Church-Murray debris planted; G. Naudet & R. Leventhal worked same spot

[RayUbinger]

The "rubble" of 2nd Hit "airplane" debris at the Church-Murray intersection vicinity, and the yellow caution tape that was put up around "crashed plane parts," are already visible in footage taken at the instant of the 1st Hit, in the background of the obscure Naudet Pedestrian Reaction Shot.

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris


Ray Ubinger
exposing the Naudet-FDNY Snuff Film since 2004

[Old and In the Way]

1. Ray, how do you know that video is at the time of the 1st hit?

Just wondering.

[RayUbinger]

2. Because it STARTS with NOBODY looking up

and then it shows at least three people suddenly whirling around and/or looking up toward WTC (known to be just 2-3 blocks SW of this location (Church & Murray)).

Also, it is actually placed sequentially at the instant of the first hit in the sorta "Terror Preview" montage, early in the movie.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
(It doesn't reappear during the full running of the 1st Hit footage.)
So it is definitely offered as a reaction shot to ONE of the two Tower hits. But by the time the 2nd Hit happened, everyone was ALREADY looking up, there were no more crowds of people just walking along normally in a big group with their eyes aimed only at street level and their backs toward the towers.

After the excerpt ends, the next shots are of other crowds, mostly just standing dumbstruck. They start with people already looking up.

The full movie can be seen at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
click
911 Televised Version

The incriminating Reaction Shot appears within a minute of the start of James Hanlon's narration, which goes like "When you work as a firefighter seven blocks from New York's two tallest buildings..."


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FNDY Snuff Film since 2004

[RayUbinger]

3. Companion clip to "Brave New World" clip, from same spot a moment later

but, looking south (and west) toward burning Tower 1 instead of looking north (and west) at the west half of the Church-Murray intersection:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

[Yatar]

4. Why plant debris on the street

If they were going to crash a plane into the building? That would only make sense if there was no plane. Is that a logical inferrence?

BTW, in almost every piece of video footage of the second hit, we can see something shooting very fast out of the fireball in that direction, am I mistaken? What was that and where did it land, if not where the Church-Murray debris was.

[Yatar]

6. This is the projectile I'm referring to:

[Old and In the Way]

7. A corollary to that.

Why plant an engine if there was a chance to find the 2 engines in the WTC debris?

[RayUbinger]

18. Yes, debris planting implies lack of plane

So do the many videos of an alleged aluminum 767 entirely VANISHING into the steel-and-reinforced-concrete Tower 2 without breaking nor exploding on impact nor coming out the other side, yet somehow leaving a cartoon shape of itself in the wall.

So does Edna Cintron standing and waving from the impact point, in the case of the hit on Tower 1.

I don't know what came out of the 2nd Hit fireball, nor where it landed, I just know it wasn't airplane parts, since only a hologram or CGI could behave the way the 2nd Hit vids show the "plane" vanishing. The falling smoke trail you point to in one picture (are there any pics that should show the same thing but don't?) looks headed for east of Church St. to my eye. Church was the east border of the WTC.


Do you see what I'm talking about when I say that rubble and yellow caution tape associated with 2nd Hit alleged fallen plane parts (if not the alleged plane parts themselves), were already in place during the 1st Hit?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[greyl]

5. Please be more careful.

This has been debunked at a page linked to from the working link you gave:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/letstroll.htm

[RayUbinger]

8. Not true

It's only been disagreed with, not debunked. Note that I posted most recently to that thread, with fundamental questions my "debunker" hasn't answered. The link to that thread as it now stands:
http://tinyurl.com/pb6f9
See Page 2 questions by me.

Even the almost-complete version of that thread as quoted by you (as quoted at 911foreknowledge) ends with me asking questions not answered by my "debunker."

Basically my "debunker" assumed that BOTH Naudets were at the site of the FAMOUS 8:46 footage (which of course I as a serious S11 researcher know quite well was at Church-Lispenard, not Church-Murray). He ASSUMED that. But anyone who has actually studied the movie can tell you that they make a big deal out of how Gedeon was NOT with Jules during the 1st Hit. That's how the whole Separation Anxiety subplot started.

