1st Hit Reaction Shot

Direct evidence of foreknowledge by the Naudet brothers:
They had a SECOND camera running, at the INSTANT of the FIRST Hit, to record pedestrian reaction. Discovered by me, in the Naudet movie, on June 30, 2004.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
The clip appears nowhere else in any S11 video archive. It is unique to the Naudet-FDNY Snuff Film team.

Exact location of shot identified here, with further discussion:
http://team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.98.10


Ray Ubinger

...in context, just before they show the pedestrians.

Isn't that what the film was about - firemen?

Notice the cut.

The anonymous helmet-touching fireman is a famous part of Jules Naudet's famous 1st Hit footage:
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
Note that that footage continues after the helmet-touch, to show the 1st Hit itself.

The Reaction Shot is different. There is no fireman in the Reaction Shot itself.

The two clips are shown together (separated by the cut) as part of a preview montage early in the movie.

Good eye, though. Thanks for the question.


Ray Ubinger

Very funny.

when the film was shot. tehre is no time stamp or even date.

i agree with lared, prior knowledge? LOL

It is presented as people reacting to one of the Hits. But it starts with people walking along normally, and in particular, with no one looking up. Therefore it was not a reaction to the 2nd Hit. Therefore it was a reaction to the 1st Hit.

Several background details of a temporary nature peg it as not being a later reconstruction. For instance the caution tape tied to a trash can in the middle of the street, and the individual pieces of unknown rubble strewn on the ground.

More discussion of these details, and photographic comparison of the location to
(a) footage admittedly taken by Gedeon Naudet AT THAT SAME LOCATION
(b) how the location looks today (2005)
are part of the thread
http://team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.98.0


Ray Ubinger

It stands to reason. And no it is not funny at all.


Ray Ubinger

they did a lousy job. They walked right by the guy without even getting a good shot of his expression.

Not to be nasty but you may want to try a dictionary and look up direct evidence.

See last frame of in-context version
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm

Direct evidence is evidence which leads immediately to the conclusion. There is no other way to have a camera running in anticipation of crowd reaction to the first hit except by knowing in advance of the first hit itself. Therefore the Reaction Shot satisfies the definition of direct evidence of foreknowledge.


Ray Ubinger

direct evidence
n. real, tangible or clear evidence of a fact, happening or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence.

There is no way to establish foreknowledge by looking at a picture of a guy on camera expressing shock that a jet just rammed the WTC. There are perhaps 1000 reason why the camera was running.

At best, what you have is speculation.

> At best, what you have is speculation.

I have two BROTHERS (now famous but apparently in hiding for the past three years), EIGHT BLOCKS APART on the SAME STREET, operating BOTH of the ONLY known cameras on the WHOLE HEAVILY POPULATED ISLAND that were running at 8:46 a.m. within sight of the Towers, AND I have them LYING about where one of them was at that time.

AND, as Les Raphael's essay shows, there were ALREADY over FIVE DOZEN "coincidences" needed for EVEN ONE of the brothers to have been filming then and there:
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm

This a highly NON-trivial convergence of facts.


> There are perhaps 1000 reason why the camera was running.

I say THE OBVIOUS reason they lied about Gedeon still being back in the firehouse at 8:46 is that it would have required an unbelievable SECOND cover story to explain why HE TOO was running a camera within sight of the WTC at 8:46. (That is, in addition to the famous cover story, of the alleged odor of alleged gas, which allegedly explained why JULES was doing so.)

What do YOU say might be ONE of 999 OTHER reasons? Something like, maybe Gedeon's religion tells him to always film pedestrians whenever a brother of his is filming gas leaks, but that's such an embarrassing religious belief that they'd rather lie about where Gedeon was than admit to such a religion??

Be sure to also take into account that the footage cuts off before it's DIRECTLY obvious (to many like you) that it was taken at 8:46 within sight of WTC. Surely the sight of the Tower 1 smoke plume in its earliest formative moment (as Gedeon tilted up within a couple seconds of impact, after first filming the pedestrian reaction), would be the really INTERESTING part of the footage. BUT WE'RE NEVER SHOWN THAT PART. If we were, everyone would obviously start asking how such footage came to be.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

You have two filmmakers (that are brothers) filming at the same time in Manhattan because they were working on a documentary.

I'll tell you, a few more incredible coincidences like that and I'll be a true believer.

:sarcasm:

I listed far many more than that, including their outright lie about Gedeon's location, and I pointed you to dozens more conicidences in the Les Raphael article (about Jules' footage ALONE, even if I HADN'T discovered this second clip), and then YOU pick only ONE conicidence and PRETEND that that's ALL *I* said?! You are resorting to blatant misrepresentation.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Please explain how you figured that out?

LARED asks a totally fair question which I am happy to explain.

They, the makers of Naudet 911, narrate that Gedeon Naudet sent his brother Jules Naudet on the so-called "Odor of Gas" call, around 8:30 a.m. (for "basically camera practice") This itself is anomalous, because JULES says later in the movie that he, Jules, thought Gedeon was WITH HIM at O'O'Gas. I figure they needed both halves of this contradiction, in order to sell us on the big Separation Anxiety Subplot. But I digress.

They proceed to narrate that Gedeon, having sent Jules from the firehouse to O'O'Gas (Church & Lispenard) was, consequently, still at the firehouse when the 1st Hit happened 16 minutes later, at 8:46.

The firehouse is at 100 Duane St., which I've made this tinyurl for a mapquest link to:
http://tinyurl.com/66mro
They don't narrate this address, but no one disputes it. It is easily enough established by searching the Web for FDNY Ladder 1 or Engine 7, the two units that they say were housed there. (there at the firehouse where PROFESSIONAL TV ACTOR James Hanlon (the narrator-firefighter) was stationed, where the Naudets filmed)

This firehouse address (100 Duane St.) is six blocks from where the 1st Hit Reaction Shot was taken (Church St. between Park Pl. & Murray St.). Solid proof of the Reaction Shot location is given at a previously posted URL:
http://team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.98.10
using two independent methods:
photographic comparison of the Church-Murray location in 2005 to the Reaction Shot setting
and
comparision of the Reaction Shot setting to footage from the exact same spot, ADMITEDLY shot by Gedeon, later in the movie.
(He traveled Church Street repeatedly that morning, according to the movie.)

(Unfortunately the team8plus site is having connection problems at the moment. Please keep trying. The proof of the Reaction Shot location is incontrovertible.)

So, I am saying they lied about Gedeon's 8:46 a.m. location by six blocks. This is what you were asking me to explain. QED.

Please ask further questions if any part of the above isn't clear. I want to take the story a few minutes farther while I'm posting this, but the following is not relevant to your question.


They narrate that Gedeon then for some reason WALKED (not catching a ride with the firemen whom he had allegedly been bonding with for weeks) the EIGHT BLOCKS from the Duane St. firehouse all the way to the multi-alarm total emergency at WTC-1.

They show some of his footage during that trip. He went down Church Street, one of the main direct drags between Duane St. and WTC. This part of Gedeon's footage culminates with him positioning himself at Church & Vesey, with WTC-5 in front of him and Jean Louis David clothier behind him, where Gedeon proceeded to film his version of the 2nd Hit, which has some remarkable video anomalies of its own; see
http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
and
http://911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Like how could the only video of the first "plane" have been taken from the perfect place to film it?

It's a daunting list of "coincidences" he has put together. Debunkers never want to answer my question, 'If 63 coincidences aren't enough to make you suspicious of the Naudet film, how many would be? 64? 164? A trillion and 64?' They don't answer because they don't want to admit that no number of coincidences would be too great, they're sold on the Naudets' innocence no matter what.

An earlier version of Les's article is at
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged-04.htm
with some comments and illustrations inserted by me.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

The fact that the first jet crash video is very short. Why would they stop filming so quickly? I know if it was me, I wouldn't! If anything I'd be running toward it and filming as much as I could on the way!

Their video clip of Building 7 is another tell. How could they know to set up their camera right then and there to film it collapsing?

Yep, besides getting
THE ONLY shot of the first impact
AND
THE ONLY shot of pedestrian reaction at that instant
AND
a shot of the SECOND Hit from ZERO blocks away,
AND
THE ONLY footage from inside either Tower that day,
these SAME GUYS
ALSO got
one of only a HANDFUL of shots of 7's demolition.

And, they were using a TRIPOD MOUNT for it, if you notice how steady it is.


But hey, coincidences happen, right, like the same person winning the lottery 75 weeks in a row, so who really knows for sure? ;-)


I think you're mistaken about their 1st Hit video being short, though. You're probably thinking that something like the CNN excerpt I've posted
(http://tinyurl.com/6zx44)
is the full thing. It's not. The version on dvd lasts 22 seconds, from impact to scene change. (First they cut to an interview moment, then they cut to the footage from inside Chief Pfeifer's vehicle on its way to WTC.)


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

It is weird that the camera was set up to catch a first reaction. I would have have never caught that.

I remember thinking, 'Okay, WHAT I'm seeing makes sense -- but, *NOT* the FACT THAT IT WAS ABLE TO BE FILMED IN THE FIRST PLACE.'

I went from being AFRAID Scott Loughrey was right (see Pgs. 27 thru 38 at
http://911hoax.com/Table_Contents.asp
)
to KNOWING he was right.

I am forever in Scott Loughrey's debt for his being the first person to publicly cast suspicion on the No-Day Bruthaz.

It is a sickening but then illuminating truth. The perps infiltrated the FDNY for the specific purpose of arranging to have a snuff film made of the day's events, AND THEN THEY SOLD IT BACK TO US AS A RESPECTABLE DOCUMENTARY.

I submit that this is the most ghastly aspect of the whole ghastly plot.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Getting the Naudet-FDNY Snuff Film to Expose Itself Since 2004.

p.s.
HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW THE "NAUDET" "BROTHERS" DON'T DO ANY MORE ANNIVERSARIES? I don't think they've been seen publicly since early 2003.


"Who are the Naudet brothers?" -- The Surgeon

when it happened?

They were in the PERFECT place at the PERFECT time, IN THE PERFECT WAY.
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm

That's 63 coincidences needed for Jules' footage alone, plus I discovered that Gedeon was ALSO filming within sight of the WTC, on the same street, at the same instant, specifically for a pedestrian reaction shot.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

If 64 coincidences aren't enough to raise suspicion, how many ARE enough? 65? 165? 1,000,065? Seriously, how many?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
NAUDET 911: THE ART OF THE MOCK-YOU-DRAMA

A "perfect" shot would have been if they were filming the towers themselves with the camera mounted on a tripod from the roof of another building (or from Hoboken) as stock for an establishing shot, so that they had a clear view of not just the impact, but the approach of the plane (or whatever you think it was).

* A rooftop puts the cameraman in sunlight, seriously increasing the potential for ruinous glare. Filming from a Hoboken roof would have the camera pointing eastward, toward the morning sun. The actual camera was in shade, pointing to the west (and mostly to the south), with the target subject in direct sunlight -- the ideal combination.


* How could they explain filming the towers themselves, pre-1st-Hit, as part of a documentary about a fireman? As we have seen in the thread about James Hanlon, they already had ONE roof-level shot of the Towers shot, "in the can" (they actually dated it, as Sept. 3). How many such shots does a documentary that's not supposed to be about the World Trade Center need?


* If you're too far away (like in Hoboken), it becomes incredible that you heard the "plane" in time to catch it on film before it hit.


* The impact is the money shot. If you don't get that, it's far less ideal for propaganda purposes. BUT, if you make SURE to get it, it looks unnatural. That's because you would suddenly stop at the Towers when you knew the thing was going to crash. The AT&T building in the Naudet footage hides this problem. JULES IS PANNING ONTO THE TARGET BULLSEYE, NOT ONTO THE "PLANE," BUT WE DON'T REALIZE THIS SINCE THE "PLANE" APPEARS FROM BEHIND ANOTHER BUILDING AND THEN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY CRASHES.


* It's not just the impact shot, they also need an excuse to get inside WTC-1 and film all that dramatic lobby footage. Whatever reason you come up with for firemen to be with the cameraman atop a roof--say, an actual FIRE, it would need to END *exactly when* then the 1st Hit occurred. Otherwise people would be left wondering about what happened to the fire. In the actual film, the alleged odor of alleged gas is portrayed as no big deal, something that they just happened to figure out and get a handle on right before the "plane" "sound" started.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

64?
65?
165?
1,000,065?

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


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Please look at this: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php. Comments?

You should have started a new thread, the Pentagon hit is not relevant to the naudet 1st hit reaction shot.