Naudet brothers vs. Dylan Avery and Loose Change: PUBLICITY STUNT?

[RayUbinger]

Dylan Avery has all the luck. The footage at MY site is practically ONE HUNDRED PERCENT from the Naudet movie. And I don't just copy their footage without permission, I outright *call them complicit*. How come they don't sue ME? What does it take to get as lucky as Dylan Avery with this huge publicity boost of the Naudets suing him?


Ray Ubinger
1917 Glendale Avenue
Durham, NC USA 27701-1325
919-667-1528
http://911foreknowledge.com
NAUDET BROTHERS: ACCESSORIES TO MASS MURDER

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I guess you have to settle for some self-promo here at DU n/t

[bgiltner]

2. Go Ray!

People,

Please visit Ray's site. There's so much more to the Naudet Bros. and their video than you would ever imagine.

[bronco2121]

3. at first i thought...

at first i thought that dylan & co were too fond of conspiracies and the promotion that anything and everything happened on 9/11. but ray, you extend the boundary! it's so bold. and you do it with sound deadpan style that rather than commenting on the obvious, i have to congratulate you on your presentation.

you are so convincing and seemingly focused, that if i lived near your world, i would be 'into it'. there's something romantic and innocent about the land where everything and anything is possible.

as a movement, i think we need to embrace your style of investigation MORE. i think we should go back to the video records and re-examine all the possibilities allowed by entering into the mix EVERYTHING and ANYTHING.

this is truly a unique culture. and i'm beginning to see the 9/11 truth movement as something more than just a cause that is seemingly working to get at the truth. the 9/11 truth movement is a profound social movement that is brining into light the notion 'EVERYTHING & ANYTHING' as a possibility for all.

please continue to elaborate on your theories, because we all know there's something wrong with 'loose change'.

cheers!
bronco

[New Earth]

4. "we all"?

speak for yourself dude.

[bronco2121]

5. myself

but in the land of the 9/11 truth movement, all is possible and in fact - likely. therefore i am you. speaking for myself is speaking for you. unless you're a double agent.

so either you're with me, or a double agent. i'm incredibly sad that it has to be that way, but also i couldn't be happier.

b.

[rman]

9. Outside the land of the 9/11 truth movement

people believe what the Bush admin says.
Now that's sad.

[mirandapriestly]

8. What is this "movement" people are always referring to?

I'm just here trying to figure out what might have happened and so are most of the posters here. Then there are these posters who just get very, very angry about that. Some of them say that they , too , have questions, but THEIR questions are logical because they don't get too "extreme" and they go through the proper channels (the ones that lied to us in the first place), because after all we all know that nothing "extreme" happened that day, did it?

[Americus]

6. I think WE are very lucky...to have YOU on DU. Please post more often.

Thanks for your relentless search for the truth and your ability/willingness to tell it like it is.
I'm sure I speak for most people here when I say how greatful we are for all that we've learned from you.

[Jazz2006]

7. Oh yes...please post more often about your theory that

the FDNY was complicit in what you call a "snuff film" and please post more often about your theory that firefighters shot, stabbed or otherwise murdered people in the towers on 9/11 for no apparent reason but to be part of this imaginary "snuff film", and please post more often about how you're so sure of this because, according to you, NY firefighters don't wear black helmets and therefore those wearing black hats were really military types and not firefighters.

The world is waiting.

With bated breath.

For you to expose the whole conspiracy.

No, really.

(and if I really have to utilize the "sarcasm" tag here, there's something wrong with the reader)

[piobair]

10. wonder

I always wonder what color the sky is in Rays world.

[Americus]

11. Aren't personal attacks against the rules around here? n/t

[RayUbinger]

13. Usually blue in the daytime when it's not raining

But you think you just get to ask questions without having to answer questions yourself, right? Like, what kind of man who allegedly thought his brother was dead, would blow his brother off when first seeing him again?
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_11.asp?intPage=53&PageNum=53


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet Brothers: Accessories to Mass Murder

[RayUbinger]

12. Happy to oblige

> Please post more often about your theory that the FDNY was complicit in what you call a "snuff film"

By snuff film I mean a foreknowledge-enabled video of a murder. Since you evidently believe instead that Jules Naudet's famous 1st Hit impact shot was made possible by 69 simultaneous COINCIDENCES (see the list at
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm
)
then I think it's fair to ask, how many simultaneous coincidences WOULD be enough make you suspicious, if 69 aren't? Would 70 be enough? 71? 171? 1,000,071? How many?

If 70 would be enough, here's a 70th: the Naudets had a SECOND camera running at the instant of the FIRST Hit, specifically to capture pedestrian reaction at that instant:
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
and they LIED about that second cameraman's whereabouts at that instant, by saying (not showing) that he was still back at the firehouse.


> and please post more often about your theory that firefighters shot, stabbed or otherwise murdered people in the towers on 9/11 for no apparent reason but to be part of this imaginary "snuff film"

What's your alternate explanation of the existence of Mr. Backofhead's vigorous right-arm thrust at the space where they about to "find" Father Judge dead?
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
Mouth to mouth resuscitation by punching??
Also feel free to share how you think there got to be TWO videos of that arm-thrust when the narration claims there was only ONE camera (Jules Naudet's) there?

And what's this sharply pointed unsegmented metal rod that they shot an inexplicable close-up of in that same scene?



> and please post more often about how you're so sure of this because, according to you, NY firefighters don't wear black helmets and therefore those wearing black hats were really military types and not firefighters.

Straw man. I've never posted anything about helmets being black. But there are two Naudet video clips of a guy with an army-style helmet:
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier.htm
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier3.htm

And at the bottom of
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier2.htm
there's a flack-vested dude with a holstered sidearm leaving the WTC1 lobby as the first firemen arrive.


What other aspects of Naudet foreknowledge would you like me to talk more about?
Tony Benetatos the fake FDNY rookie, perhaps, and how he's never seen doing a lick of firefighting anywhere in the whole movie, and how the Naudets faked his attendance at the September 1, 2001 funeral of real FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet 911: The Art of the Mock-You-Drama

[Jazz2006]

14. Great. Keep it up.

I do not buy your "69 coincidences" theory. It strikes me as an odd laundry list of things that are not “coincidences” at all, dressed up to build a conspiracy theory, and it really seems to come down to “if the Naudets were there, they must have had foreknowledge” and I guess you could say the same about everyone else who was nearby with a camera or a video camera. The "70th", therefore, doesn’t add anything to it.

Because you think you see a "vigorous arm thrust", you believe that someone murdered Father Judge? Quite a leap, that. Of epic proportions, even.

The photo you posted looks a lot like a window punch, since you asked, which is a standard firefighting tool. Or perhaps some other kind of pick/punch/extrication tool. Or perhaps the end of a telescoping ram tool. The tip looks too tapered to be a spanner wrench.

I thought I read something on another thread or on your site that you wrote to the effect that you thought the firefighter on the right was a soldier because of his black helmet and to the effect that he should have been wearing a yellow helmet. Perhaps that was someone else. If so, my apologies.

By the way, are you aware of the history of FDNY helmets and the appearance of them? In the first link you posted above on this point, it seems quite obvious to me that the guy is a firefighter, wearing and carrying normal firefighter gear (including his helmet which appears to be standard issue), equipment and tools. In the second link on this point (soldier3.htm), that guy could be military but you haven't slowed that clip down like you have the others on your site, so it's hard to tell. He does not appear to be wearing any firefighter gear or equipment, but if you slow it down, the insignia and flashes he's wearing on his clothing might be discernible. From first appearances, though, he looks like a cop wearing a lightweight police swat helmet like this one:



Moreover, I see nothing to support the suggestion that the guy in first link is the same person as the guy in the second link.

As for your "flack-vested dude with a holstered sidearm leaving the WTC1 lobby as the first firemen arrive" ~ it appears that you’re imagining things if that’s what you see in that linked video.

This is the same video as your first link above, and as I've already said, it seems rather obvious to me that he's a firefighter and although the video is not terribly clear, he’s probably carrying a set of irons, which typically includes a halligan and an axe, along with other standard gear and equipment.


"What other aspects of Naudet foreknowledge would you like me to talk more about? Tony Benetatos the fake FDNY rookie, perhaps, and how he's never seen doing a lick of firefighting anywhere in the whole movie, and how the Naudets faked his attendance at the September 1, 2001 funeral of real FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba?"

Whichever ones your heart desires.

[piobair]

15. answerd

Jazz,

As a career FF I've been round and round with Ray on all of this. He has a complete and utter lack of knowledge of anything Fire Department related. I would usually just chuckle and read on when somebody posts without a clue of what thy are talking about but when he accuses firefighters of being complicit in the murder of their brothers it just pisses me off. I forwarded some of his "theories" to an FDNY union rep I know and his immediate response was "what a fuckin idiot. Have him come to the house and try to sell that bullshit". Concise and to the point as always.

[wildbilln864]

16. Well...

sure you are and sure you did! Bwahahahaha!

[piobair]

18. not sure

I'm not sure what your point is. You can find my responses to all of Ray's posts regarding the FDNY if you care to look. As far as my being a career FF you'll just have to take my word for it. Not really important to me whether you do or don't. All my information has been factual and is verifiable.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

41. Not a hit and run poster if...

you're talking about me. I just can't spend time here every day reading every top thread and trying to discredit every other poster here who disagrees with my viewpoint with valid arguements, or has questions which are screaming for answers like some so-called debunkers here do. What purpose would that serve anyway? Unless those individuals were paid to monitor such issues? <proudly dons his tinfoil hat>
IMO, ridicule will not get anyone anywhere. Unless of course you're running for president.

[Jazz2006]

42. "sure you are and sure you did! Bwahahahaha!"

That's a direct quote of your hit and run post in its entirety.

It did not address anything that piobair said at all and you never answered him after he responded to you in a rational and even handed manner.

That's a hit and run if ever there was one.

"Ridicule will not get anyone anywhere."

That's another direct quote, of your latter post - the one you made several days later in response to mine of a few hours ago about the hit and run nature of your prior post. (Funny that you addressed my post about your hit & run but you still haven't addressed the post you ridiculed without any substance whatsoever in the first place) Or should I say, to quote you again, "sure you are and sure you did ~ bwahahahahahaha"?

You're right, your ridicule will not get you anywhere.

And your hypocrisy is glaringly apparent.

[wildbilln864]

43. Oh my we're up late tonight ...

aren't we? I'm glad I'm off tomorrow.
Gee! It pains me to think I've lost your respect and trust.

[mirandapriestly]

44. Yeah, that is what the GOP

did to Kerry and Gore: ridicule. Since they had no chance with the facts.

[Americus]

50. "Take my word - PLEASE" It's all factual, verifiable. Take my word 4 it.

Unless and until you refute the substantive points and questions you've been told and asked about, why should anyone believe anything other than that your failure to do so strongly suggests that you know Ray Ubinger is right? Ray has obviously studied the things he posts about, explains his points clearly and logically, provides reasons why he says what he does, and gives links as well.

If you COULD answer his points and his questions, you would, RIGHT?

[piobair]

51. I have.

I went round and round with Ray months ago about what the ff was holding, why the pictured ff was wearing standard FDNY turnouts, what the make of the Fire truck was. These are easily verifiable if you care to look and not make up stuff no one else can see.
My own opinion is that Ray and anyone else who subscribes to the theory that Fire fighters were complicit in the deaths of their brothers for "dramatic effect" as Ray puts it,lacks the courage of their convictions or is a coward. Why don't all who believe in this contact the IAFF and let them know about all of this proof? I told a union rep about these posts and he just laughed them off. But who am I? Maybe if all of you get together and point them to Webfairy and foreknowledge you will get some results. Better yet, just trot on down to one of the local houses and collar the first Truckee you see and tell him how his brother FF's are killers.
Let me know how that works out for ya.

[wildbilln864]

52. BS!

See there's the problem. He wasn't saying firefighters were involved. He was saying IMPERSONATORS posing as FFs! Too bad that get's past you so easily! So why not actually address what he said instead of trying such deception?

[piobair]

53. nope

I specifically asked him in a prior post{several months ago} if he was claiming that The Chief officers and named Firefighters such as Tony B were guilty of murder and he said yes. Don't you think the "real" firefighters would notice imposters in the house?

[RayUbinger]

62. I have nothing but admiration for real firefighters,

but, I claim that EVERY alleged firefighter in the Naudet movie whom we are introduced to by name was a CIA/FEMA plant, with the exception of UP-CLOSE-AND-PERSONAL MURDER VICTIM Father Judge and with the possible exception of ONE dude named Schmutzler in ONE of the bonus interview clips (since he speaks so non-cornily and since he's featured so little).

I have claimed repeatedly that they infiltrated a whole firehouse, the one at 100 Duane Street, called alternately Ladder 1 or Engine 7. While the planning for this almost certainly required the blessing/foreknowledge of someone at the level of Rudy Giuliani or the FDNY Commissioner, I believe the vast majority of the FDNY, all the rest of the firehouses, were totally innocent and, in fact, QUITE as heroic and noble as the CORNY FAKESTERS LIARS HOAXTERS COLD-BLOODED KILLERS at 100 Duane Steet constantly PRETEND to be.

Hanlon and Pfeifer: possible real ff training and maybe even real ff experience for years, but definitely corrupted if not planted all along for this movie.

Benetatos: totally fictional character, totally acted, by a total non-firefighter CIA/FEMAgent type. They even give this twerp a SINGING credit, of all things.

Naudet brothers: totally complicit, and of course no one is even claiming they were firefighters, although I've seen them accidentally called that by at least one really careless big-name media dude like maybe Tucker Carlson. (Something like, "Remember the Naudet brothers, and Jules Naudet's footage of the 1st Hit while HE was training to be a fireman?" -- during this recent Naudet lawsuit threat against dylan Avery)

Joe Casaliggi and Dennis Tardio: the top two ff-impersonating AGENTS at the level just UNDER the top five in the movie (top 5 = g. naudet, j. naudet, hanlon, pfeifer, benetatos)

SOME other bit players' names, in on the snuff-film-making plot but with much lesser roles:

mark borrillo, so corny that he claims he likes coming to work even more than being in bed with his wife

damian van cleaf

john o'neill

eddie fahey

pat zoda

a bald mr. kozak, i forget his first name

larry "i need a cup of coffee" burns, the retiree ex machina who crucially serves as distraction to get tony off-camera for most of the big day

chris mullin


IF ANY of these guys (besides Judge and maybe Schmutzler) had ANY real ff training or experience, it was ONLY a time-killing or authenticity-enhancing activity for the greater purpose of casting the movie with outwardly believable ff TYPES.

I suspect none of them still work at 100 Duane Street. Their work is done.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[piobair]

63. no proof

Absolutely, positivley, undeniably, no proof of anything in your last post. Nada,zilch, negatory,nein,null, nill, none. For you to claim that Chief Pfieffer had only a rudimentary or basic fire training is probably the most idiotic thing you have ever posted. You don't get to be a Battalion Chief at the FDNY by just showing up. He was and is a well known and respected carreer FF.

Did you happen to research the number of alarms answered by the Duane St. House? During the previous 9 months prior to 9/11 they answered 2486 calls for service. Hardly an entire house full of poseurs.

Honest to God Ray, if I ever find a fact in one of your posts I'll probably stroke out.

[Ray_Ubinger]

65. It's PFEIFER--you know, "PIOBAIR" in Gaelic--not "Pfieffer"

Your atrocious misspelling of his name is an indicator to me of the bogosity in how "well known and respected" you claim he is. Where is this allegedly well known man now, by the way? I would appreciate if you the self-claimed ff insider could actually document some portion of Pfeifer's pre- or post-S11 career. Are ANY of the Naudet firemen still at 100 Duane St.? And is it just supposed to be another krazy koincidence that "Duane St." is an anagram of "Naudets?"

Besides this one little old page-in-progress:
http://911foreknowledge.com/perpfer.htm
see also the Seven-Second Stall between when Pfeifer stops waving the gas-sniffing wand and when they start reacting to the alleged sound of the alleged plane:
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44

See Pfeifer NOT look at the reading on his instrument. See him stare off blankly into space in two directions. See him catch himself putting his left hand into his pocket in a moment of idle spaced-out-ness, forgetting he's on camera, then suddenly remembering, and yanking his hand back out of his pocket. See him look at the anonymous, soon-to-be helmet-touching fireman like, "When's our sound cue gonna start?"

Also of interest earlier in that Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas scene, is that he exits his utility vehicle hatless upon arrival, but after a cut, he suddenly has his white cap on when he hands the gas-meter off to a fellow fireman. So, getting into proper costume was more important than getting on with the alleged investigation of the alleged report of an odor of explosive gas?

(Speaking of not being in costume, he's lacking his tie when we first see him, pretending to work inside WTC pre-S11 on some staged call. Is a tie part of his basic white garrison uniform or isn't it?)

Also, when he arrives at the WTC on 9/11, he goes to set his hand radio onto the SUV dashboard, but changes his mind midway into the motion. No biggie, except, instead of just withdrawing his hand from the dash, with the radio still in his hand, and exiting the vehicle, he first TRANSFERS the radio from one hand to the other. Hard to describe, sorry we don't have it excerpted yet, but in fairness I have llustrated most of the stuff I talk about, and the dvd is famous and check-out-able at probably any public library. This "false jettison" of his hand radio is one of many "spaced-out" moments of this guy who "got to be Chief."

And "well respected," you call him? Then how come his subordinates, the dudes carrying Father Judge out of Tower 1, DISOBEYED Pfeifer's DIRECT ORDER for them to STAY PUT at the "dangerous" Tower 1 exit while Pfeifer scoped out the NW pedestrian bridge as possibly a safer exit? And then, when he comes back and they've DITCHED him, still, we somehow see a picture of him OUTSIDE, WITH the dudes carrying Father Judge, and Pfeifer ISN'T EVEN IN THE SAME UNIFORM. Inside the tower he's in full gear, but in the outside photo with the carriers of Father Judge he's in his white garrison uniform.

I respectfully submit to all thinking observers of the Naudet film, that far from being a respected, experienced leader of burly men in a physically demanding profession, Joseph Pfeifer is a pathetically confused and unfocused parody of a bland uninspiring chinless excuse for a pencil-necked sunken-chested milquetoast of a puppet.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[piobair]

75. as you say

in another post, the imperfection of the presentation doesn't imply falseness. Sorry about the misspelling but Shit happens.