And now I have shown where Gedeon was, instead of merely where he was not: Gedeon was on the very same street as Jules, but 11 blocks closer to WTC. (The narration lies by telling us, BUT NOT SHOWING US, that Gedeon was still back at the 100 Duane St. firehouse at the instant of the 1st Hit.)

Not to brag, but after almost two years of looking at it, we really have NAILED the place and time and cameraman of the Reaction shot, COLD. So YOU please be more careful, before dismissively trying to blow off this incriminating evidence without actually analyzing it.


Check out this comparison screenshot pair by Marcus Icke:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
Both screenshots are from the Naudet dvd.

At top is the first (or at least an early) frame from the incriminating "Brave New World" snippet. The pedestrians are just about to start reacting to the 1st Hit.
"The film was shot by two brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet," says the narration, less than a minute after that snippet is shown. And we all know where JULES was at 1st Hit: Church-Lispenard, not Church-Murray. Ergo Gedeon shot the Reaction snippet, with foreknowledge, at 8:46.

Cementing Gedeon as Reaction cameraman is the bottom screenshot, from the exact same spot
(east gutter of Church, just south of Murray, looking N & W at the W half of the Church-Murray intersection)
except maybe an hour later, post-2nd Hit (per the narration) but pre-1st Demolition (no dust yet).
The later shot is ADMITTED Gedeon Naudet footage, per the narration.
The narration has Gedeon going up and down Church St. three times that morning, between WTC and the 100 Duane St. firehouse.


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

[greyl]

9. Believers are very reluctant to admitting that they've been debunked.

That's nothing new to me.

[RayUbinger]

10. Do you see some diff between the location details of these 2 screenshots?

Like one piece of rubble that's not in the exact same place?
Or a piece of yellow tape that's tied in a slightly different way to the trash can in the middle of the street?
Or sidewalk scaffolding present in one picture but absent in the other?

Both pics are from the Naudet dvd. The latter shot is ADMITTED footage by Gedeon Naudet, post-2nd-Hit, pre-1st-Demolition.

Quit making the silly pretense that all you have to do to debunk something is say that it's been debunked. Take issue with my EVIDENCE already, or be quiet.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet 911: Emmy-winning snuff film.

[greyl]

11. Like I said.

Just because you emphatically deny debunking, doesn't mean that debunking has not occurred. Everybody knows that.

John Edward is still raking in money from gullible people who deny debunking, right?

[piobair]

12. If you are not familiar

Greyl,

If you are not familiar with Rays work, his main premise is that the Naudets, in conjunction with the FDNY, knew that the attack was going to happen and filmed what he terms a "snuff film". He actually accuses firefighters of murdering at least one of their own to make the film more dramatic. He relys on grainy footage and interprets things only he can see in the footage. He is also hampered by a complete and utter lack of understanding of anything Fire Department related. Pretty pathetic attempt actually.

[greyl]

15. Thanks for your input.

I'm fairly familiar. ;)

[Jazz2006]

30. And the tinfoil hatters wonder why

the "nee nee nee nee nee nee nee nee" of Twilight Zone fame cues up when they post such drivel?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[RayUbinger]

17. Piobair: another expert at dismissing conclusions w/o addressing evidence

> his main premise is that the Naudets, in conjunction with the FDNY, knew that the attack was going to happen

What's your alternative explanation of how there happened to be three Naudet/FDNY cameras all filming within sight of the WTC at the INSTANT of the FIRST Hit?

1.
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm

2.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

3.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel


Even explaining just the famous one (Jules Naudet's 1st Hit Impact shot) as being innocent "luck," requires swallowing 63 simultaneous coincidences:
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm

One fraud beats a 63-part miracle, statistically speaking. How many coincidences before YOU would become suspicious? 64? 65? 165? 1,000,065?


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

[dailykoff]

19. Right on Ray.

This bogus film is an important piece of the puzzle, maybe even a smoking gun. I have yet to see any credible argument or evidence that refutes your claims.

[RayUbinger]

20. Thanks; credit to Scott Loughrey for inspiration

Scott was the first person to publicly cast suspicion on the Naudet "brothers," as early as 2002, in Items 27 thru 38 of
http://www.911hoax.com/Table_Contents.asp

I was especially struck by Item 37, the Hand Gesture
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_11.asp?intPage=53&PageNum=53

What the heck kind of way is that to react to seeing a brother you thought had died??


Scott in turn got inspired by my own subsequent findings in the Naudet movie. He then published this introductory review, which gives a good idea where we are coming from at 911foreknowledge:
http://tinyurl.com/5ne5q


Ray Ubinger

[piobair]

21. please

The hand gesture is irrelevant. Who are you to say how people under severe stress should react? I also took the time to go to item 38. So the Naudets don't look like each other so they are not brothers? I don't look at all like my brother so are you calling my Mother a slut? It must be difficult for you to get through each day what with all the conspiracies flying around in your head.
Say hello to your Mom for me.

[RayUbinger]

23. Piobair's conception of brotherly love

> The hand gesture is irrelevant. Who are you to say how people under severe stress should react?

Noted: Your standards of inquiry find no reason to be curious why Jules showed annoyance and waved his brother Gedeon away instead of being happy to see him, even though he had allegedly thought Gedeon dead.

Now what's your explanation of three Naudet/FDNY cameras (two on the same street!) all filming within sight of WTC at the instant of the first hit? They had just gotten three new cameras shipped that morning and the instructions suggested trying them all out at the same time near tall buildings?

[mirandapriestly]

29. You tell 'em Ray, I'm with you.nt

[RayUbinger]

16. Like I asked

Can you identify any difference in location details among the following images?

Images A & B:
Reaction Shot at top, shot at 8:46;
At bottom, ADMITTED footage by Gedeon Naudet from after the 2nd Hit but before the 1st Demolition:



Image C:
Church-Murray photographed in 2005 by Nico Haupt:



Image D:
Church-Murray photographed in 2006 by Google Earth:



Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[LARED]

22. What evidence?

There is no difference between the two pictures

[RayUbinger]

24. Bingo

There's no difference between the pictures' background details because they're in the same location: the Church-Murray vicinity. And the latter pic is ADMITTED footage from Gedeon Naudet's foot-travels up and down Church St. that morning.

Conclusion: It was Gedeon Naudet who had a camera running near Church & Murray for the purpose of filming crowd reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit.

[mirandapriestly]

13. Your sites don't "debunk"

they just make superficial straw men criticism and unless you can use your own observation to disprove what Ray is saying then you are not "debunking" anything. You just say that you are.
I haven't looked enough at the Naudet video to make up my mind about Ray's idea, but that site isn't going to make up my mind.

[greyl]

14. My sites? Read for comprehension, please.

The site I linked to was from Ray's link.

You can't be talking about the randi.org link either, because that page doesn't say anything about 9/11.
It's only related to invincible ignorance.

the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.

[Jazz2006]

31. The worst of the tinfoil hatters also seem to think that the internet is

the only source of information, too.

God forbid that they might do some independent research, read a book, educate themselves, or learn critical thinking skills.

Rather sad, that.

[RayUbinger]

32. Try to keep up

This whole thread is about independent research. It is the fruit of research about how the Church-Murray intersection was not only where Gedeon Naudet used foreknowledge to film pedestrians reacting at the INSTANT of the FIRST Hit, but also how yellow caution tape and "rubble" later associated with 2nd Hit debris was already visible in the background at that same intersection, at the time of the first hit; ergo the debris was PLANTED.

I am one of the independent researchers behind this; my main subject of study is not stuff on the internet but rather the famous Naudet dvd. Another contributor is Nico Haupt who lives in NYC and independently established by personal photography that the Church-Murray intersection matches the video clips in question. Another researcher involved is Tim Canale of San Jose who had the presence of mind to turn on his VCR that morning and capture things like Rick Leventhal AT THAT SAME INTERSECTION conducting his riveting man-on-the-street interviews, except Leventhal didn't want to hear it when one witness said, "NO second plane, it was a BOMB."


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

[Jazz2006]

33. Ditto.

I wasn't talking about you.

