Naudet Documentary On Google Video

bill smith said:
You are not prepared to comment on my nalysis then ? You would not lower yourself ? I am just supporting- evidently successfuly- my contention that the Naudet brothers are Shills. If you don't like it you can sulk aand complain or you can try to show where I am wrong.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if you had shown us where you think you're right. Harping about your suspicions of a YouTube clip doesn't cut it around here.
 
bill smith said:
Yes I agree Kreel- the Naudet bothers were Shills.

In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 pretty much centre screen .
Click to expand...
You find it odd that a professional cameraman got a good shot?

Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but momentarily to be struck face of WTC2.
Click to expand...
You sure about that? Because you then said

Watch the camera suddenly go rock-steady in the critical moments.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
Click to expand...
Bolding mine. So he hears the plane, whips his head around to look, (causing the camera to shake) seeing another low flying jet headed for the Towers he puts 2 & 2 together, (an many did that day) and ref focuses on the tower.

How is this less likely than the Naudet Bros. being government shills?
 
Last edited:
I remember some Troofer seizing on the part of the film where the Naudet brothers are cooking dinner for the firefighters, but they didn't have anywhere near enough food. This was very suspicious!
 
This is literally one of the most disturbing threads I've ever read. It's quite unnerving to know there's people this delusional walking the streets.
 
johnny karate said:
This is literally one of the most disturbing threads I've ever read. It's quite unnerving to know there's people this delusional walking the streets.
Click to expand...

Is it a coincidence your post tag is:
'bill smith: "When I say the 'FDNY' was involved in 9/11 I am invariably referring to bad elements within the FDNY. Probably no more than a few dozen..."'

You see it for what it is.
 
Well, bill, you may or may not consider yourself to be a truther, but you have mastered the art of coming to irrational, unyielding conclusions based solely on subjective conjecture. I hereby bestow upon you the title of Honorary Doctor of Trutherology.

Congratulations.
 
twinstead said:
Well, bill, you may or may not consider yourself to be a truther, but you have mastered the art of coming to irrational, unyielding conclusions based solely on subjective conjecture. I hereby bestow upon you the title of Honorary Doctor of Trutherology.

Congratulations.
Click to expand...
You mean like a 'SuperTruther' ?

Thank you, thank you...thank you very much. lol
 
Last edited:
You also have to consider that 9-11 truth luminaries such as Wood and Fetzer are also 'no-planers', contending that the planes were actually some kind of holographic projections, if I recall correctly.

How would the Naudet film fit into that narrative? Doesn't the Naudet film (and the firefighter's reactions) testify to the fact that planes hit the buildings?

There are so many bewildering variations of these truther delusions it is stupefying. At some point don't they just cancel each other out as random noise?
 
Unsuccessful Bill, No planer extraordinaire.

bill smith said:
You are not prepared to comment on my nalysis then ? You would not lower yourself ? I am just supporting- evidently successfuly- my contention that the Naudet brothers are Shills. If you don't like it you can sulk aand complain or you can try to show where I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Well I wont hesitate to lower myself to complete and utter morons Bill.

When the "Flight 11" aircraft shows up the cameraman does not point his camera skyward to locate the source of noise, unlike the firemen and pedestrians who can be seen tilting their heads upwards. Just before the "Flight 11" aircraft collides with WTC1 the cameraman suddenly swings his camera horizontally to the left and catches the last moment of the aircrafts flight and the subsequent fireball.
Click to expand...
What were the Naudet brothers filming? random planes or events in the sky or the firemen? You think it is unusual for a cameraman to continue filming his SUBJECT and not be distracted by moving his cam from his subject and to a random unusual noise? It is only when all the firemen (the subjects, remember?) are themselves distracted and look to the sky in the direction the sound is moving that Naudet changes focus from his subject to the event that has distracted them. This is basic filming. Its not some tourist with his handicam waving and pointing willy nilly at every distraction they encounter. and why was the cam facing south towards the north face of the tower? The sun was to the south east. The best lighting for the shot.
 
Last edited:
240-185 said:
is it me, or i didn't see any evidence?
Click to expand...

As you say it is all subjective and nothing can be proven from it. But I am happy to put my observations out there for all to see and allow them to be judged on their own merits.
 
bill smith said:
As you say it is all subjective and nothing can be proven from it. But I am happy to put my observations out there for all to see and allow them to be judged on their own merits.
Click to expand...

But how can totally subjective observations be judged? For example, to me the conclusions you get from the video are totally irrational, but I suppose that's conjecture on my part, too.

It's just mental gymnastics.
 
bill smith said:
As you say it is all subjective and nothing can be proven from it. But I am happy to put my observations out there for all to see and allow them to be judged on their own merits.
Click to expand...

No, no...
The database of the JREF Forum is the same for everybody, whenever you're a truther or a debunker.

I read carefully the previous posts, and all I saw was: "I agree with KreeL (*), and I found this footage HIGHLY suspect, because he moved his camera very lately". Without any objective evidence so you find it HIGHLY suspect.

(*) Strangely, after KreeL made his delusions, he didn't answer to me and chillzero's questions...
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Well I wont hesitate to lower myself to complete and utter morons Bill.

What were the Naudet brothers filming? random planes or events in the sky or the firemen? You think it is unusual for a cameraman to continue filming his SUBJECT and not be distracted by moving his cam from his subject and to a random unusual noise? It is only when all the firemen (the subjects, remember?) are themselves distracted and look to the sky in the direction the sound is moving that Naudet changes focus from his subject to the event that has distracted them. This is basic filming. Its not some tourist with his handicam waving and pointing willy nilly at every distraction they encounter. and why was the can facing south towrds the north face of the tower? The sun was to the south east. The best lighting for the shot.
Click to expand...

Relax AW, I could continue making this case ad nauseum if I wnted to but I have made my point and you either pay attention or you reject it. Just think a little first.
 
No planer bill and his arguments from ignorance

bill smith said:
Relax AW, I could continue making this case ad nauseum if I wnted to but I have made my point and you either pay attention or you reject it. Just think a little first.
Click to expand...

Continue? you have not BEGUN to make any case. You simply "yea man" the troll Kreels post.
 
Last edited:
240-185 said:
If the Naudet brothers were shills indeed, they would have stared A VERY LONG MOMENT AT THE TWIN TOWERS before the first plane crashed
Click to expand...

Of course they would have. Jules would have centered the top 30% of the north tower so that he wouldn't miss MoneyShot I. Correct?

Well, it's obvious that you haven't watched the movie either. Don't you skeptics ever do your homework?:confused:

After the first 10 or 20 coincidences in this film it becomes quite clear.

Bill, I also noticed that when Jules first arrives at the north tower he claims there are people on fire. You can hear a woman screaming as he's entering the building. Truly a poor fabrication because once inside, the screaming is nowhere to be heard, the fireman greeting them at the door isn't over to help 'put them out', and there isn't even a wisp of smoke in the air. Funnier still, moments later when Jules pans around the lobby there isn't any smoke, no bodies, and the made up ruse continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom