Naudet Documentary On Google Video

bill smith said:
Maybe when you have recovered you could give a resonable explanation and comment on the coincidence of them catching the impacts both one and two. ?
Click to expand...

Read the article. Then crawl back under your rock along with the rest of the horrible little truther trolls and their malicious myths.
 
bill smith said:
I expected something a little better from an educated guy like yourself...
Click to expand...

Bill, my reaction is normal for an educated, responsible person. If you're going to make vile, unsubstantiated allegations, expect a hostile response from anyone who's not a complete pussy.

If you want respect you'll have to earn it by joining civilization and behaving like an intelligent, honest human, not a truther troll.

Your call.
 
Anyway, I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless debate over this video with you. Our conversation is ended. Don't contact me again, please. I'm very close to putting you on ignore as it is.
 
alienentity said:
Bill, my reaction is normal for an educated, responsible person. If you're going to make vile, unsubstantiated allegations, expect a hostile response from anyone who's not a complete pussy.

If you want respect you'll have to earn it by joining civilization and behaving like an intelligent, honest human, not a truther troll.

Your call.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Maybe when you have recovered you could give a reasonable explanation and comment on the coincidence of them catching the impacts both one and two from opposite sides of the Towers. ?
Click to expand...

If the Naudet brothers were shills indeed, they would have stared A VERY LONG MOMENT AT THE TWIN TOWERS before the first plane crashed into these buildings (making the firefighters pissed off about such unprofessionalism: "Hey, you're supposed to film us, not the buildings!").

There, we just have PURE. LUCK. PERIOD.
 
KreeL said:
The rookie firefighter angle was a ruse. Their movements were rehearsed and planned for years. These guys embedded themselves at Duane St. and got ready for the big day.

Propaganda at its finest.

After viewing this film several times I've concluded that:

These guys aren't related. Their names aren't really Naudet, and I seriously doubt if they are even french. They were recruited as teenagers, with "911" being their lifes' work.

Watch the interview linked in the first post. They have nervous deceit written all over their faces.
Click to expand...



I would ask Kreel for proof for his slanders of the Naudet brs, but I know I would not get any.
 
bill smith said:
In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 pretty much centre screen . 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...
How do you know what he was looking at?
How do you know whether he was holding the camera in one place and looking around, or not?
You do know that cameras aren't directed through what a person sees through their own eyes, don't you?

bill smith said:
Watch the camera suddenly go rock-steady in the critical moments.
Click to expand...
Really? hm.


but listen .... what's that sound ... could it be the men that Kreel claims aren't even french ... speaking... french??
 
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 into these buildings (making the firefighters pissed off about such unprofessionalism: "Hey, you're supposed to film us, not the buildings!").

There, we just have PURE. LUCK. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Now I think they might have done that if they wanted to make it a DEAD give away.
 
bill smith said:
Maybe when you have recovered you could give a reasonable explanation and comment on the coincidence of them catching the impacts both one and two from opposite sides of the Towers. ?
Click to expand...
911TruthLies are still making up lies like this? How pathetic; are you here to correct the moronic delusions of 911TruthLies ?

You are here to repeat lies, hearsay, and more moronic conclusions based on delusions. Keep up the bad work.

They were filming the WTC fire after the first impacts; It fits in with their original goals to film the FDNY; right? Why are you so gullible and repeating the old lies of 911TruthLies ?

What is the big plot for this failed delusion? How does this tie into your overall conclusions on 911? Why do you post lies about 911 all over the Internet? Will you be striving to make your posts more anti-intellectual in the future to parallel 911TruthLies policy of go stupid early and often?
 
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...

After weighing thousands of similar arguments from Truthers, I have decided, at long last, to declare your posts in this the finest examples of argument from personal incredulity, ever!

Take a bow Bill!
 
bill smith said:
Now I think they might have done that if they wanted to make it a DEAD give away.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of delightfully special crazy it takes to come to the conclusions about the Naudet brothers that you folks do--all by watching a few videos.

The YouTube generation ROCKS!
 
16.5 said:
After weighing thousands of similar arguments from Truthers, I have decided, at long last, to declare your posts in this the finest examples of argument from personal incredulity, ever!

Take a bow Bill!
Click to expand...

Bill, this is quite an honor. 16.5 has pretty much seen it all.
 
chillzero said:
How do you know what he was looking at?
How do you know whether he was holding the camera in one place and looking around, or not?
You do know that cameras aren't directed through what a person sees through their own eyes, don't you?


Really? hm.


but listen .... what's that sound ... could it be the men that Kreel claims aren't even french ... speaking... french??
Click to expand...

I know where the camera was looking and that's all I need to know about that.

Think about it . They were quite a way away from the front of WTC1 when they caught the shot. Then they had to walk that distance to the building and start filming the carnage as you would expect them to do. It would be pretty strange if they didn't wouldn't you say ?

Say they spent ten or fifteen minutes doing that. Then they would have had to really haul ass to get all the way around to the back of the buildings through the crowds to be in position in time for the second impact.

Withouut the impact into WTC2 there was zip to see on that side. Do you think they would have dragged all that equipment (betacams are heavy) without sending a boy to check first if there was something to see ? Think of what they might have missed on the impact side of WTC1 ?. ....No- this stinks.
 
Last edited:
This clip is from Charlie Rose. The video is played from sometime before the first crash. The VO says something like 'huit heures quarante-six' as the video shows someone using test equipment on a vent.

You then start to hear the sound of the jet engines. It must have been very loud, based on the altitude and open throttle. At 1:30 into the video clip, the fireman in the centre of frame looks up at the sound and appears to be tracking the jet (not yet seen on the video). Initially the camera operator stays on the fireman, but at about 1:35 pans over in the direction the plane is headed. (:16 into interview, he remembers looking up and seeing the plane fly between two buildings. He indicates that he was holding the camera at chest level)
1:43 after just catching the impact and quickly zooming in on the fireball, he zooms back out all the way and then in and out again
1:53 camera wavers quite a bit, very unsteady.


There is no evidence at all to suggest that this video capture of the impact is not what it appears to be.
There is nothing inconsistent with the story of the firefighters or the Naudet bros and the video.

Attempts to disparage the Naudet bros, the firemen or the video are purely malicious speculation not based on observable facts. They should be treated as such.

They bring shame to those who make them, and disrespect the integrity of those witnesses with no good cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCHSQPv65Jk
 
bill smith said:
I know where the camera was looking and that's all I need to know about that.
Click to expand...
Well, there's your problem right there. Cameras aren't sentient, and do not actually look at anything.
They are held in the hands of human operators, who may or may not be looking through them at the thing being filmed.

Often, when gathering filler shots, or pieces of film of a scene, the camera operator will point it, and not stay glued to the eyepiece. This is further supported as being possible in this instance, by the shudder and drop of shot to the sidewalk before returning to the Tower - as the operator perhaps moves the camera, and puts it back to his eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom