Tuesday, November 15, 2005


Analysis of the Naudet Snuff Movie This site deals with the complicity of the film makers and their obvious foreknowledge of the events at the WTC
Though still under construction (what site isn't?), it is very comprehensive.

Where was Gedeon at 8:45 on that Tuesday morning? I speculated that he was filming the WTC from a fire truck exiting the Brookland tunnel. But it would seem he was too busy filming the crowd reaction to the first impact. Or at least some of the film crew for this propa-drama were. First Moment of a Brave New World

And what is this whatzit? A strange appendage suspended above rookie Tony's car as he drives to the firehouse for his first day on the job. Is it a camera platform or perhaps a camera mount? This is leading to the seemingly outrageous speculation. Was some of the Naudet propa-drama filmed on a model set with the actors added in later?Toy Town Camera Mount

Here's another whatzit dangling near the front of the firehouse. If this were a real street then what could it be and hanging from what?A loose piece of tape

Looking at the front of the firehouse it is obvious there is nothing for this whatiz to hang from, assuming this is a real street that is. If this were just a model of the street then the whatzit could perhaps be a piece of adhesive tape that came loose and went un-noticed during the editing process.decend pan and zoom

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Were the Naudet brothers 911 insiders?

A very good article on serendipity.li by Leslie Raphael, examines the amazing coincidence that Juels Naudet just happened to be at the perfect location to film the impact of the North tower on 9-11. Perfect location if you were trying to make a believable propaganda movie, that is.

"Jules Naudet makes filming the plane, a moving subject, look just as easy as filming the burning tower, a stationary one: simplicity itself. In reality, what could be harder than capturing an unexpected and unrepeatable scene of a jet flying at 1,200 feet for two seconds at 450 miles an hour, from a ground level street in New York, the city of skyscrapers? How could such a film be shown many thousands of times, all around the world, without attracting the suspicion it deserves? Because — and the people behind it were doubtless relying on this — to most people who see it, the idea that the film was staged by their own government would be literally unthinkable: it would not even occur to them. Even those prepared to think the unthinkable — to believe the 9/11 attacks themselves were an "inside job" — might not realise the film was part of it, set up by the same people. How could documentary film of one of the attacks, shot by someone with no apparent link to the government, be suspect? Would they be stupid enough to use someone linked to them? The film's uniqueness demands an explanation that fits logic and objectivity, and if luck fails that test, which it does, we have to admit alternatives, however disturbing."

One aspect of the Naudet film that is not covered in the above article is the question, was the impact filmed at all? It certainly looks very different from the second impact, for which there are a large number of diffent video sources. Given they had about 24 hours after the event to fake that "ghost" plane, dub in a sound track (holy shit!...), overlay an explosion and then apend real footage of the burning tower. Maybe the reason there were so few people around that busy intersection at 8:46 on a Tuesday morning is because it was Sunday morning when the street scene was filmed.

Here is one example of the creative licence used in the Naudet documentary. From the documentary voice over "Jules was riding with the Battalion Chief, Joseph Pfeifer, videotaping".
Jules is supposed to be the only one with a camera and yet a few seconds later there is a scene showing their vehicle, en route, from the front. Multiple cameras? Kind of reminisent of the mulitple light source issue on the moon propaganda footage.

Then a few moments later we have the establishing shot to clinch this propa-drama.

This would not be the first time a propaganda clip has been passed off as a chance filming of a tragic event. The Zapruder Film Hoax, created almost 40 years earlier, is a good example of this craft.

And what of the alleged Czech tourist, Pavel Hlava, who is supposed to have also accidentally caught the event on video. This was shown for the first time on abc news in 2003, to the kickoff the 2nd anniversary propaganda campaign. Although it was said to have been filmed out the window of an SUV, curiously the camera position appears to be much higher than that of a SUV window and a firetruck appears to be reflected in the back window of the vehicle in front. Where exactly was Gedeon Naudet that morning? On the back of a firetruck riding through the Brookland tunel?

The Naudet video certainly appears to have been made with prior knowledge and the Havel Hlava video seems to have been made by the same team. Just two alternative angles on the same event. Either would have fitted the Naudet firehouse propa-drama storyline but only one was needed, the other likely stashed away for possible later use.

It is not conclusive though that either video really show the alleged aircraft impact. Given both are propaganda clips and most likely made by the the same team, there was no need for a real plane impact to be captured on film at all, when you could more easily fake it. Perhaps one reason for the 24 hour delay before broadcasting the Naudet clip, was to eliminate the risk of conflicting amature video of what really happened. Also perhaps more attention should be paid to reports that morning of missles fired from the Woolworths building at the towers.

What Happened on the Moon?

A very promising documentary with a wealth of hard to get library footage of the faked missions. I'm not even going to bother to argue the fact that they didn't go as anyone who has taken the time to evaluate the evidence already knows it was a fake and anyone who hasn't taken the time to investigate this issue is probably happy in their fantasy world, so why should I upset them? Rather what is interesting about this documentary is the abundance of vonKleistian slips. It is refreshing to find that the agents of propaganda were just as hard at work in the pre 911 world, muddying the truth.

Just 8 mins into this documentary and the self sabotage begins. We're told that we are being shown an example of a serious continuity error between the video still images from the Apollo 16 mission. In the "jump salute" scene, the object in question is the triangular piece of fabric on top of the jumpers suit being visable in the still but securely fastened down on the video version. Problem is, it is quite obvious on the video that this piece of fabric is flapping around loose. If they wanted to descredit themselves, then they could have been a bit more sutle. Even Fox isn't this obtuse.

After having totally discredited themselves, we're next presented with a real anomally. The hotspot on Aldrin's boot (or whoever was in the suit), as they descend the ladder. Even NASA now crops this famous picture. Wait for the next aniversary of the hoax and take note of this boot image in the corporate media or its abscence.

There are many other gems too, like these scenes of Charles Moss Duke Jr., on his Apollo 16 "trip", perhaps believing he was wearing military grade sunblock, as tested by fellow military personal in the Nevada desert years earlier.

Another piece of interest covered is the inspiration for the NASA script. The late 1920's German production, Frau Im Mond by Fritz Lang.