Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[bill smith]

Well beyond the fact that the cameraman did run down the street for cover, which I guess makes your whole point moot...

Here is an interesting film that talks about the detachment the camera provides from situations happening right in front of the camera where the cameraman is in the zone of danger:

"How looking through the camera view finder can detach the cameraman from what is happening around him. The view finder gives the impression that you are watching a television show in part explains why the cameraman can keep filming under heavy fire."

http://cas.awm.gov.au/film/F10569

eta: It appears that the brothers were talking in French about what they were doing. What were they saying Bill? Wouldn't you want to know that? I suspect, but do not know, that perhaps they were discussing their thoughts regarding what and how they were filming this event, don't you agree?

He may have run later. but he did not run in reaction to the roar of the jet behind and above him which is what really counts in this context. He did not react at all to that sound. I understand some French but I cannot hear what they are saying clearly enough to work out what they are saying.

 

[beachnut]

He may have run later. but he did not run in reaction to the roar of the jet behind and above him which is what really counts in this context. He did not react at all to that sound. I understand some French but I cannot hear what they are saying clearly enough to work out what they are saying.

Wrong, he moved due to the noise. But you think people react instantly.

Once again you failed to watch your video and just make it up; he moved due to the loud noise you are not very good at investigation!

He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit .

You have failed to present evidence; this is false, an idea you made up to support your failed 911Truth ideas.



You must have something better, or worse since you are a 911Truth terrorists apologist and what to shout, “911 was an inside job”.

What is your best shot at the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the big giant conspiracy theory you know the man is covering up? Your biggest smoking gun is?

 

[The Big Dog]

He may have run later. but he did not run in reaction to the roar of the jet behind and above him which is what really counts in this context. He did not react at all to that sound. I understand some French but I cannot hear what they are saying clearly enough to work out what they are saying.

So he ran, but not quickly enough? Hmmm....

anyhow, fire up your googleator and research how all the cameramen and women talk about feeling detached from the scene because they are behind a camera. Hell download one of the behind the scenes "Deadliest Catch" videos on Discovery, the cameramen there talk about it. Pretty common really.

So that is that, what is next?

 

[bill smith]

Wrong, he moved due to the noise. But you think people react instantly.

Once again you failed to watch your video and just make it up; he moved due to the loud noise you are not very good at investigation!


You have failed to present evidence; this is false, an idea you made up to support your failed 911Truth ideas.



You must have something better, or worse since you are a 911Truth terrorists apologist and what to shout, “911 was an inside job”.

What is your best shot at the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the big giant conspiracy theory you know the man is covering up? Your biggest smoking gun is?

lol

 

[beachnut]

lol

Typing challenged? But you answered correctly; you and 911Truth have just "lol", that is your biggest smoking gun; short posts of delusions or no substance.

He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit.

But you can’t prove it; this is your opinion based on your limited experience and lack of knowledge. Two traits that make you gullible for 911Truth delusions.

What is your big smoking gun?

 

[JohnG]

bill smith,

I've personally witnessed a few loud, chaotic and unexpected events (e.g., a car accident) and realized later (often to my shame) that all I did was stand and stare in slack-jawed disbelief. I guess that means that while I'd make a lousy soldier, firefighter or police officer, I might make a decent (albeit short-lived) camera man.

Not only was the shot you find so suspicious reasonably framed, the fact that the camera operator was noodling around with the shot (moving around, zooming in and out, etc.) mere seconds before the plane hit leads me to think that it was simply dumb luck (if you can call inadvertently recording the deaths of hundreds of people "lucky") that the shot was framed as well as it was.

After watching the clip you posted with my heart in my mouth, all I can say is that anyone who uses it as evidence that the Naudet brothers were somehow complicit in the attacks is one or more of the following:

1. Mentally ill
2. Intellectually sub par
3. A laughably naive adolescent

Good day, sir

 

[T.A.M.]

In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 bang on centre screen, ignoring the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

PS click through the video from 45-47 seconds and see if you see anything odd

1. At the time the jet enters the shot, and then hits the tower, the CENTER of the screen, from left to right, is actually right between the two towers, not centered on tower #2. The reason you are slightly more drawn to tower#2 is the increased sunlight shining on it from that angle.

2. There is nothing suspect about this video. He reacts about as quickly as I would suspect someone in this case to do so.

Next...

TAM

 

[bill smith]

bill smith,

I've personally witnessed a few loud, chaotic and unexpected events (e.g., a car accident) and realized later (often to my shame) that all I did was stand and stare in slack-jawed disbelief. I guess that means that while I'd make a lousy soldier, firefighter or police officer, I might make a decent (albeit short-lived) camera man.