What about answering my question about how a bunch of plants could respond to thousands of calls in the months prior to 9/11?

I am really about done with your loon theory but before I finish there is one aspect of your conviction of Chief Pfeifer that I would like to address. Have you ever read the list of 343 Firefighters that died that day? Did you notice a Lt. Kevin Pfeifer? That was the Chiefs brother. So not only are you accusing Chief Pfeifer of killing fellow Firefighters but of sending his own brother to his death.

You are a coward Ray and anyone who subscribes to your theory is a coward for not doing everything they can to get this information out{if you truly believe it}. Posting in this dungeon doesn't count. If your evidence is so compelling then you should have no trouble getting like minded individuals to put up a few bucks and make documentary.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[piobair]

82. Sorry

I missed what ever was said here. Must have been pretty snarky to get deleted.

[RayUbinger]

17. A career FF with a name suggestive of a Naudet cohort

> As a career FF

piobair, I see your pen name in Gaelic means "piper"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pibroch
and "piper" is spelled "pfeifer" in German
http://tinyurl.com/n5vnc

Are you Joseph Pfeifer, an FDNY Battalion Chief on 9/11 who was a main character in the Naudet movie?


> I forwarded some of his "theories" to an FDNY union rep I know and his immediate response

was to NOT sue me for libel, nor to contact me at all, for over six months now. Stone cold silence. Of course, my accusations would first have to be false before they could be libel.

The Naudets and FDNY's James Hanlon threatened suit against Dylan Avery's Loose Change just for using some Naudet-FDNY footage without permission. On the other hand, practically ALL the footage at MY site is ripped off from the Naudet movie, AND I don't JUST use it, I use it to outright accuse the Naudet-FNDY team of being accessories to mass murder.

Somehow the Naudets and FDNY can't be bothered to object to me for republishing their footage AND calling them murderers, but they hired a powerful law firm to shut Dylan Avery down JUST for republishing their footage.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[piobair]

19. level of annoyance

I guess the reason they chose to sue Avery instead of you is that no one outside of this site has probably ever heard of you while Loose Change has a wider distribution. Nice catch on Piobair except it is not nearly as sinister as you might think. It is Gaelic for Piper....as in Bagpiper.
The pipes are the traditional instrument of the Fire Service and next to being a Firefighter it is my proudest accomplishment. I have had the honor of playing at the National Fallen Firefighter Memorial in Emmetsburg MD the last couple of years. Better install a governor on that conspiracy engine.

[Ray_Ubinger]

21. Are they trying to save the postage of another cease-and-desist letter?

piobair ("pfeifer" in German) writes:

> I guess the reason they chose to sue Avery instead of you is that no one outside of this site has probably ever heard of you while Loose Change has a wider distribution.

Did you ever hear back from FDNY Commissioner Scioppetta? I didn't. Would it be some kind of huge expenditure for that Naudet-FDNY law firm to tell me to cease-and-desist? What would they have to lose? Why would they rather give me more time to spread my message, instead of nipping "libel" in the bud? How little do they care for sticking up for their own reputations? Would they risk making me and my viewpoint too well known? Could they risk giving my findings the publicity? Could they actually prove libel if they had to? For instance could they prove FDNY didn't murder Father Judge, even though there's apparently NO WITNESS for the story that Judge gave someone Last Rites that morning, nor for the story that he suffered a head wound?

Loose Change has an even wider distribution now than it did before, since the No-Day Bruthaz threatened suit. Loose Change advances the official story that the Naudets are part of: the story that planes hit the Towers. I wonder if maybe the lawsuit threat was just a puclicity stunt by the Naudets, maybe paid for by Dylan Avery.

And I'm not exactly unknown, I've been at this for two years in other forums as well. Big-name S11 researchers (whether you like 'em or not) Webfairy, Scott Loughrey, Nico Haupt and Gerard Holmgren point people to my stuff. Other supporters include lawyer Stefan Grossmann and the notorious
Ed Conrad. Blog entries like War On Suckers and The Incredible Vanishing Naudet Brothers have also picked up on my site. The dozens of anomalies in the Naudet movie just start making a lot more sense under the Naudet Guilt hypothesis than under the Naudet Innocence hypothesis, once you start noticing them.

Dylan Avery is a Johnny-come-lately who contributed no original findings and did not even bother to consult with the researchers whose work he lifted and arranged. And then his allegedly anti-official-story production went almost mainstream almost overnight.


> Nice catch on Piobair except it is not nearly as sinister as you might think.

So you did not know that you were calling yourself an equivalent of "Pfeifer? That was just a coicidence, like Jules Naudet just happening to catch the 1st Hit impact in the middle of his video frame in perfect lighting conditions with traffic blocked around him at the same instant that Gedeon Naudet just happened to catch the pedestrian reaction 11 blocks closer to WTC on the exact same street even though they apparently didn't have cell phones because there was that big subplot later where they each thought the other was dead?

> The pipes are the traditional instrument of the Fire Service and next to being a Firefighter it is my proudest accomplishment. I have had the honor of playing at the National Fallen Firefighter Memorial in Emmetsburg MD the last couple of years.

Bless your devotion to the memory of true heroes like real firefighters. Bless your musicality too. I myself sing and play violin and some piano and guitar.

> Better install a governor on that conspiracy engine.

Are you Joseph Pfeifer, the co-star of the Naudet film, or aren't you, please? Can you shed light on the Seven-Second Stall, between when they stopped waving the gas-smelling instrument and when they
started reacting to the sound of the "airliner?"
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
aka
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html

Chief Pfeifer takes no interest in the actual READINGS on his electronic wand, as he fiddles idly with it without looking at it, and as he sticks his hand in his pocket, and as he stares blankly around. Also, is it standard firefighter procedure to step out directly ONTO a street grate, as Pfeifer did, when you think a leak of EXPLOSIVE GAS might be occurring right below? And then the anonymous fireman with Pfeifer, the soon-to-be helmet -touching fireman, sticks his unshielded FACE over the same grate and stares straight down into it.
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44

Overall I find Pfeifer's acting bland and lacking in concentration.
http://911foreknowledge.com/perpfer.htm


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Americus]

22. Watching THE detective, and loving it.

Ray,

I think you've nailed it. What made you decide to check out the derivation of "piobair"? Makes me wonder if "DERAL" (with long a sound) = derail. I'm talking about a Derailer who is not a member of a country and western group.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

24. Excellent post Ray!...keep kickin piobair's butt!

[Jazz2006]

39. Rah rah

Nice cheerleading, but your pal hasn't demonstrated that he could even wash piobair's feet, let alone kick his butt.

[seatnineb]

48. No ....Ray can leave you to wipe Piobair's feet....

And whilst you are at it.......

Think you can disinfect Tony Benetatos's sore on his right cheek?



.....oh sorry.....I meant his left cheek......



Damn....those Naudet's are tricky fuckers!

And it looks like they tricked you and Piobair!

[Jazz2006]

83. In your dreams, seatnineb....

and hey, some of your pals here seem to think that non-Americans have no legitimate purpose in posting here.

What do you think about that?

For the record, I think they're wrong.

[seatnineb]

85. This is how Jules Naudet alters his testimony...........

Sorry Jazz.....

But your mate Jules is full of shit.........

Notice how the chronology of his experience has no consistency depending on when and who he recounts it to.........

To French media...he says that he read American Airlines on the fuselage AFTER he turns the camera to the sky...

Et puis, j'entends ce grondement incroyable, instinctivement, je tourne la caméra vers le ciel. J'arrive à lire "American Airlines" sur le fuselage de l'avion.

And then, I heard an incredible roar,instinctively,I turned the camera towards the sky.I managed to read "American Airlines" on the fuselage of the plane

http://television.telerama.fr/edito/11_09_02/naudet.asp

...........whilst he tells British media that he sees American Airlines on the fuselage BEFORE he turns his camera to the sky......


I remember actually filming the fire-fighters and I had my
camera like this filming them and then when we heard the plane
I looked up and I had time to see the plane going in between
two buildings and I saw immediately,I COULD EVEN MAKE OUT
AMERICAN AIRLINES ON IT, because it was that close. And then
just turning the camera around and - I don’t know if you can
use the word pleased to film anything quite like that. I
actually just discovered much later on that day that, yes, I
had filmed it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/septembe...

Keep believing the lies Jazz ..............

[Jazz2006]

86. You are deluding yourself if you think

that Jules is a mate of mine, and if you think that I have any faith in anything that the Naudet brothers say any more than I have any faith in anything that your pal, Ray, says on his site.

I haven't ever defended the Naudet brothers. Not once. What I have done is point out that Ray's site is full of distortions, absurd theories not supported by any evidence, etc. That is not defending the Naudet brothers; it's calling bullshit when one sees it.

[seatnineb]

87. You don't sound convincing......aswell as not answering the question,.....

9/11 seems to be a chock a block with eye witnesses who possess amazing vision.....enough to see details on planes...even when these planes are travelling at in excess of 300 400 mph at relatively close distance.....

I had time to see the plane going in between
two buildings and I saw immediately,I COULD EVEN MAKE OUT
AMERICAN AIRLINES ON IT, because it was that close. .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/septembe ...

Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board
http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html

Right before the plane hit the building, you could see the silhouettes of people in the back two rows
The Observer, Sept. 8, 2002

I am calling bullshit bigtime on the witnesses above.....are you?

[Jazz2006]

88. Funny...you didnt answer my question ...

and yet you're asking me to answer questions about something entirely different...

Did you miss the question? Did you miss the response in which I said that your assumptions about what I believe are totally wrong? Do you have some reason for bringing up a couple of witnesses and changing the subject entirely? Do you think that I don't know that eyewitnesses can be outrageously unreliable?

And as for calling bullshit, I called bullshit previously on the entire foreknowledge site... how about you? You didn't answer that. Do you actually believe that the FDNY was in on a "snuff film", that they knew about the attacks ahead of time, and that FDNY members deliberately murdered people in the towers on Sept. 11/01, and that numerous other FDNY members covered up evidence after the fact?

Do you really believe any of that?

Or even parts of it?

And you also didn't answer the other question in #83, about those CTers who think that if you're not American, you're somehow not really entitled to talk about this. I disagree with that assertion, of course, as I've pointed out... but what do you think about that?

[seatnineb]

91. It is obviouse that these images hurt you real bad............

Tony's drifting sore is Naudet bullshit....

Why don't you just admit it.....





And if the Naudet's can play tricks like this.....

Who is to say that they DID not fuck around with their all important 1st hit footage........

Oh yeah...I forgot...they did.....





Any answers Jazz?

Did not think so.

[mirandapriestly]

92. I don't think

Jazz is feeling much of anything when she posts in the middle of the night.
:beer:

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

96. You're hallucinating if you thing that anything in

the ray ubinger site has any relationship to reality at all.


You're also hallucinating if you think that I have ever espoused any belief in the Naudet video.

I never have.

But, you know that.

So why do you keep pretending otherwise?

[seatnineb]

98. No....I am just observing ........not hallucinating.....

Unlike you.....

Naudet and the boys went to check out an odour of gas at this location.......before the 1st plane hit......



But it was so nice of Naudet and the boys to let ordinary civillians in the vicinity where a supposed gas leak had been/or still when the 2nd plane hit...

[piobair]

27. sorry

Sorry to disapoint you Ray but I am not Chief Pfeifer. I am just a Fire fighter and a BAGpiper who finds your unsupported conjecture and feelings just so much bullshit and a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to your wack job website. I notice you place a lot of stock in how people such as the chief and the Naudets are supposed to react in a stressful situation. What are your credentials that allow you to do this?
Every body is entitled to an opinion but you should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of your subject. It's painfully obvious that you or your sycophants, Americus and nineb don't.

[seatnineb]

29. Here is a book that will send a shiver down your spine......

...if you are what you claim to be........

Remember John T O' Hagan?

He is the man who tackled the 1975 WTC fire and then wrote an in depth analysis of how it was tackled and what the reasons were for the success in overcoming that particular fire........

That analysis was featured in this book ,written by O' Hagan which was published in 1976.......



So tell me ...Piobair...what happens when convected heat travelling across a ceiling intersects a wall at right angles?

Let's see if you really are what you claim to be.....

[mirandapriestly]

47. Hmm, looks like he can't answer

maybe he's looking it up on wikipedia. Heh heh

[RayUbinger]

31. So proud of your bagpiping, that you never told us about it before?

piobair ("pfeifer" in German) writes:

> Sorry to disapoint you Ray but I am not Chief Pfeifer.

My only disappointment was that you made me ask twice. Your first answer was that you play bagpipes--as if that implies you can't be Joseph Pfeifer? For all I know, JP is a bagpipes player.

Something you still haven't answered on this is, did you know before I posted it that "piobair" in Gaelic equals "pfeifer" in German?

And why did you HIDE your "proud" musical accomplishment, behind the obscure foreign term "piobair," instead of calling yourself, say, "bagpipes," or "pipesplayer," or "bagpiper?" Is American English not your native language? Are you a GAELIC fireman, from somewhere like Scotland?


> I notice you place a lot of stock in how people such as the chief and the Naudets are supposed to react in a stressful situation.

You mean like maybe GOING UP TO THE FIRE instead of so many of them just standing around in the lobby for so long?
http://911foreknowledge.com/wtc-index.htm

Or maybe NOT STEPPING ONTO AND PUTTING THEIR UNSHIELDED FACES DIRECTLY OVER the street grate where they allegedly suspect a leak of HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE GAS is occurring?
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm

> What are your credentials that allow you to do this?

You mean besides common sense?


> ou should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of your subject.

Two clips of Mr. Backofhead stabbing toward Father Judge when they say there was only one camera there.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
What's your rudimentary-knowledge explanation of how one camera cloned itself, and what the stabbing motion was about?


Ray Ubinger (a Commended and Honorably Discharged U.S. Army Captain who broke my back serving my country in the 82nd Airborne Division, incidentally)
http://911foreknowledge.com
NAUDET 911: THE ART OF THE MOCK-YOU-DRAMA

[piobair]

36. not in the habit

I didn't bring up my piping because I'm not in the habit of bragging about it. It is something I feel called to do to carry on the traditions of my heritage and the fire service. I only brought it up because you questioned the origin of my name. I am in fact a proud Scot on both sides as my great grandparents emmigrated from Oban. I guess that's why I never made the connection between Piper and Pfeiffer. I doubt Chief Pfeiffer knows the difference between a toaraluah and crunluath.
I have no explanation for the thrusting movements you say you see in the film but you would have to come up with a motive before I would consider murder. Please don't trot out "Father Judge knew too much". I doubt a gay priest was very far up the conspiracy ladder.
I think your intimate connection to Webfairy destroys what little credibility you might have.

[Jazz2006]

38. Holy tinfoil, batman.

The mind boggles.

Really.

Cue twilight zone music here.

[piobair]

54. didn't hide anything

Hey Ray,

I was looking over some of our old exchanges and found were I mentioned that I was a Dept. Piper. It was 12/14/05. So I guess I wasn't hiding anything.

[mirandapriestly]

46. Woa, cool.nt

[Jazz2006]

20. Piobair

Thanks. I knew I'd read posts here by a firefighter but I didn't remember your name.

My beau is also a FF, as well as a member of HUSAR, and as I've posted on other threads, it's the suggestion that firefighters were complicit in the murders of 343 of their colleagues, and the suggestion that they would cover up for the murderers of 343 of their colleagues that I take grave exception to.

No way, no how, not a chance were FFs complicit in 9/11 and no way, no how, not a chance would they cover up evidence of controlled demolitions or bombs or thermite if there had been any, as that would equate to letting the murderers of their brothers off scott free.

[cagen]

23. Not saying they are complicit but...

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/witnesses3.php
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv

Somebodies shutting them up.

[RayUbinger]

30. I have nothing but admiration for real firefighters,

but CIAgents POSING as firefighters, in order to arrange dramatic "lucky" "accidental" footage of their heinous crimes and sell the footage back to us as a respectable documentary, are a very different matter.

> No way, no how, not a chance were FFs complicit

Or so you say. Conveniently without offering proof. That was the genius of this Naudet-FDNY snuff film operation. They knew going in to it that the FDNY would practically be CANONIZED after 9/11. That made infiltrating a firehouse the perfect cover. Not only would their access to dramatic "lucky" "accidental" footage be unique in all the city, but, even more important, they knew that if anyone got suspicious about the movie, people like Jazz2006 would dismiss OUT OF HAND any research alleging FF involvement, WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE, no matter how damning or numerous the anomalies.

How can we take seriously a claim that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a fireman to commit murder? Are firemen the sons of God, or something like that?

Not that I'm even saying these Naudet-FDNY murderers WERE real firemen. The guys who died or got injured, THOSE were real firemen. NOBODY from the firehouse the Naudets filmed (Ladder 1, Engine 7, 100 Duane Street) suffered a SCRATCH. They ALL made it out safe and sound, just like the Naudet brothers themselves. No damage to their amazing footage either. But coincidences do happen, right, like the same person winning the lottery three weeks in a row?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[Jazz2006]

33. Cherrypicking a few words out of a post and twisting them to suit

your own purposes is really rather transparent.

Any reasonable person reading my posts above will realize that your post is such a gross distortion of what I said that it would be utterly laughable if the subject matter were not so utterly serious. Your deliberate distortion borders on contemptible given the seriousness of the subject.

[mirandapriestly]

45. Lots of fire fighters said

there were explosions, too. You are the one who is calling fire fighters liars if you deny that there were explosions.

[piobair]

49. huh?

When did I ever deny that there were explosions? It would be more strange if there weren't explosions during a fire event of this magnitude. As far as comparing the 1975 office fire to the 9/11 attacks....there is none. The fire floor was convecting heat to relatively cool and undamaged floors. The 11th floor was the only one more than 50% involved while the other 5 floors had smaller amounts of fire mostly around through and through access points. I'm amused that some claim that the 1975 fire was sooooo intense yet didn't bring down the building. Well all of the same combustibles were still present in 2001 and many more floors were involved. Throw in a large passenger jet at high speed and stuff falls down. As for nineB's question, it depends on the geometry of the fire compartment and if the fireproofing is intact. While O'Hagens 1976 book was state of the art at the time, computer modeling of fire behavior has made it irrelevant and it is not used anymore as a learning tool. The one good thing that came from his book is the efficacy of sprinkler systems in high rise construction. It is amazing that they weren't required at the time.

[mirandapriestly]

94. explosions in the basement, though?

and before the impact.

Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition said, “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” -

AFP (04/12/04Aslo,



Also, the fires were not hot enough to to melt steel. You guys really don't have an argument.

[RayUbinger]

55. 1st Hit impact cameraman was in the perfect place at the perfect time

Jaxzz2006 writes:

> I do not buy your "69 coincidences" theory. It strikes me as an odd laundry list of things that are not “coincidences” at all, dressed up to build a conspiracy theory, and it really seems to come down to “if the Naudets were there, they must have had foreknowledge”

How can you say they aren't coincidences at all, and yet not say foreknowledge either? It's not some list of irrelevant things like "Jules Naudet was French." It's a list of conditions which ENABLED the footage to HAPPEN. WITHOUT any ONE of the coincidences having happened, the footage might well not have happened.

Jules Naudet was not JUST in the right place at the right time, he was in the PERFECT place at the PERFECT time, IN THE PERFECT WAY. This insight is what makes Les Raphael's guest article the most well-known part of my site. That article by itself has been hosted several other places. The thing that's so convincing about Les's logic is that he exhaustively steps backward through the process of elimination, from a premise of IF the perps wanted to get a good film the 1st Hit AND pass it off as accidental, AND have dramatic footage of the firefighters' operations that followed, then blocking Church & Lispenard, in particular, with an infiltrated firefighter crew, was THE place and way to do it. It was just the right distance, just the right angle, with just the right lighting--and just the right BLOCKING of the "plane" by the AT&T building for most of the way, so that the cameraman could simply zoom ONTO THE TOWER and it still would LOOK like he was trying to film the "PLANE." Thus he was assured that he would catch the actual impact--in the middle of his lens view!--without it looking too much like that he was panning over to ther Tower impact point which he'd been told about, instead of searching for the "plane" and LOSING the impact shot while he was still "finding" the "plane."

> and I guess you could say the same about everyone else who was nearby with a camera or a video camera.

There are only two such people known: HIS BROTHER, 11 blocks closer to WTC ON THE SAME STREET
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
plus,
"Pavel Hlava," the fictional character invented to explain the THIRD FDNY-associated camera that was running within sight of WTC at 8:46:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel


> The "70th", therefore, doesn’t add anything to it.

Let me please get you to clarify this. You concede that Jules Naudet caught the 1st Hit impact in the middle of his lens view in perfect lighting conditions and with traffic blocked around him, AND that his brother Gedeon Naudet was ALSO filming at that same instant and on that same street and within sight of WTC, and captured the 1st Hit pedestrian REACTION, AND that the movie LIES about Gedeon's whereabouts at that moment (saying--not showing--that he was still back at the firehouse) -- and this all strikes you as TOTALLY UNSUSPICIOUS, and people who take an interest in it strike you as TOTAL TINFOILERS?


Ray Ubinger
Oh yeah and that intersection where Gedeon shot the 1st Hit pedestrian reaction (Church & Murray) (Jules' famous impact shot was 11 blocks farther north at Church & Lispenard) is the exact same intersection where 2nd Hit "debris" showed up, accompanied by rubble and yellow caution tape which was already visible in the background of Gedeon's 1st Hit pedestrian reaction shot.
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris.htm

[Grateful for Hope]

56. You might want to ask her also

why people outside the US have such an apparent interest in debunking 9/11 Skeptism. Like even people that are, for instance, Canadian, are quite interested in making 9/11 skeptics look as ridiculous as possible.

I don't understand this out-of-country concern. I am hoping that someone will be able to explain it to me.

[Jazz2006]

67. Why don't you ask me yourself?

There's that passive aggressive habit of yours being exhibited yet again.

Your feigned incredulity is rather obvious, particularly in light of the discussions a couple of months ago on these threads about why someone in Ireland might be concerned or interested in these topics. As I recall, you ultimately purported to understand entirely why people outside of the U.S. are interested, involved, and affected.

I can't imagine that you really believe that the U.S. operates in a vacuum and that its actions and inactions do not affect a whole lot of people who are not living in the U.S. I can't imagine that you are so uninformed that you do not know that Canadians died in the attacks of 9/11. I can't imagine that you are so uniformed that you do not know that numerous flights were diverted from U.S. airspace on the morning of Sept. 11/01 and were landed in Canada while the threat of further attacks was very real. I can't imagine that you are so uninformed that you do not know that people like me working in downtown Toronto in the buildings that would be the most obvious "targets" were evacuated while so many diverted airplanes were landing here instead of being allowed to land in the U.S. where they might have threatened your fellow Americans. I can't imagine that you are unaware of the hundreds of flights that landed here that day, most of them on the east coast, and that you are unaware of the thousands of passengers who were welcomed and taken care of by Canadians.

I find it bizarre that you seem to have no knowledge of the inter-connectivity of the U.S. and Canada that could lead you to ask (well, no, you didn't ask - but you did suggest that someone else ask) such a ridiculous question.

And I can't imagine how, although you've searched through my posts, you somehow missed the ones about the fact that I lived in the U.S. for a few years and about how much I like the U.S., not to mention the fact that I have lots of friends and colleagues in the U.S. whom I visit often, and the fact that I still work in the U.S. in various cross-border litigation matters.

Jesus.

[KJF]

73. I don't know if you'd call me a debunker or a sceptic...

... I suppose I have a foot in each camp, although I'm not an American, but I just sort of feel that 9/11 was a big deal for the whole world and has pretty much defined world events since then, so it's natural for people from all over to be interested in it. There are lots of people from other countries on this board and they represent pretty much the entire constituency of 9/11 opinion, from no-planers to staunch defenders of General Myers' memory skills. I can't say I've noticed any bias on the part of the non-Americans towards any particular concept.

Regarding why people get so worked up and why nobody's position ever shifts: I don't really know, I guess part of it is the high level of abuse which accompanies debate on this board. There seems to be something about internet discussion forums that brings out the worst, nastiest sides in people. In addition, we see the same topics - like no Arabs on American 77 - being brought up again and again, whereas really there is a lot going on and plenty to do, but it gets ignored in favour of the usual rehashing. For example, last week Rayed Abdullah (one of Hani's associates in Phoenix) got deported from New Zealand, but it didn't even get a mention here, not even by me, I'm afraid.

btw, what do you think of Ray? Have you had a look at his site?

[mirandapriestly]

93. It's obvious that you have an interest

in the topic. You contribute a lot to the forum and don't attack people. The people who don't know much and attack (like the one you advised me to put on ignore but she keeps hounding me anyway) I have to wonder why they are attacking people for thinking 911 was an inside job and spending so much time doing it. I wonder if they really are from somewhere else or if that is just a good "cover".

[Grateful for Hope]

95. Thanks, Kevin

I was more thinking along the lines that non US citizens would be less likely to staunchly defend the official story as they would not likely have the same degree of allegience to Bush and the US as Americans who do not question the official story

I do agree that 9/11 was a worldwide event. It has been my experience, however, that non US citizens I have spoken to are MORE likely to question the official story as they are not as inundated with American media propaganda.

I hope my comment did not come across as biased as my husband was from Canada (1/2 his adult life there, and 1/2 here), and I can vouch that he was a wonderful man.

I have seen the same topics crop up time and again, as you mention, but, I also think that these same topics seem to linger longer as there tends to be much more of the more vocal give and take in those threads.

Ray. I think he does make some good points (such as pointing out obvious discrpancies in the film), but, at this point, I have not really made up my mind.

Thank you for your response, Kevin.

[Jazz2006]

84. Hope: "I don't understand this out-of-country concern"

Really?

I don't think I have ever seen you question the "out-of-country concern" of the CTers here who happen to be "out of country". It appears as though you utilize that little nugget of snideness only with those who don't buy into the conpiracy theories.

Why is that?

[mirandapriestly]

89. it think it is odd too,

Don't they have anything happening in their own country? What's weird is they are mostly the supporters of the official theory. I think it might have something to do with not having to explain too much about themselves or some kind of weird isp they have.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

66. It is, actually, a laundry list

of things that you appear to have categorized as "coincidences" to suit your own purpose, in my opinion. Others might disagree with my assessment of your "69 coincidences" but hey, reasonable people can disagree.

Stating facts and presenting them as "coincidences" doesn't make them coincidences.

Even worse, stating non-facts and presenting them as part of your conspiracy of coincidences doesn't make them coincidences.

[RayUbinger]

80. Reasonable don't disagree without giving their reasons

Jazz2006 writes:

> Others might disagree with my assessment of your "69 coincidences" but hey, reasonable people can disagree.

Do you dispute that Jules Naudet caught the 1st Hit impact in the middle of his lens view in perfect lighting conditions and with traffic blocked around him?

Do you dispute that his own brother Gedeon was ALSO filming at that SAME INSTANT, 11 blocks closer to WTC on that SAME (Church) STREET, capturing the 1st Hit pedestrian REACTION?

Do you dispute that that the movie LIES about Gedeon's whereabouts at that moment, by saying he was still back at the firehouse?

Or is it that you concede all these things but they just strike you as TOTALLY UNSUSPICIOUS? In which case, can you give a hypothetical example of a fact which WOULD strike you as suspicious for Naudet foreknowledge? I mean if your mind is made up, why challenge me to prove anything, except to make me waste time? Is that the style of a reasonable person as you claim to be?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Gedeon's job was to shoot this 1st Hit pedestrian reaction at Church & Murray while his brother Jules shot the famous 1st Hit impact at Church & Lispenard.

[RayUbinger]

57. Father Judge

Jazz2006 writes:

> Because you think you see a "vigorous arm thrust"

You think it's not? You have a better description of what the man I dub Mr. Backofhead is doing in BOTH of his clips at
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
?
(where they claim they had only ONE camera)


> you believe that someone murdered Father Judge?

Goodness no, not JUST because of that. There are *many* other factors, discussed in a whole separate democraticunderground thread
http://911foreknowledge.com/fatherjudge_du/index.html

In no particular order, some of these other factors are:

1. They didn't try to resuscitate him.

2. They never say how he died, nor how they figured out that he was dead.

3. There are unknown implements, one resembling a syringe, one resembling a cattleprod, some possibly resembling guns, featured in inexplicable close-ups.

4. They do twice say he 'had no pulse,' which SUGGESTS having known how he died without actually SAYING HOW.

5. No one else in that scene suffered any reported injury.

6. Judge was an openly GAY PRIEST in a decidely MACHO profession.

7. The Naudets are already known liars for doctoring several of their pieces of footage elsewhere in the movie, while also specifically CLAIMING they had only one camera in the Father Judge scene YET there are TWO separate clips of Mr. Backofhead's vigorous right-arm jab at the space where they are about to "find" Father Judge dead.

8. The Naudet movie depicts and narrates Chief Pfeifer as having been ABSENT from the carrying of Judge's corpse through the street, YET, there is a known photo (actually included briefly in the Naudet movie itself!) which SHOWS Pfeifer RIGHT THERE (far left) with the guys carrying Judge in the street:


9. The OFFICIAL story of Judge's death, as far as anyone's shown me yet, contains NO DIRECT WITNESS STATEMENTS attesting to the key fictional elements that he gave someone Last Rites that morning, that he was killed outside, that he was killed by falling debris, that he was killed by a falling person, anything like this, it's all a complete fictional account, and apparently the subject of a whole TV special, "Victim 0001". This fits with the whole pernicious Naudet m.o. of using moments of apparent dramatic bravery to mask the most heinous crimes on the part of the filmmakers themselves.

10. A left hand, apparently Judge's, slides down Chief Pfeifer's back during Mr. Backofhead's vigorous right-arm jab.

11. They carried him disrespectfully, not even covering his face as they walked through the streets and then dumped his corpse at a church altar.

12. They are heard referring to him as an *it* while carrying him: "Put it down, put it down, put it down!"

13. The second time one of them says "No pulse," as the closest explanation they give for how he died, this is said in a strangely out-of-the-way scene back in the firehouse kitchen, Eddie Fahey speaking to James Hanlon, with no one else but the cameraman around.

14. They just HAPPEN to film his LAST MEANINGFUL MOMENT ALIVE, muttering prayers to himself and nervously looking all around him inside the WTC-1 lobby, and they claim it was totally out of character for him not to be the one to speak to and reassure others--yet they don't show any footage of themselves actually SEEKING any reassurance from him, actually TRYING to talk to him. He's like a deer caught in the headlights and none of them care.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
NAUDET BROTHERS: ACCESSORIES TO MASS MURDER

[Americus]

59. Ray: Thanks. This is very disturbing to me. May I ask you a question?

What do you think was the motive for murdering Father Judge?

[RayUbinger]

61. You can ask but I can't answer

It is not clear to me, why rogue infiltrated elements of the FDNY murdered the FDNY's own chaplain inside WTC-1 on 9/11. So far I only know THAT they did. I would GREATLY appreciate any research others could do on analyzing Judge's background and history with the FDNY and prior. I would also greatly appreciate a copy of his autopsy report. (Michael Gorumba's too!)

My only two bits of grasping speculation are

a) his open homosexuality in a historically very macho profession

b) his possible foreknowledge of the whole Naudet-FDNY Snuff Film plot.

It is not just a snuff film because they film themselves shrubbing him. Even if they hadn't done that, they still purposely filmed the murderous 1st Hit impact (8:46, American Airforce Blob 11 hitting north side of North Tower) with foreknowledge. That's my definition of a snuff film, a deliberate filming of a murder.

So maybe he knew about this whole infested CIA/FEMA front operation of theirs, at the 100 Duane Street firehouse, and they gave themselves an extra bit of sadistic amusement by specifically writing their murder of him into the plot itself.

The thing I don't like about speculation (b) is that I think if they found out that he was on to them, early enough for them to SCRIPT his murder INTO the movie itself, then I would guess they would have preferred to just rub him out immediately. On the other hand, they did have some some extremely creative, nimble, elaborate plot writers behind this thing. It is a masterwork of deception.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
FDNY MURDERED THEIR OWN CHAPLAIN on 9/11

[Americus]

64. Thanks, Ray. I didn't know about the original thread, so I clicked on it

and read all of the posts (from the one you started last November).

I should have read all of the original thread first; instead I kind of jumped the gun a little bit.

From my reading of all of the posts I've found (on DU) about this subject, what jumps out at me the most is how so many of the very reasonable questions you have posed have either gone unanswered (like the credibility issue that arises from the Chief's donated jacket & the fact it doesn't appear to be the actual coat he wore on September 11, 2001)...or else the answers consist of either belitting remarks, undeserved insults, and so on. Some of the questions yielded substantive responses, but many didn't, and it seems to me that if "they" are as innocent and pure as the driven snow, they'd give more convincing responses, rather than ducking, dodging, weaving, and so on.

[Ray_Ubinger]

68. Thanks back, Americus; btw, P'bair, I don't know A'cus nor seatnineb

Thanks back, Americus, for exposing how little my oppoents respond, although even I must admit they respond well to several little things, and it's good for me to have EITHER side keep my speculations in check with reminders of known facts. I'm not out here to boost my ego or collect followers, I'm out here to wake up MINDS.

Piobair is a gentle enough insulter. I even chuckle at his style of humor--he reminds me a lot of one Wes Dukes, a worthy opponent on usenet's triangle.general pre-S11. Still I usually disagree with Piobair's occasionally well-attempted point. I have to respect that he might just be permanently disabled to ever recover from the trauma conditioning of having hundreds of his innocent professional brothers led to slaughter by an operation in which other (seeming) firefighters participated at least indirectly.

Jazz2006 is another worthy opponent so far, able to call BS as he/she sees it, but I predict soon to run out of rebuttals as the multiplicity of the pieces of evidence mount. That's why I'm so "cocky" about my conclusions. Not because I'm anything special as a person, but just the SHEER QUANTITY of items of Naudet movie evidence that the Naudet GUILT Hypothesis fits BETTER than the Naudet INNOCENCE Hypothesis fits.

I've seen way over my limit for a long time, to still be able to give any serious consideration to the Innocence hypothesis. For me, it's been -preposterous- for over a year now, the notion that ALL these SIMULTANEOUS unusual conditions can seriously be defended as being mere coincidences. My confidence in accusing the Naudet-FDNY team is a justifiable habit that comes from inimate familiarity, patiently watching and re-watching, so many of the details of their movie. For some like you a key item might be Tony's Wandering Sore. For others it might be Gedeon' Naudet's 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction Shot. To try to have a sense of humor about this ghastly-evil movie, it has "something for everyone." But first the eyes and mind must be open, open to seeing it and open to putting it together.


The original broadcast version if the Naudet mock-you-drama can be seen at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version

It is a cruel twist of the Frameup on Humanity that the great, great artist Robert DeNiro appears so closely associated with the Naudets, not only hosting this original CBS broadcast version (totally cut out of the dvd version, though), but also participating in the Naudets' one previous, establishing documentary: "Hope, Gloves and Redemption: The Story of Mickey and Negra Rosario".


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
How can we get the autopsy reports of FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge and FDNY Rookie Michael
Gorumba?

[RayUbinger]

58. Possible "cattleprod"-like object in Father Judge death scene

Jazz2006 writes:

> The photo you posted



> looks a lot like a window punch, since you asked, which is a standard firefighting tool. Or perhaps some other kind of pick/punch/extrication tool. Or perhaps the end of a telescoping ram tool.


Interesting, could you please post photos of such other things, for comparison? Do you too purport to be a firefighter, like piobair? Or perhaps just a fan/student of the noble firefighter profession?

The "cattleprod" shot above is a screen still courtesy of Marcus Icke. The video clip in which it appears in the Naudet mock-you-drama is excerpted in slow motion about 3/4 of the way down the page at
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudets can afford to add to the publicity of Dylan Avery's planehugging movie which innocently borrows their footage, but won't mess with me when I outright accuse them of complicity.

[Jazz2006]

69. No, I'm not a firefighter

but my beau is.

What is obvious is that you have no idea whatsoever about anything to do with firefighting or their gear or their equipment at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

How can you not know what a window punch looks like or what a telescoping ram tool looks like or what other pick tools look like if you're going to pretend to have any knowledge of firefighter tools? Especially if you're going to put forward such a ridiculous story as your murder conspiracy?

Here's a hint: they don't carry "cattle prods".

Here's another hint: google "window punch" and "telescoping ram tool".

[RayUbinger]

99. Unidentified sharp implement

Jazz2006 writes:

> How can you not know what a window punch looks like or what a telescoping ram tool looks like if you're going to pretend to have any knowledge of firefighter tools?

I notice you didn't actually post a picture of anything to match the object


Is that because the object in question doesn't resemble a ram tool at all, and because a window punch is significantly longer than the object in question, and noticeably more cylindrical instead of having a flared-right-angle handle?

Piobair insisted for a short time it was a radio antenna -- wrong because the rod in question is unsegmented, and sharply pointed on the tip.

A debunker on another forum said Halligan Tool -- wrong because the rod in question is a straight tip, not a double-headed hook.

Y'all are very good at wasting my time but no good at showing what the object is.

The vid excerpt of the object in question is the fifth illustration on the page
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm


Ray Ubinger

[piobair]

100. Answer the question

Ray,

The last time you raised your head and claimed that Chief Pfeifer was instrumental in killing 343 of his fellow firefighters, I asked if you realized that his own brother was killed. I also asked you if it is your contention that Chief Pfeifer sent his own brother to be killed. It has been several weeks and you still haven't answered. Are you ignoring a very pertinent question in favor of a fuzzy ambiguous photo?

As far as me "briefly" claiming that the object in question is a radio antenna, I still contend that this is exactly what it is. Makes a hell of lot more sense than a cattle prod or a syringe. What exactly would they be injecting him with that would require a syringe of that size...cram cheese icing?

[RayUbinger]

101. Kevin Pfeifer

piobair ("Pfeifer" in German) writes:

> The last time you raised your head and claimed that Chief Pfeifer was instrumental in killing 343 of his fellow firefighters, I asked if you realized that his own brother was killed.

I realize that that claim is part of the official story. But so is the fiction about Father Judge giving someone Last Rites that morning, so let's be careful.

The alleged brother's name was Kevin Pfeifer.

Some anomalies regarding "Kevin Pfeifer":

1. In the first shot of him, from behind, and from maybe 30 feet away, when he's supposedly just about to head up the WTC-1 stairway, he's standing among approximately 10 ff's with their backs to the camera, but KP's uniform is the only one that has a name on it: "PFEIFER" across the bottom of the coat. So we'll know who they're talking about, I figure.

2. Chief Joseph Pfeifer narrates that in that moment (the moment before KP supposedly went upstairs), he and KP had their last words, of well-wishing and 'be careful.' The shot pulls back and right to show JP looking toward KP, who had just turned to look back at JP. But JP is talking into a radio, not talking to KP. They do not actually speak to each other in this moment, contrary to JP's claim.

3. Significantly later, when they show Father Judge's last significant moment alive (standing out in the middle of the lobby looking around and muttering prayers by himself), Kevin Pfeifer is STILL AROUND, he hasn't gone upstairs yet.


> I also asked you if it is your contention that Chief Pfeifer sent his own brother to be killed.

Yes if that person really was his brother and really did die. You ask it like no one's ever killed their brother before. The very first murder ever was a fratricide. Also relevant in this context is the famous line from The Godfather, Part II: "I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart." -- which actually appears in the Naudet movie, pre-S11, while they are watching TV in the firehouse break room.


> As far as me "briefly" claiming that the object in question is a radio antenna, I still contend that this is exactly what it is.

Since when do radio antennas have sharply pointed tips?

See also the vid of it, the fifth illustration on the page
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

Also, are you meaning to imply that the people who've told me it could be a window punch or ram tool or Halligan tool are all wrong?


Ray Ubinger

[piobair]

102. crap

So now you want to claim that Lt. Pfeifer wasn't killed. Please provide some actual evidence for this absurd claim.

In my opinion that is niether a window punch or a halligan. Definitely not a Halligan. The end is only "pointy" when compared to say a canteloupe. It is also not a cattleprod, Syringe, death ray, firearm, shape shifting chem sprayer,{hand held version} or hood ornament from a 76 Torino. It's a portable radio.

Ray, you remind me of Gilda Radner as Rosanne Rosanadanna. You get your panties in a twist when you misinterpret something you don't understand and go off on a tear. At least Rosanne would say"never mind" when her errors were pointed out. You just veer off in another direction, kind of like one of those robot vaccuum cleaners.

There may be many conspiracies related to 9/11 but attributing the deaths of the first responders to the FDNY is just stupid.

[Jazz2006]

103. Can you spell d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n-a-l?

"Is that because the object in question doesn't resemble a ram tool at all, and because a window punch is significantly longer than the object in question, and noticeably more cylindrical instead of having a flared-right-angle handle?"

There are many window punches that look similar and that are most certainly not "significantly longer than the object in question".

Here are a couple of examples.





There are lots of variations, of course, among window punches but there are a couple of examples of some with similar shape, etc.

There are a myriad of different pick type tools with a myriad of different shapes and sizes, and a myriad of different ram tools with a myriad of different shapes and sizes. Do you have any idea whatsoever about the kind of tools and equipment that firefighters use? It seems not.

I agree with piobair that it is certainly not a Halligan and I have never suggested that it was.

I also agree with piobair that it is also not a cattleprod, syringe, death ray, firearm, shape shifting chem sprayer, or hood ornament from a 76 Torino.

And no frigging way did FDNY murder 343 of their own, despite your ridiculous unsupported assertions to the contrary.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. He's not just saying that NYFD murdered 343 of their own.

He's saying that they actually murdered Father Judge in cold blood, in front of the frickin' cameras.

I think that they'd even have trouble believing that one in Stephen Jones' physics classroom.

[Jazz2006]

105. Yes, you're right.

I've gone through the entire site previously and it is totally delusional (to use the most polite words that I can in the circumstances).

I agree that even Jones' followers might take exception to the Ubinger assertions ... but if the DU tinhat adherents are any indication or even representational, well, it's apparent that the CTers here have either been utterly silent on these ridiculous murder conspiracy threads and have tacitly endorsed them by their silence, or have explicitly endorsed them (e.g. seatnineb, mirandapriestly, americus, hope2006 on this thread) so I wouldn't put any money on CTers actually taking exception to it despite the fact that it is ridiculous on its face and utterly offensive on all levels.

It seems that among tinhatters, there is a certain "nudge nudge wink wink" mentality in which they tacitly endorse ridiculous theories rather than call bullshit where calling bullshit is the only rational response. Strange, that, because calling bullshit on ridiculous theories would lend them far more credibility than their tacit acceptance of nonsensical and offensive crap such as is espoused by the Ubinger site etal.

[RayUbinger]

60. Possible "soldier(s)" among firemen

Jazz2006 writes:

> I thought I read something on another thread or on your site that you wrote to the effect that you thought the firefighter on the right




> was a soldier because of his black helmet and to the effect that he should have been wearing a yellow helmet. Perhaps that was someone else. If so, my apologies.

No biggie, because something similar is true: I say the helmet on the dude on the right comes down over the ears, like an army kevlar helmet (I'm former army). Whereas Pfeifer's real fireman helmet on the left stays flat and high up at the level of the crown of the head.

Incidentally the Smithsonian claims that that jacket that Pfeifer is wearing was donated to them. But the picture they have of it mismatches Pfeifer's jacket in the movie, by slightly different placement of the patches of lettering. In the movie, the "C" in BATT CHIEF starts to the LEFT of the N in F.D.N.Y.:
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier.htm

At the Smithsonian, though, the C in BATT CHIEF starts to the RIGHT of the N in F.D.N.Y.:


Just one more lie passed off as authentic American history.


> In the second link on this point (soldier3.htm), that guy could be military but you haven't slowed that clip down like you have the others on your site, so it's hard to tell.

I'm truly sorry that I have no web skills. Almost all presentation and editorial considerations at the site are done by my generous helper Webfairy. On the other hand, the Naudet dvd can be checked out of almost any public library.


> He does not appear to be wearing any firefighter gear or equipment, but if you slow it down, the insignia and flashes he's wearing on his clothing might be discernible. From first appearances, though, he looks like a cop wearing a lightweight police swat helmet

Even if you're right about that, you're still ignoring the other suspicious elements of that clip that I describe on that page
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier3.htm

1. THREE COPS just HAPPEN to be standing RIGHT THERE, TWO FEET AWAY, obviously pre-scripted, stagedly WAITING to "help" the helmeted guy's call for "help" for the "victim" who is on all fours

2. They PUSH DOWN on the "victim's" back, actually making him FALL DOWN (though the clip only includes the first few frames of him falling down--another thing you CAN see for yourself if you get a hold of the famous dvd and use the Slow Motion controls)

3. ANOTHER cameraman visible in the background (I suspect he is the other Naudet brother) just HAPPENS to be filming this EXACT SAME SCENE.


> As for your "flack-vested dude with a holstered sidearm leaving the WTC1 lobby as the first firemen arrive" ~ it appears that you’re imagining things if that’s what you see in that linked video. This is the same video as your first link above, and as I've already said, it seems rather obvious to me that he's a firefighter and although the video is not terribly clear, he’s probably carrying a set of irons, which typically includes a halligan and an axe, along with other standard gear and equipment.

Here I think we just miscommunicated somehow. I think you are not really looking at what I meant to be pointing to. Let me try again.