On edit: By the way, I have viewed the links you posted, the alleged "reaction shot" and the "context" video repeatedly and it simply does not appear to me to add anything to 9/11 information, basically for the same reasons as Sinti mentioned in a prior post (#25).

The various photos and other videos at the site also do not seem to support the assertions made at the site. Whether that is a result of poor presentation, poor editing, poor research or simply making stuff up out of whole cloth, I cannot tell.

If somehow the photos and videos do support the allegations made, they are not presented in a way that makes that discernible.

[RayUbinger]

35. Please specify which turn(s) in my logic or evidence confuses you

> I have viewed the links you posted, the alleged "reaction shot" and the "context" video repeatedly and it simply does not appear to me to add anything to 9/11 information

You mean someone before me was saying the Naudets had a second camera running at the instant of the first hit? Or do you agree that would be new info but you simply don't see that I've proven it?

What about the proof is unclear? The location exactly matches current photography of Church-Murray and exactly matches admitted Gedeon footage from Church-Murray later in the movie. The footage is unique to the Naudet movie. The other brother (Jules Naudet) was known to be 11 blocks away (though on the same street!). The narration itself says, only a minute after the reaction clip and the rest of the early Terror Preview montage, "The footage was shot by two brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, documentary filmmakers and old friends of mine." The timing (instant of first hit) is established by the fact that it starts with nobody looking up--plus the Naudets themselves edit it in exactly at the instant of the first hit, in the sorta Terror Preview montage early in the movie. Ergo it was Gedeon Naudet who had the foreknowledge to be filming near Church & Murray for pedestrian reaction at the INSTANT of the FIRST Hit.

(The reaction shot does NOT reappear 24 minutes later when the full real-time 1st Hit footage from Church-Lispenard (JULES Naudet's famous IMPACT footage) is shown.)

For maximum context see the whole movie at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
click
911 Televised Version.

The reaction clip begins within one minute of fireman-perp James Hanlon's first line of narration.

It could not be people reacting to the Goodyear blimp because the Goodyear blimp is silent and these people turned around, meaning they heard the event before they saw it. It could not have been shot much later because many TEMPORARY background details, like rubble, and yellow caution tape tied to a trash can out in the middle of the street, would not be the same. (But they ARE the same in the admitted Gedeon footage from later in the movie.)



> If somehow the photos and videos do support the allegations made, they are not presented in a way that makes that discernible.

I respect this criticism. The site has a major overall weakness in that it was mostly cobbled together from unpolished emails not originally intended for publication. We felt it was urgent to put the basic ideas and key excerpts out for scrutiny. There are still many Naudet movie anomalies we've found but haven't even gotten this far with publishing yet...

...for instance the elaborate plot device of the Retiree Ex Machina, Larry "I Need a Cup of Coffee" Burns, and Tony's subsequent Gloveless Exit with him, which served to GET TONY OFF-CAMERA FOR MOST OF THE BIG DAY, since he's not a real fireman. That way they would only have to SAY, and never SHOW, that Tony spent 7+ hours doing heroic search/rescue attempts at Ground Zero. HE IS NEVER SHOWN DOING ONE LICK OF ACTUAL FIREFIGHTER WORK *ANYWHERE* IN THE WHOLE MOVIE. (Standing around looking pretty in a uniform doesn't count. And in all the footage from the boot camp where they allegedly discovered him, he does not even *appear*.) The only account he gives about being at GZ is a tall tale that he has trouble telling with a straight face:
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm


Some newcomers most easily see the way the Naudets INSERTED fake FDNY rookie Tony into the funeral scene (Sept. 1, 2001) of real FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba. First, he was SPLICED IN, with a SNEAKY CUT, during a BLURRY-FAST PAN LEFT on the crowd of attendees:
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

Then he was MIRROR-IMAGED, evidently to disguise that they filmed the FAKE funeral truck driving the WRONG WAY, the opposite direction of the real funeral procession, relative to the position of the crowd. This mirror-image is seen when you observe that the CREEPY BLOODY w-shaped wound on Tony's face JUMPS FROM HIS RIGHT CHEEK TO HIS "LEFT."
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm


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

[mirandapriestly]

34. the sites you people always link to.

you all say the same stuff.

[Sinti]

25. Having seen it, I'm afraid this video adds nothing to the facts re: 9/11

If the first plane strike were visible in the video showing the debris, it might be. Video experts would be going over it with a fine toothed comb to ensure that it was actual, pure, and unadulterated from the original. But, it shows some debris, some people walking down the street and that's about it. Those people could have been looking at the Goodyear blimp going by for all we know. And they didn't appear to be outrageously shocked, as one would expect, given it's the first plane and all. Are New Yorkers really that jaded? Pedestrian Reaction Shot could equal merely "hey everybody, look at that," they look and the guy continues walking down the street.

There are far too many disinfo pieces out there (most of which don't even pass the smell test) for almost anyone to take it seriously, even if it is all true. :shrug:

[RayUbinger]

26. Context, context, context

> If the first plane strike were visible in the video showing the debris, it might be. Video experts would be going over it with a fine toothed comb to ensure that it was actual, pure, and unadulterated from the original.

The Naudets would not want to have to explain TWO vids taken at the instant of the 1st Hit. So they cut this one short before the camera tilted up to see the just-hit Tower 1. But, maybe only a minute later, that same camera in that same spot filmed this snippet:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
where the same identifiable window style in the building on the right (Emigrant Savings Bank) matches the building in the left foreground of the reaction shot (Emigrant Savings Bank).


> But, it shows some debris, some people walking down the street and that's about it. Those people could have been looking at the Goodyear blimp going by for all we know.

Watch it in context:
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
wherein the Naudets themselves place it sequentially at the instant of the 1st Hit.

By the way the clip is exclusive to the Naudet movie, it has never appeared anywhere else.


> And they didn't appear to be outrageously shocked, as one would expect, given it's the first plane and all. Are New Yorkers really that jaded?

It's only like the first HALF SECOND of initial reaction (stretched to four seconds by slow-motion (done by the Naudets, not by me)). That's why several people don't appear to react at all.


> Pedestrian Reaction Shot could equal merely "hey everybody, look at that," they look and the guy continues walking down the street.

Not that street on that day. That street was in view of WTC, and that was the day WTC was attacked. People did not casually dismiss the flaming Tower 1 with a gaping hole in it and smoke pouring out.


> There are far too many disinfo pieces out there (most of which don't even pass the smell test) for almost anyone to take it seriously, even if it is all true.

It's from the highly regarded Naudet brothers. They should be found and questioned about it. But they seem to have gone into hiding.

[Sinti]

27. I will have a second look :) n/t

[mirandapriestly]

28. "That's what we're told-a second plane, we saw it on television"

in response to a guy insisting that "No second plane, it was a bomb,I saw the whole thing"...but we saw it on TELEVISION. That phrase says it all...
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm?/thewebfairy.com/911/glow

[ediedidcare]

36. for god's sake- did 757 jet (or military tanker)

parts land in the street or not!!!

Why don't we go and confront the Naudet Bros??? Why don't we go and do what the BBC did and find
the "hi-jackers" that are still alive?????


JESUS!!!

[RayUbinger]

37. We can't confront the Naudets if we can't find them

http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200510

But one of their co-conspirators still gets a TV role now and then:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0360137/
James Hanlon, the Naudet 911 fireman/narrator/interview/co-director/PROFESSIONAL ACTOR SINCE 1995.


And no, no plane parts landed in the street. There would first have to be planes hitting WTC for that to happen. Even if you think there were planes, the heavy turbine looking part at Church-Murray was provably planted just by the fact that there was a big, completely UNdamaged overhang right above it.
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm


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

[RayUbinger]

38. Who was that PLAINCLOTHES agent shooing Gedeon Naudet away?

At this link I just reposted:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm
I recently noticed that big black guy shooing Gedeon Naudet away from the debris, was in civilian clothes. We are shown both the front and back of his untucked polo shirt -- it's completely solid, no writing on it whatsoever. Who was he and how did he get there mere minutes after the 2nd Hit?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet 911: Emmy-winning snuff film