Not only was the shot you find so suspicious reasonably framed, the fact that the camera operator was noodling around with the shot (moving around, zooming in and out, etc.) mere seconds before the plane hit leads me to think that it was simply dumb luck (if you can call inadvertently recording the deaths of hundreds of people "lucky") that the shot was framed as well as it was.

After watching the clip you posted with my heart in my mouth, all I can say is that anyone who uses it as evidence that the Naudet brothers were somehow complicit in the attacks is one or more of the following:

1. Mentally ill
2. Intellectually sub par
3. A laughably naive adolescent

Good day, sir

I note that you describe yourself as a 'pedantic bore'. But take heart and remember that Ambrose Bierce in his 'Devil's Dictionary' described a bore as [ somebody who talks when I want him to listen ] So maybe you are not a bore in this sense.

 

[JohnG]

[size=+4]I said good day, sir![/size]

 

[beachnut]

[SIZE=+4]I said good day, sir![/SIZE]

You may think a knowledgeable person would give an excuse, but our newest superhero makes a complete tangential post; your post was intelligent. good job

 

[T.A.M.]

I have addressed your video above bill. Unless you have further comment about it, I suggest we move on...

TAM

 

[Hokulele]

... I suggest we move on...

But I just made popcorn.

 

[TexasJack]

I really think smartpants, bill and roundhead should tour together.

 

[TJM]

I really think smartpants, bill and roundhead should tour together.

Bad idea. That much ignorance concentrated in one location? There could be ramifications that sane people haven't considered, such as the creation of a gigantic vortex of stupid that could plunge the universe into eons of darkness where truthers rule and logical reasoning is punishable by being forced to listen to Alex Jones until any grey matter that didn't gush from our ears can only be described as oatmeal.

I cannot accept that future.

 

[johnny karate]

In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 bang on centre screen, ignoring the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

PS click through the video from 45-47 seconds and see if you see anything odd

This film was made by and with the cooperation of FDNY firefighters.

Congratulations on once again slandering them with your lunacy.

 

[bill smith]

In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 bang on centre screen, ignoring the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

PS click through the video from 45-47 seconds and see if you see anything odd

I have addressed your video above bill. Unless you have further comment about it, I suggest we move on...

TAM

There are a number of wider points of interest about this video TAM. For instance this could be seen to fall neatly into the no-plane camp. They might easily say that the sound and the image of the plane were added later. That would explain the pparent lack of reaction of the Naudet brothers (or anybody else) to the roaring of the plane above and behind them. They had plenty of time to react as we can all see in the video above. Another point is that the other claim to fame that the brothers have is that they also happened to film the only known footage of the first strike on WTC1. Whatever you want to make of that.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Hmmm...

smartpants, bill, roundhead, with special guest ULTIMA1.

Like the Blue Collar Comedy tour, except with...

Oh hell, never mind.

 

[240-185]

They might easily say that the sound and the image of the plane were added later.

Discovering truth isn't sitting in front of your computer and analyzing blurry Youtube videos. If you want to investigate for the truth, get off that freaking chair first.

 

[T.A.M.]

There are a number of wider points of interest about this video TAM. For instance this could be seen to fall neatly into the no-plane camp. They might easily say that the sound and the image of the plane were added later. That would explain the pparent lack of reaction of the Naudet brothers (or anybody else) to the roaring of the plane above and behind them. They had plenty of time to react as we can all see in the video above. Another point is that the other claim to fame that the brothers have is that they also happened to film the only known footage of the first strike on WTC1. Whatever you want to make of that.

I will assume you have acknowledged that WTC2 was not in the center of the video, but rather, both towers were, as the center of the video essential cuts down between them. As well, the reason WTC2 "seems" to stand out, is because of the sunlight cast upon it.

Moving on....

The reaction does not seem inappropriate to me. It is the middle of manhattan, the first tower has been struck by a plane so the noise level there, and through out, is likely very high. For the 1-2 seconds that the engine is heard prior to impact, it is not surprising that nobody jumped, due to (A) response time, and (B) the chaos of the existing situation, and (C) that sound, to the untrained and unexpecting ear, could have been a number of things.

As well, it is not enough to say that because people did not jump the way truthers would expect them to, that this is proof that the plane was an A/V superimposed image on the video is complete BS. You must provide physical proof that the video was doctored.

ACE baker has tried many times, and has failed miserably in each.

So unless you have proof, real physical proof, that the video was doctored, you can call it difference of opinions, and move on to your next "snapper" question.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

No planers are so delightfully crazy. Those silly little curmudgeons are SO cute.