By the "flack-vested dude with a holstered sidearm leaving the WTC1 lobby as the first firemen arrive," I mean the guy in the SECOND of the TWO vid loops at THIS page:
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier2.htm

His outfit looks NOTHING like a fireman's. He's in a white T-shirt, for starters, and he's got no headgear, and he is not holding any gear. Do you see who I mean now?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet 911: first snuff film to win an Emmy

[Jazz2006]

70. "I have no web skills" ... all done by "my generous helper Webfairy"

Say no more.

Webfairy has zero credibility to start with, but that explains why the clip in question here has been posted with only a few seconds at high speed (with nothing to support the propositions that you make about what was happening before or after) while all the others have been produced at low speed.

Just another crock.

Sorry, but that's the obvious explanation. The clip does not show what you purport it to show and despite years of working with the "webfairy" people, they couldn't slow it down like all of the other clips? Instead, they take 3 seconds worth of film and pretend that it exhibits all kinds of things that it doesn't.

It's nonsense, Ray, plain and simple.

Either you've been unwittingly taken for a ride or you volunteered for the trip. But either way, it's nonsense.

As I said above, the guy looks like a cop wearing the type of helmet I posted above. Nothing to suggest he's the same guy as you say was in the other clip, and the rest of the so called suspicious things you cite are nonsense without context, and your webfairy friends have deliberately removed all context.

It isn't rocket science, Ray.

But it is, sadly, utter nonsense.

[Ray_Ubinger]

71. Imperfection of presentation does not imply falseness

Jazz2006 writes:

> Webfairy has zero credibility

With whom?

> That explains why the clip in question here has been posted with only a few seconds at high speed (with nothing to support the propositions that you make about what was happening before or after)

We are talking about a PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DVD. Get a copy and DISPUTE what I'm seeing, if you dare, before harping on how IMPERFECT our mere PRESENTATION is.

Perhaps the "fall of the victim" and the "cameraman in the background" and the "soldier's" outfit as I describe them are not apparent at full speed. To me, an owner of the dvd which has enlargement and slow-mo buttons, they are self-evident. GET THE DVD AND SLOW IT DOWN FOR YOURSELF, before insinuating I'm LYING. Moreover, you have just got to be kidding if you expect people to believe you can't see what I mean, EVEN at full speed, by the three cops who are standing right there, and how the "victim's" BACK gets PUSHED DOWN ON.


> Nothing to suggest he's the same guy as you say was in the other clip,

Fair re-raising of an unanswered question. They're both a white male, late 20s to early 40s, with glasses and a mustache and a helmet that flares down over the ears, unlike all other helmets seen in the movie. Don't tell me you can't make this out. I admit maybe you can't. Tell me you've bothered to scrutinize the dvd yourself, with enlargement and slow-mo buttons, and then tell me you can positively attest that one of them isn't a white male, or isn't late 20s to early 40s, or doesn't have glasses, or dosn't have a mustache, or doesn't have a helmet that flares down over the ears, or that such a helmet can be seen somewhere else in the movie.

I do not owe you perfection of presentation with so much evidence going on. I owe the HONEST MINDS *enough* to see that these anomalies *do* exist and there *is* a logic to them, even though it ain't pretty.

I would SO MUCH RATHER that I were insane than that my hypotheses are correct. Insanity might be cured with a pill. Curing us from my hypotheses being correct means some kind of at-least-political revolution ... hopefully peaceful.


Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com

[Jazz2006]

72. Everything in your posts and your site, though, implies falseness.

To any rational thinker.

I'm not the one here promoting a "snuff film" scenario ~ you are. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to support those claims. You haven't. Not even remotely. There is absolutely nothing on your site that supports your claims.

To the contrary, everything you present on your site as supposed "evidence" looks like complete and utter crap to a discernible viewer.

It's really that simple.

[Americus]

77. OCT shills & apologists must be getting nervous. Truth will do that...

especially to lesser experienced shills.

[RayUbinger]

81. For example Tony's Wandering Sore?

Jazz2006 writes:

> Everything in your posts and your site, though, implies falseness. To any rational thinker.

Have you actually read everything at my site? What's so false about my saying it's unnatural for a wound to jump from one side of Tony's face to the other?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

Are you claiming *I*, not the Naudets, introduced falseness there, that *I* mirror-imaged that excerpt? That the movie really shows the Tony-passing truck driving in the direction OPPOSITE to the direction that the rest of the funeral procession is driving??


Professional TV actor James Hanlon, narrating perhaps the most insidious line of the film: "The strange thing is, the tape -- the whole story -- it kinda happened by accident." I want to say back to him, "No, you smooth son of a bitch, the STRANGE thing is, the tape kinda happened on PURPOSE!"


Ray Ubinger

Famous overnight in March 2002 with the network broadcast of their film, the Naudets have yet to do ANY new project since then. What DO they do for a living anymore? Push up daisies?
http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200510

[piobair]

74. helmet

Again Ray, if you had just a passing familiarity with any thing FD related you would know what you are looking at regarding that helmet that you claim is a kevlar military helmet. What you are seeing covering the ears is a nomex shroud that is meant to cover the ears and the back of the neck. It attatches to the helmet with velcro and has a velcro closure in the front near the chin.

I've answered all of your equipment questions since last November yet you continue to claim that there is all of this "evidence" of irregularities that prove that the Naudets in conjunction with the FDNY conspired to kill firefighters and had prior knowledge of the attacks. I think the fact that you have so few supporters for your theory really speaks volumes to your credibility.

[Americus]

78. May I ask who wrote the post titled: "helmet"? Was it Daisy?

Even a porker, grunting Pig Latin, has a style of his own, but mixed writing styles raises questions.

[piobair]

79. piobair

It was me. I don't know what you mean about mixing writing styles. It seems like everything raises suspicion with you folks but you willingly swallow holographic airplanes and shape shifting chem trail sprayers.

[salvorhardin]

32. You do realize that 911foreknowledge.com

Is owned by Rosalee Grable aka "The Webfairy" right?
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=911foreknowledge.com&email=on

Ms. Grable is, of course, the originator of the most bizarre 9-11 conspiracy theory out there -- that no planes hit the WTC towers and instead what everyone saw were holograms.
http://www.gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

You might be very interested to know that Ms. Grable, among others, think that Democracy Now's Amy Goodman works for the CIA. If you didn't already know that.
http://www.media-criticism.com/Letter_Amy_Goodman_Berlet_Griffin_05_2004.html

[Jazz2006]

34. No, I didn't realize that

the webfairy person also owned the "RayUbinger" site.

That said, I am not suprised, as both of those sites require seriously heavy gauge tinfoil and the complete suspension of one's disbelief in order to navigate through them.

I'm also not surprised that the 911foreknowledge poster has not responded to my #14.

Thanks for the info, and thanks for the other links, too.

Edit: formatting.

[salvorhardin]

35. You're welcome

I have no problem with people who question the official explanation for the events of 9-11. That's cool. I used to think that way too. I came to the conclusion that more or less the official story is pretty much what actually happened. I get that other people can come to other conclusions. What gets under my skin though are when otherwise sane, rational people latch onto every little piece of tinfoil that seems to validate their pet theory as if it were the absolute truth without first examining it or its' origins.

[greenman2]

25. cos of the $$$

webistes like yours , and mine -
can re-post this kinda stuff cos its 'not for profit'.
when someone starts making $ then its fair game to sue.
reposting content on a webiste is still a legal grey area,
and the laywers would probably not take the case.

I had a couple of emails with Dylan and 1-2 other people associated with the film,
i kinda doubt they are misleading people on purpose,
my take is they just didnt bother to research stuff that well,
when they found they could make a buck on it.

but, i dont discount the possibility 100% though.

i still think one of the most interesting things about Naudet is the
different audio tracks from different versions.

http://physics911.ca/org/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=59

Dave calls this the "source",
http://911blimp.net/research/audio/CBS_Naudet_doku_sourceB.mp3
but IMHO ,
because it was on the DVD doesnt mean its any more reliable.
in fact, they had MORE time to alter it.

Now lisaten to the explsions close...
http://911blimp.net/research/audio/CNN_firstplanehitsgpmed.mp3
http://911blimp.net/research/audio/MSN_1stWTChit_ms091201-3v.mp3
http://911blimp.net/research/audio/CBS_Naudet_doku.mp3

also listen to how many times they say "Oh Shit"
and if its the same "oh shit" replayed, or a different "oh shit"


now listen to the Ginny Carr audio...
http://911blimp.net/research/audio/GinnyCarr911wtc.mp3


how many explosions do you hear ???
if they altered the audio, did they alter the VIDEO as well ?


imagine this....
you are editing the film for production for CNN (or ?)
you think you see a little smudge, but no plane.
you edit the audio so people can hear the guy say "Oh SHIT"
you want for people to really hear this, so you punch up the audio,
and play it twice over the video.
so, you also decide to make the plane a little BIGGER, or more defined....
maybe your boss tells you to so it will be more "realistic"

OR......

there were 2 cameras filming different things a few feet away from each other.

a few possibilities, but the idea that the audio was altered ,
leaves the possibilites of the video being altered wide open....


Brad
http://911review.org/

[seatnineb]

26. Always good to see you around these parts Greenman! ..Excellent post!

[mirandapriestly]

28. Good links thanks

it's becoming increasingly clear to me that there is something very odd about the plane photos and videos from that morning.

[wildbilln864]

106. Well this...

needs a kick.

[wildbilln864]

107. kicked...

4 exposure.