to give them the chance to comment — or sue — without getting one reply; if they are outraged about the suggestion that they might be involved in mass murder, they have a strange way of showing it — never the reaction you would expect. But one person can't achieve much on his own: only concerted efforts are going to produce the truth we deserve. We owe it to all the victims and their loved ones — and to ourselves.
If you have suspicions about the Naudet film, put them to the people who made it and the people who appear in it: write to the Naudets c/o William Morris Agency, 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019 or c/o Goldfish Pictures Inc., 38 East 73rd St, New York NY 10021 (home address of their father — telephone 212-535-1122; Jules Naudet can be emailed at firstname.lastname@example.org); to DAC Joseph W. Pfeifer at Fire Department of New York, 9 MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, New York NYT 11201; to the Chief, Battalion 1, 100 Duane Street, New York NY 10007; to Susan Zirinsky, CBS Executive Producer on the film, c/o CBS News, 524 West 57th Street, New York NY 10019; to Graydon Carter, Editor, or to David Friend, Editor of Creative Development, c/o Vanity Fair, 4 Times Square, Floor 22, New York NY 10036—6518; to the FBI, CIA and NSA by email; to your Representative or MP; to "mainstream" journalists, magazines and newspapers (if you have more faith in them than I do, after 9/11 yet again demonstrated their total gutlessness, dishonesty and irrelevance); to TV channels that show the Naudet film or the Flight 11 shot ... etc ... and if you have any comments, observations or constructive criticism, or information on the histories or whereabouts of the Naudets, Hanlon or the Duane Street "firemen," to: email@example.com *(telephone (00 44) 07972 503 836)*
If the Naudets themselves — wherever they may be — want to respond, or if they have evidence that could establish the Flight 11 film was genuinely accidental, despite 69 conveniences, they are more than welcome to provide it. I will withdraw this entire article, given good reason: there are easier ways of passing the time.
"Conveniences"? Coincidences, maybe!
Chopper 5 - zoom in and "fake nose"
The "reaction shot" from under the South Tower
The Ghost Plane
The Dancing Israelis film from Brooklyn.
Just a few video clips, explosions and some "wreckage", including hijacker passports, and people are keen to support the story - even in Conspiracy Sites!
This rather annoying video (well, I found the music annoying and the way it dances around the subject slightly irritating) BUT it does quite a good job of putting a case for the No-Planners in regards to the synchronization of the video between the major TV channels and the difficult-to-explain-by-the-official-story seventeen second gap between the time of impact recorded seismically and the time recorded by TV. See around 11min 40seconds onwards... (There could be a delay in transmission to censor out swearing - but would they do this on an impromptu live broadcast shown by all TV stations?) The video shows the "cut-to" insert (while Ace Baker's video has demonstrated the cut-from insert)
QED: quite damming evidence of TV imagery interference, leading to the question: can we even believe that planes crashed in New York?
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:04 am Post subject: I agree...Commercial Planes did NOT hit the Towers!
Bottom line...9/11 was an inside job from start to finish! Military cargo planes hit the towers, not commercial planes. A drone or missile hit the Pentagon, and Shanksville PA was just a hole in the ground with trash lit on fire scattered throughout...
This could be a very useful initiative. I had the idea of using an old, ready for the knacker's yard Boeing and having it fly by remote into a skeleton frame of similar proportions to the Twin Towers, but not nearly so high, to see the result. But it would have takenb a State to do it, due to cost and other factors, perhaps Venezuela (not now, with the dire destabilisation going on) or Iran. My attempts to get interest in the idea bore no fruit.
This present initiative would be far less costly, and could conceivably be done using facilities in the States, but the PTB would probably block it.
However, another country might provide the crash facilities, with rails and rocket sleds. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
‘…The inner core steel columns were incredibly thick – each measuring 2.5 inches (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of each column was 5 inches (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare to: imagine the front armor of the best tank from the WWII period – the T-34 – whose steel was only 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) thick and was just single-walled. The T-34 tank and its armor are in the pictures below:
Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shells available at the time capable of penetrating such front armor. The Twin Towers’ steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost three times as thick as the front armor of a T-34 tank.
The media and the government would have the public believe that an aluminum plane can pierce into a building ringed with steel columns, and after cutting through those columns, continuing to cut through even thicker columns in the core of the building. Below are examples of what happens to a plane when it collides with a bird. Birds are light, which is how they are able to fly. Yet, look at the damage the birds do to an aircraft. If a bird can do that degree of damage to a plane what chance would a plane have against robust steel columns at the World Trade Center?…’
‘Daily Mail: Egyptair plane left with huge hole after striking bird’
Yeh, one might say, but maybe the bird had been dining on depleted uranium? _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Interesting site for techies (and others). It purports to show the 'aircraft' which supposedly hit the WTC1 was not a 767:
'...This web site will use photographic evidence, video evidence and computer simulations to show that an American Airlines 767-200 did not hit the North Tower of the World Trade Centre....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Good pics of the 'planes' dissapearing into the building, with no holes although the wings have supposedly gone inside; they seem to be self-healing walls.
Also, although the perimiter box columns were only 1/4" thick, in reality the wings supposedly cut through steel 13 1/2" thick.
And see what happens to a bullet from even a rifle much faster than the 'planes'); it does not go through, but disintegrates.
'...They have traditionally used 1/4 inch steel chest plates as impenetrable protection against rifle bullets in bullet proof vests. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) rated Level III body armor 1/4 (.25) inch steel plate protects against all handgun bullets, including .44 magnum rounds, and against rifle bullets 9.6g (148 gr) 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s)....'
Disappearing wings; self-healing walls, white smoke 1 minute after ‘collision’ (jet fuel burns with black smoke); wrong size engine ‘planted’; no ‘wake vortex’; empty holes with no aircraft debris visible;a ‘witness’ said a plane sliced through his office, and got stuck in in the wall 20′ from him. Yeh, tell it to the Marines! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Though they waffle on a bit, there is a very clear picture which shows that a Boeing 767 did not enter that space. There are clearly unbroken beams where parts of the ‘wing’ would have hit; as they didn’t penetrate, where are they? If the supposition is that they sliced up like a tomato through a tomato-slicer, WHY did parts slice up, if the wings in other parts ‘seem’ to have broken right through?
The pair in the video also claim some bolts were removed. It’s worth watching.
Also, a few ‘facts’ about the supposed ‘hijacked planes’:
‘…Airplanes involved[change | change source]
The first of the four planes to depart was American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.
United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between Boston and Los Angeles. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.
American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., flying 530 mph.
The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark, New Jersey bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m….’
Does anyone believe that planes normally fly with so few passengers?
And as Fetzer and De’ak say, two of the planes weren’t scheduled to fly that day.
Also, on other sites, the preponderance of government, military or ‘Security’ associated people is extremely suspicious – reminds one of the ‘Operation Northwoods’ plans.
And all four ‘planes’ were lost to radar for periods whilst in the vicinity of USAF bases, then ‘reappear’ shortly after – again reminding one of the ‘swiitch’ planned for the Northwoods plane. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 5699 Location: East London
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:24 pm Post subject:
I know there are other pics of an 'aircraft' melting into the Twin Towers, but this one must take the cake:
http://poplyft.com/50-photos-taken-right-before-tragedy/6/ _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum