Re: Naudet brothers documentary, R. Grove

by **TroubleFunk** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:20 pm

I am bumping this because I failed to say in the header what the writing was about when I posted it before, and so nobody read it - or at least no one replied. My apologies in advance for both the bump and the previous unclear header. There's a new piece by Richard Andrew Grove on the 8thestate site, regarding the Naudet Brothers' "documentary" and its remarkable coincidences. Still only 15 registered users on the forums there. If you have a second, please stop by. Let me know what you think. The guy's writing is simply incredible, in my opinion - really eye-opening, scathing. Read down the page, if you will: <a href="http://www.8thestate.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9">www.8thestate.com/forum/v...ic.php?t=9</a>

by **greencrow0** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:27 pm

Hi Trouble Yes, I know, the Naudet film was staged...like everything else about 9/11. What else can I say? GC

by **OnoI812** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:43 am

not only staged... there is one guy at DU who actually thinks it's a globalist snuff film. he claims he sees a smoking pistol and a syringe in the sequence where they pull the priest out of the WTC. He is basically saying the firemen (or those dressed as firemen) are actually killing a witness right there on the Naudet film.

by **TroubleFunk** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:00 am

...Now THAT I hadn't heard. Thanks for the response, I'll read up on that.

by **anothershamus** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:02 pm

there seems to be a lot of coincidences about what is there and what got "lost" and what was a really "rare instance". if it looks fishy and smells fishy, it must be FISHY! I am posting a quote from the previous posters hotlink. "There is an answer to that question, but an extremely disturbing one. I believe the Naudet film of Flight 11 is a charade, staged to appear accidental. However bizarre that claim may appear to be, the evidence that justifies it is there in the film (the DVD version, issued in September 2002, titled "9/11 — The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition"), and I challenge anyone watching it and following my arguments to reach any other conclusion. No-one can dispute that this is an extraordinary piece of film — because of its uniqueness as well as its content — and that there must therefore be an equally extraordinary explanation for how it came to be captured. I believe, for the reasons in this essay, that those who had both the motive and the effrontery to carry out these attacks also had the motive and effrontery to film the first one for propaganda purposes, passing it off as the product of luck, complete with a contrived cover story, the one told in the Naudet film. "

by **OnoI812** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Now THAT I hadn't heard. Thanks for the response, I'll read up on that.<hr></blockquote> Trouble, here's the thread... <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=59038&mesg_id=59038">www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=59038&mesg_id=59038</a> and when you view the main link from the du page <a href="http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm">911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm</a> and view the 6th snippet down... you can clearly see the proverbial smoking pistol Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 7/2/06 9:01 pm

by **TroubleFunk** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:22 pm

I will go & read - It would have taken me forever to find that!

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:34 pm

I saw the brothers' film months after 9/11 on PBS. I read the 'damning coincidences' webpage and I just don't see any validity to the claims of staging. Pretty thin case made, if any at all, that boiled down to "amazing that they caught the first plane." I'm surprised there weren't MORE who got the first plane on film considering the tourists drawn to the WTC and the ubiquitous video cameras always being used when still cameras would be perfectly adequate. Another example, the idea that there were many fireman responding to the initial gas leak but few in the camera shot. Well, duh. People stay clear of the leak until it is fixed to prevent unneccessary injuries in case it blows AND film makers are notorious for doing close-up peephole shots of solo faces to maintain interest on the screen with you-are-there intimacy.

by **rain** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:45 am

thanx Ono. watching that gave me the strangest feeling(s), and I haven't quite sorted then out yet. had to watch that guy drop the shoulder three times before I could believe it was that easy. see the flash? he's right. it's a snuff film.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:01 am

The imagery is extremely hazy and the webfairy is the source, one that has been criticised for divisive disinfo over 9/11 involving 'under-plane pods' and 'missile flashes.' This looks like nothing at all to me. However, more credible evidence is in the emergency radio transcripts of emergency personnel in the towers before they came down and the oral histories of survivors who heard and saw controlled demolition.