The coincidences of The Naudet's bros camera work has been bothering me for awhile, so i decided to bring it up in the debate forum, because as someone pointed out in another thread, referring to possible foreknowledge, it cannot be proven. Nevertheless, i have developed my own series of dots connecting up the picture for me personally. Some of the points of my picture are more concrete than others. The Naudet bros form part of my dot-connecting experience. I don't believe their role was by chance, rather, they were part of the plan, and i guess planning originated long before 2001.
I did a search for 'Raphael' in p4t and only found one thread that discusses Leslie Raphael's essay Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged (Quest being the main person debating it).
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
I first became aware of the series of coincidences when i heard the Naudet film is the only one that captures the first plane strike. So i set about to study the video and viewed it about 20 times, hitting replay over and over. I noticed in particular how the cameraman sets up the WTC1 shot moments beforehand. 'That', i said to myself, goes beyond chance. Then i found the essay by Leslie Raphael.
It was in Raphael's essay that i learned the same cameraman had the luck to get all three shots, namely the first hit, the second hit, from behind WTC2, and then, surprise, he also took the famous collapse shot of Building 7 dropping, the one we have all seen so many times.
I think i'll leave it there. I wonder what you folks think?
Full Version: The Naudet Brothers
For about four years now I have wondered about the "gas leak" scene right before the first tower was hit. No one has been able to explain to me how the firemen (who were standing on the corner supposedly checking for the leak) were showing shadows that indicated a westerly sun. Watch the Naudet film frame by frame and you can see their shadows. The towers were south of them. It was morning. The sun was in the east. It has been, and still is, my guess that the scene was filmed at a different time and edited together with the shot of the plane.
QUOTE (truthmatters @ Apr 19 2010, 01:52 PM) 
For about four years now I have wondered about the "gas leak" scene right before the first tower was hit. No one has been able to explain to me how the firemen (who were standing on the corner supposedly checking for the leak) were showing shadows that indicated a westerly sun. Watch the Naudet film frame by frame and you can see their shadows. The towers were south of them. It was morning. The sun was in the east. It has been, and still is, my guess that the scene was filmed at a different time and edited together with the shot of the plane.
Have you ever put together the evidence for this in pictorial form? Would be interesting to see.
Given what we know about 9/11, of course the Naudet brothers "episode" had foreknowledge and was carefully planned. I've always been suspicious of the other brother walking down the street filming to capture people's reactions when the first tower is hit. Who walks down the street filming pedestrians?
My family and I watched their film over and over and if you pay special attention to the building wingtip marks or lack thereof, you'll notice some discrepancies in the Naudet film.
Every bit of contrast leads to a better picture.
Every bit of contrast leads to a better picture.
I would venture a guess that their shadows are a result of diffuse reflection from the building west of their location. The whole area they are standing in is in the shadow from tall buildings.
Correct me if I am wrong. Whenever we have a possible gas leak in and around the city (Vancouver) the news always reports of the areas being cordoned off until the situation is under control. That being, a) gas leak confirmed and steps taken to rectify or B) no leak present and the area goes bak to normal. The pedestrians walking by could be smoking and set off a possible leak into a fireball. Public safety has always been the first priority, why would this incident be different?
It has been a while since I saw the whole film, but I seem to remember they were sniffing for a gas leak, but don't recall them finding one. I need to revisit. I might speculate that it was an opportune time to shut off any gas that might not be welcome in what was to come.
I think more often than not, people we suspect as being complicit are themselves duped into performing an unwitting role, thus giving them more credibility when they sincerely report what they think they saw (a la Northwoods).
I think more often than not, people we suspect as being complicit are themselves duped into performing an unwitting role, thus giving them more credibility when they sincerely report what they think they saw (a la Northwoods).
Mike makes an excellent point about complicity in the 911 event. Many who seem to have facilitated or participated my not have known their actions were in service to some larger plot. In fact, it is expected that most people will perform their jobs normally and some of them will be facilitating the plot.
You can take any aspect of the day... say the fueling of the planes that struck the towers. Whether they were commercial flights or substitute military ones whomever fueled those planes was just doing their job, but it happened to be preparing a plane to hit a building.
The same goes for the military who were engaged in exercises that day. They were just following orders and have no part in the attacks. So if you work up the chain it appears that the coincidence of the 911 on the day of the exercises is very curious. On one hand we might infer that the planners of the attacks also planned the exercises to disable the normal defense response.
But on the other hand perhaps it was less sinister. The date of the exercises was no secret and perhaps the folks who were going to fly those planes into the towers or whatever waited for the day or planned it for the day of the exercises to benefit from the diminished ability of a military response. If you plan something... such as 911, you would try to foil the response. Some will say that these exercises are perfect cover to actually do what the exercise is meant to be preparing a response for.
But complex responses are rehearsed all the time. So who thinks up what to rehearse for? Would the Philadelphia police department rehearse a response to a terrorist attack on the Art Museum? Not as likely as the military doing a training exercise for planes as weapons.
There already was a history of air piracy and there was the Bojinka plot which intel was supposedly aware of and apparently foiled. In is not inconceivable that the military was simply exercising for a what they believed could be a real world situation and in fact it WAS on 911.
My own belief is that terrorism is both a response to empire and a tool of empire. False flag terrorism can be used to whip up the public to demand a response. And there's plenty of evidence that this happens... that's what most false flag operations are and they are very effective because people read them at face value and have the predicted reaction. If the USS Liberty is attacked and sinks in the Med it HAD to be Egypt or some other Arab nation since it is IMPOSSIBLE that our allie Israel would do such an attack. But for Israel it was a way to draw the US into the conflict on their side if we believed Israel's enemy had attacked us.
And then there are those who are read in after the fact and are both intimidated and bribed somehow to keep quiet. Larry Silverstein could be such a person, or Guiliani. LS was helped to lease the towers and then found out that his asbestos problem was gone and the Feds glossed over all the toxicity at the site, removed the evidence and so forth and he got a huge insurance settlement... and it all seemed to benefit his beloved Israel and probably other buds in the oligarchy. He was likely bribed with or without knowing it to go with the program and he may have been duped by security contracts of other contracts which got conspirators into the buildings a sub contractors who actually placed explosives for example. Why tell him that the HVAC contractor was really rigging the mechanical floors? Why tell him anything? Guilliani types simply like to be there with the power brokers - they get off on being close to the big boys. Bernie Kerik is another one who had nothing going for him and would whore himself out to these people. Not hard to manipulate these jerks with money and limos, sex, being close to power.
Even if there were islamists who hijacked the planes... they too may have been dupes. The actual attack could have been a rehearsal for them. Obviously it would need to be rehearsed. If someone else was actually planning it they were only the actors who pulled it off. Same with suicide bombers... someone comes and helps them, sets them up and so forth...even tells them where and when to strike. If there were hijackers they too may have been duped and the planes were taken over by remote control as they probably couldn't execute that sort of precision flying. It's hard to know of course and there is reason to believe that these men didn't hijack the planes... The point is that people can be duped into participation and not know it.
What this means of course is that the number of plotters may be fewer than many think. The folks who collected debris from the pentagon lawn may have believed they were helping gather the evidence for the FBI but instead it was hauled away and destroyed. I rather doubt that these men were in on the plot and were waiting for that moment to go out on the lawn and play their part.
Look for the simplest explanation with the fewest participants who know in advance and look for the others who were duped or used unwittingly.
And don't forget the intimidation factor. Someone who begins to connect the dots and has inside information would weasily be added to the list of 911 casualties. Someone(s) who did 911 would not even bat an eyelash to get rid of anyone with a big mouth and prying eyes. When this is realized it tends to make people scared and quiet and we've see that before in witnesses to murder who are threatened with the same if they talk.... at least in the movies.
You can take any aspect of the day... say the fueling of the planes that struck the towers. Whether they were commercial flights or substitute military ones whomever fueled those planes was just doing their job, but it happened to be preparing a plane to hit a building.
The same goes for the military who were engaged in exercises that day. They were just following orders and have no part in the attacks. So if you work up the chain it appears that the coincidence of the 911 on the day of the exercises is very curious. On one hand we might infer that the planners of the attacks also planned the exercises to disable the normal defense response.
But on the other hand perhaps it was less sinister. The date of the exercises was no secret and perhaps the folks who were going to fly those planes into the towers or whatever waited for the day or planned it for the day of the exercises to benefit from the diminished ability of a military response. If you plan something... such as 911, you would try to foil the response. Some will say that these exercises are perfect cover to actually do what the exercise is meant to be preparing a response for.
But complex responses are rehearsed all the time. So who thinks up what to rehearse for? Would the Philadelphia police department rehearse a response to a terrorist attack on the Art Museum? Not as likely as the military doing a training exercise for planes as weapons.
There already was a history of air piracy and there was the Bojinka plot which intel was supposedly aware of and apparently foiled. In is not inconceivable that the military was simply exercising for a what they believed could be a real world situation and in fact it WAS on 911.
My own belief is that terrorism is both a response to empire and a tool of empire. False flag terrorism can be used to whip up the public to demand a response. And there's plenty of evidence that this happens... that's what most false flag operations are and they are very effective because people read them at face value and have the predicted reaction. If the USS Liberty is attacked and sinks in the Med it HAD to be Egypt or some other Arab nation since it is IMPOSSIBLE that our allie Israel would do such an attack. But for Israel it was a way to draw the US into the conflict on their side if we believed Israel's enemy had attacked us.
And then there are those who are read in after the fact and are both intimidated and bribed somehow to keep quiet. Larry Silverstein could be such a person, or Guiliani. LS was helped to lease the towers and then found out that his asbestos problem was gone and the Feds glossed over all the toxicity at the site, removed the evidence and so forth and he got a huge insurance settlement... and it all seemed to benefit his beloved Israel and probably other buds in the oligarchy. He was likely bribed with or without knowing it to go with the program and he may have been duped by security contracts of other contracts which got conspirators into the buildings a sub contractors who actually placed explosives for example. Why tell him that the HVAC contractor was really rigging the mechanical floors? Why tell him anything? Guilliani types simply like to be there with the power brokers - they get off on being close to the big boys. Bernie Kerik is another one who had nothing going for him and would whore himself out to these people. Not hard to manipulate these jerks with money and limos, sex, being close to power.
Even if there were islamists who hijacked the planes... they too may have been dupes. The actual attack could have been a rehearsal for them. Obviously it would need to be rehearsed. If someone else was actually planning it they were only the actors who pulled it off. Same with suicide bombers... someone comes and helps them, sets them up and so forth...even tells them where and when to strike. If there were hijackers they too may have been duped and the planes were taken over by remote control as they probably couldn't execute that sort of precision flying. It's hard to know of course and there is reason to believe that these men didn't hijack the planes... The point is that people can be duped into participation and not know it.
What this means of course is that the number of plotters may be fewer than many think. The folks who collected debris from the pentagon lawn may have believed they were helping gather the evidence for the FBI but instead it was hauled away and destroyed. I rather doubt that these men were in on the plot and were waiting for that moment to go out on the lawn and play their part.
Look for the simplest explanation with the fewest participants who know in advance and look for the others who were duped or used unwittingly.
And don't forget the intimidation factor. Someone who begins to connect the dots and has inside information would weasily be added to the list of 911 casualties. Someone(s) who did 911 would not even bat an eyelash to get rid of anyone with a big mouth and prying eyes. When this is realized it tends to make people scared and quiet and we've see that before in witnesses to murder who are threatened with the same if they talk.... at least in the movies.
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 21 2010, 02:06 PM)
wow... this will keep me busy for awhile... thanks Aldo.
QUOTE (JimMac @ Apr 21 2010, 06:57 PM)
wow... this will keep me busy for awhile... thanks Aldo.
Ur welcome, Jim.
Here are some excellent quotes and discussion on the small plane that was "Flight 11":
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/95931/
You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.
Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...
"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 26 2010, 06:29 PM)
Ur welcome, Jim.
Here are some excellent quotes and discussion on the small plane that was "Flight 11":
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/95931/
You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.
Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...
"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
Here are some excellent quotes and discussion on the small plane that was "Flight 11":
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/95931/
You can actually see it happen if you look close enough. Two puffs off the wings before the flash.
Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...
"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a *military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.*
So, Anthony Bartolomey didn't see the hit himself?
And we don't know who these people are that told him they saw a plane? How do we know he's not merely saying what he was told to say and there are no VERIFIABLE witnesses at all?
Who did Anthony Bartolomey tell this to? What is the source of his account?
Nevermind, I found the source.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110013.PDF
How did the New York Times know that Bartolomey had "heard" from others of planes hitting the 1st tower? I mean, couldn't the Times just find a lot of people who had 1st hand accounts themselves if that's what they were really after? After all, they are a "news" organization and besides, they did such a great job of investigating the tower 'collapses'.
As to the plane "hit" video being self-evident (of a hit), that's known as a circular argument, ie; the video cannot be proof of itself as being what actually transpired without first verifying it not being a fake or forgery. For that matter, we have photos and videos of man walking on the moon. I suppose those are authentic too merely because they exist and some claim they are authentic? Right.....
Right Quest, you solved 9/11. There were no planes on 9/11. And you did it all from behind your computer without so much as revealing your real name or interviewing witnesses. You did it with the help of complete laymen, just like yourself, who saw something the rest of us couldn't.
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 27 2010, 08:28 PM)
Right Quest, you solved 9/11. There were no planes on 9/11. And you did it all from behind your computer without so much as revealing your real name or interviewing witnesses. You did it with the help of complete laymen, just like yourself, who saw something the rest of us couldn't.
Keep in mind, we are SPECIFICALLY talikng about the 1st WTC hit, not the Pentagon, which you and the CIT team did a great job on.
My question is, did you assume "from behind your keyboard" that the 1st strike video is self-evident? Yes or no?
QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 27 2010, 09:05 PM)
Keep in mind, we are SPECIFICALLY talikng about the 1st WTC hit, not the Pentagon, which you and the CIT team did a great job on.
My question is, did you assume "from behind your keyboard" that the 1st strike video is self-evident? Yes or no?
My question is, did you assume "from behind your keyboard" that the 1st strike video is self-evident? Yes or no?
No I didn't, because ANYONE with a KEYBOARD, computer, and a brain can see and know that two planes hit the towers.
This is my last post. There is no way on God's Green Earth I am going to waste time with a no planer.
Considering the time of the morning and the weather conditions and the fact that there were 10,000 cars driving down the West Side highway which becomes West Street and faces the twin towers, not to mention the 4 5 traffic helicopters buzzing around and the thousands of people driving toward mower Manhattan such at the approach to the Holland tunnel a few blocks north the the twins, hundreds of people would or should have or did see the plane hit the north tower.
Have we heard from any commuters?
How about all the people with those window offices facing south having their morning cuppa looking out the window... wouldn't they have hear the roar of a jet at low altitude fly over the west side of Manhattan and watch it fly into the north tower.
There has to be hundreds if not thousands of witnesses. Has anyone them come forward to confirm or deny or alter the story?
I would think that if people were seeing the towers at that time and no plane hit they would surface if not in public, anonymously. This leads me to believe that a big plane hit the tower.
I am frequently working or at my boat which is in the landing and take off flight path of La Guardia and looking up one can't identify the airline, but the body type is pretty easy. I'm surprised at the confusion.
I do note that in the CNN video (south tower) when you could have a good view of the markings on the side the plane goes into silhouette and is black despite the sun being behind the camera and at a perfect angle. Something fishy there.
Have we heard from any commuters?
How about all the people with those window offices facing south having their morning cuppa looking out the window... wouldn't they have hear the roar of a jet at low altitude fly over the west side of Manhattan and watch it fly into the north tower.
There has to be hundreds if not thousands of witnesses. Has anyone them come forward to confirm or deny or alter the story?
I would think that if people were seeing the towers at that time and no plane hit they would surface if not in public, anonymously. This leads me to believe that a big plane hit the tower.
I am frequently working or at my boat which is in the landing and take off flight path of La Guardia and looking up one can't identify the airline, but the body type is pretty easy. I'm surprised at the confusion.
I do note that in the CNN video (south tower) when you could have a good view of the markings on the side the plane goes into silhouette and is black despite the sun being behind the camera and at a perfect angle. Something fishy there.
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 30 2010, 10:50 PM)
No I didn't, because ANYONE with a KEYBOARD, computer, and a brain can see and know that two planes hit the towers.
Insults, insults.... sigh.... Why must we go there?
1st of all, to clarify, I profess the "No Plane Hit" theory, not the "No Plane At All" theory, but you keep insisting I believe otherwise. Please do not misrepresent me.
Secondly, I do NOT 100% claim planes hit neither tower but yes, that is my opnion - my best guess that like the Pentagon and Shanksville, planes hit neither tower and fake impact videos were shown on TV with plane debris planted similar to the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Lastly, regarding your claim " anyone with a keyboard" could see planes hit the towers, MANY people have questions regarding the supposed hits. Case in point, have you asked around your immediate vicinity?
Like Al Gore and global warming, the debate regarding the tower hits is far from settled, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Can I join in ? Seeing as I'm being discussed. Firstly, the version of my piece on the Naudet film is years out of date : the current version, dated April 2010, is at
www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911 - and even that's overdue an update, which I'm working on. Slight correction to your thread : Jules Naudet (allegedly) filmed the first impact ; it was his brother Gedeon who caught the second one ; the No. 7 collapse shot is in in their film, but I still don't know who caught it - may not have been either of the brothers. Their film contains a lot of stuff they didn't film - like shots of them together - but no info on who did.
News, if you can call it that : my piece contains stills from the Evan Fairbanks footage from the In Memoriam film captioned as shot in the North Tower. He now says that's wrong and it's from WTC 5 (subject to confirmation from anyone more familiar with the interior than I am). He has a Facebook account, but is shy on the subject of 9/11 - as you would be, if you were complicit in it - and he is. And so are the Naudets. And so is Joseph Pfeifer, now back in his old job at FDNY HQ as their counterterrorism expert. They're all crawling back out from under their stones, as if they think the heat's off. Maybe we need to change their minds.
Also of interest : rare TV short on the Naudets from 2002, which I posted on YouTube - try under Naudet/Rory Peck Awards. Jules, on location, relives how he filmed Impact 1, managing
to keep a straight face - just - for those who like watching liars in action, and are fed up
with the Charlie Rose interview. I can't even watch it.
Apology : if there's a peevish tone to my Home Page rant, it's the years of trying to get the 9/11 "community" to listen to this angle on it. Abuse from the usual idiots is to be expected, but to get it from folk who should be on the same side is harder to take. The whole Naudet story stinks just like everything else about 9/11, and every 9/11 sceptic should be on their case. I don't see any other take on 9/11 getting anywhere at the moment : the Naudets are out there right now - concerted pressure is what we need. Letters to them, emails, publicity, posts on YouTube, newspaper & magazine articles, whatever. Those guys have 3,000 deaths on their consciences - they helped bring them about, and I'll take on anyone who wants to argue otherwise, and be grateful for support or information.
Les Raphael - 1 June 2010 - lesraphael1@gmail.com
www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911 - and even that's overdue an update, which I'm working on. Slight correction to your thread : Jules Naudet (allegedly) filmed the first impact ; it was his brother Gedeon who caught the second one ; the No. 7 collapse shot is in in their film, but I still don't know who caught it - may not have been either of the brothers. Their film contains a lot of stuff they didn't film - like shots of them together - but no info on who did.
News, if you can call it that : my piece contains stills from the Evan Fairbanks footage from the In Memoriam film captioned as shot in the North Tower. He now says that's wrong and it's from WTC 5 (subject to confirmation from anyone more familiar with the interior than I am). He has a Facebook account, but is shy on the subject of 9/11 - as you would be, if you were complicit in it - and he is. And so are the Naudets. And so is Joseph Pfeifer, now back in his old job at FDNY HQ as their counterterrorism expert. They're all crawling back out from under their stones, as if they think the heat's off. Maybe we need to change their minds.
Also of interest : rare TV short on the Naudets from 2002, which I posted on YouTube - try under Naudet/Rory Peck Awards. Jules, on location, relives how he filmed Impact 1, managing
to keep a straight face - just - for those who like watching liars in action, and are fed up
with the Charlie Rose interview. I can't even watch it.
Apology : if there's a peevish tone to my Home Page rant, it's the years of trying to get the 9/11 "community" to listen to this angle on it. Abuse from the usual idiots is to be expected, but to get it from folk who should be on the same side is harder to take. The whole Naudet story stinks just like everything else about 9/11, and every 9/11 sceptic should be on their case. I don't see any other take on 9/11 getting anywhere at the moment : the Naudets are out there right now - concerted pressure is what we need. Letters to them, emails, publicity, posts on YouTube, newspaper & magazine articles, whatever. Those guys have 3,000 deaths on their consciences - they helped bring them about, and I'll take on anyone who wants to argue otherwise, and be grateful for support or information.
Les Raphael - 1 June 2010 - lesraphael1@gmail.com
Would you be interested in having a look at the subject covered in
www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911
where I try to make out a case that the Frenchman who was the
only person in New York to film the first Trade Center plane impact
is incredibly unlikely to have done it by sheer luck, as he claims ?
This is a prpposition I've found very difficult to popularise in the
9/11 "community," for whatever reasons, never mind outside it,
and it might help if your site took it up as at least worth
discussing - if you think it is. I think the full-length Naudet film
was a propaganda spin-off from the main event - I think the
whole thing was planned, long before 9/11, and that the film-
makers must have been, at some level, complicit - and I've
tried to justify those claims. Are you persuaded ?
Les Raphael 15 June 2010
www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911
where I try to make out a case that the Frenchman who was the
only person in New York to film the first Trade Center plane impact
is incredibly unlikely to have done it by sheer luck, as he claims ?
This is a prpposition I've found very difficult to popularise in the
9/11 "community," for whatever reasons, never mind outside it,
and it might help if your site took it up as at least worth
discussing - if you think it is. I think the full-length Naudet film
was a propaganda spin-off from the main event - I think the
whole thing was planned, long before 9/11, and that the film-
makers must have been, at some level, complicit - and I've
tried to justify those claims. Are you persuaded ?
Les Raphael 15 June 2010
Can I try again ? The Naudet film - and my article on it - are being discussed elsewhere in this
website, so could I have some kind of reaction from, for example, Rob Balsamo ? What do you
think of the proposition that the Naudet shot of Flight 11 hitting WTC 1 was set up to look
accidental, and that the brothers, James Hanlon and the alleged firemen in their film were
participants in a pre-scripted propaganda piece ? You must have some kind of opinion on this,
one way or the other.
Les Raphael Friday 25 June 2010
website, so could I have some kind of reaction from, for example, Rob Balsamo ? What do you
think of the proposition that the Naudet shot of Flight 11 hitting WTC 1 was set up to look
accidental, and that the brothers, James Hanlon and the alleged firemen in their film were
participants in a pre-scripted propaganda piece ? You must have some kind of opinion on this,
one way or the other.
Les Raphael Friday 25 June 2010
From : lesraphael1@gmail.com
Friday 2 July 2010
Seven days after asking - and 17 days after first raising the subject - nothing. Zilch. F. all.
You don't have any opinions on the Naudet angle. I'm beginning to think this entire website
might be, like so many others, disinformation - irrelevant junk, clogging up the system and
people's brains and making it harder every day to dig out the truth. And the longer it takes
to get an opinion, the more inclined I'm going to be towards that view.
Friday 2 July 2010
Seven days after asking - and 17 days after first raising the subject - nothing. Zilch. F. all.
You don't have any opinions on the Naudet angle. I'm beginning to think this entire website
might be, like so many others, disinformation - irrelevant junk, clogging up the system and
people's brains and making it harder every day to dig out the truth. And the longer it takes
to get an opinion, the more inclined I'm going to be towards that view.
Leslie,
I apologize I havent taken the time to review your work. My plate is pretty full.
I have no opinion either way on the Naudet film as I am not an expert in video, nor was I there. My expertise is in aviation.
We also try to minimize giving opinion or theory, especially outside our area of expertise, and rather analyze data.
Please try to refrain from attacking our organization due to the fact we don't say "How high" when you say jump. It also might be a good idea to become familiar with our organization and the type of analysis/work we perform so you dont become frustrated when no one replies to issues outside of our area of expertise, or asking us to speculate.
I apologize I havent taken the time to review your work. My plate is pretty full.
I have no opinion either way on the Naudet film as I am not an expert in video, nor was I there. My expertise is in aviation.
We also try to minimize giving opinion or theory, especially outside our area of expertise, and rather analyze data.
Please try to refrain from attacking our organization due to the fact we don't say "How high" when you say jump. It also might be a good idea to become familiar with our organization and the type of analysis/work we perform so you dont become frustrated when no one replies to issues outside of our area of expertise, or asking us to speculate.
"Off topic rhetoric" ? Blow it, mate. You're a fraud, and your website is, as I said, fake.
The truth about 9/11 is the last thing you and your fellow liars and frauds want.
Sorry I wasted my time.
The truth about 9/11 is the last thing you and your fellow liars and frauds want.
Sorry I wasted my time.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.