James Hanlon, one of the most perply of the Naudet-FDNY snuff film team

> I would like to ask these people: do you extend the same contempt toward Hanlon and the other firefighters who hosted the filmmakers?

I do. I feel he was the mastermind of the Naudet-FDNY snuff film, though some of my colleagues disagree.

Hanlon is the Fireman/Narrator/Co-Director/Interview who just HAPPENS to ALSO be a PROFFESIONAL TV ACTOR WITH A RESUME DATING BACK TO 1995. Which they of course never mention.

I regard the five main perps behind the snuff film as being: Hanlon, Chief Pfeifer, Jules Naudet, Gedeon Naudet, and Tony Benetatos. I also regard all the other interviewed firemen in the movie to be at least partly in the know. Chief among THEM, Dennis Tardio and Joe Casaliggi.

You asked. I'm answering. I can give reasons if you're actually interested. As far as Hanlon, whom you asked about particularly, I submit this scene from September 3, 2001:

http://911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_8.asp?intPage=45&PageNum=45
(text by Scott Loughrey)

That's Hanlon on the left and rookie Tony on the right.

Since when does a veteran fireman
commandeer a ladder truck,
take it out of service by blocking the tires (making it less able to respond to a fire if a call suddenly comes in),
block sidewalk traffic and partly block street traffic,
and raise the ladder,
all just to take ONE ROOKIE up onto the firehouse ROOF at NIGHT and TALK about the job requirements?

That's all they do! They just go up, TALK, and then come right back down! And the cameraman decided this would be interesting enough to film?? No, the whole scene was obviously just to get the WTC shot in the background.

They also do a foreshadowing shot of the WTC on the morning of 9/11 itself, from the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas location, just before the 1st Hit:

(note LACK of any flying object, in this last-ever known shot of the Towers in a PEACEFUL condition--another fine item for their SNUFF collection)

Tony's side of the ad-libbed-by-Hanlon non-conversation on the Duane St. firehouse rooftop consists of nothing but the word "Right," spoken ten separate times.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Ray,

Have you looked at the site you reference "statement of principals"? All of the video is fake and it's holograms and missles is number 1.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists aren't you?

:tinfoilhat: :eyes:

Since when does a veteran fireman
commandeer a ladder truck,
take it out of service by blocking the tires (making it less able to respond to a fire if a call suddenly comes in),
block sidewalk traffic and partly block street traffic,
and raise the ladder,
all just to take ONE ROOKIE up onto the firehouse ROOF at NIGHT and TALK about the job requirements?

Put your next non-answer right here:


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

The link you provide in your post doesn't substantiate your claim.

Everything I described about the rooftop scene is checkable if you go borrow the dvd. Or if you watch it at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
(but for me the fast foward and reverse keys don't work)

Instead of insulting me for your presumption that I'm describing it inaccurately, that is.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

I simply stated that you keep insisting that people answer the questions you pose in your post and don't provide any substantiation for the content of the questions. That's not an insult, that's the truth.

I'm sorry we don't have the rooftop scene excerpted yet, to show you directly. I was specifically asked what I thought of Hanlon. That was why I brought up a scene that we hadn't actually excerpted yet.

I did the best job I could by showing SOMETHING about Hanlon from the movie, as shown in still screenshots by Scott Loughrey at 911hoax.com.

I stand by my description of that scene. A veteran firefighter (James Hanlon) took a ladder truck outside onto the curb area, blocking at least sidewalk traffic, just to take ONE ROOKIE (Tony Benetatos) up onto the firehouse ROOF at NIGHT and TALK about the job requirements.

If you doubted the accuracy of my description, you could have gone out and viewed the dvd yourself. Instead, you supported piobair for insinuating I'm a psychiatric case.

Even if I had excerpted the rooftop scene, you might feel I was altering it. Same with Loughrey's still screenshots. This is why I try to always give dvd clock times so people can see for themselves.

Let's put it this way.
*IF* you were familiar with the rooftop scene by personally viewing the dvd, AND *hypothetically* you AGREED with my description of what it portrays (a veteran fireman comandeering a ladder truck just to take one rookie up onto the firehouse roof at night and TALK about the job requirements), WOULD you agree that is an odd circumstance?

In other words, do you think it would be strange for firemen to do that, regardless of whether or not you think they did?

If you think it would be a perfectly normal circumstance, you should say that, instead of saying I haven't shown that the occurrence occurred. Since you haven't said that, I am for now assuming you agree that it would be a very odd circumstance to occur. I am assuming that once I get you to admit my description is accurate, then you will necessarily agree that it was an interesting thing to point people to.

Again the scene can be viewed as part of the whole movie at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
BUT, I warn you that for me the fast forward and reverse keys don't work, only play and pause work.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

The link you provide has a few movies on it. (The Illuminati, Nazi Plan to Bomb New York, The Secret Government, and Real Flying Saucers...among others)

Which one is the one I'm supposed to be viewing?

is what Naudet 911 is called at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn


Ray Ubinger
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004

piobair writes:

> Have you looked at the site you reference "statement of principals"?

Yes.

> You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists aren't you?

No.

Now,
SINCE WHEN does a veteran fireman
commandeer a ladder truck,
take it out of service by blocking the tires (making it less able to respond to a fire if a call suddenly comes in),
block sidewalk traffic and partly block street traffic,
and raise the ladder,
all just to take ONE ROOKIE up onto the firehouse ROOF at NIGHT and TALK about the job requirements?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Not that unusual Ray. It was probably a little dramatic but still not that unusual. A rookie firefighter needs to know his officer cares about him and this is a good way to show it. Kind of like a father taking a son out for his first beer.

Since when?

And "not that unusual?" You've never heard of it before, have you?

I misspoke about them using blocks on the tires. Instead they actually jacked the ladder truck up in front! Evidently the sidewalk wasn't level.

It's also one more scene in which Tony stands around in a uniform. He's real good at that.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

SPOOK PATROL. Go find another board to troll, Ubinger. Let me get this straight: You go from being a captain in the US Army, ostensibly in "communications," to spouting off confuscated diatribes about some utterly unfollowable plot involving a snuff film that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand: a US government coverup about the 9/11 attacks. Try to be a little more subtle in your approach. If I'm wrong and you aren't a spook, you should definitely get on meds.

"Confuscated" isn't a word. And I was Signal, not M.I. "Communications" is a perfectly appropriate description. We installed, operated and maintained radios, phones, faxes and teletypes for the division.

If 63 coincidences enabling the Naudet 1st Hit footage
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged-04.htm
aren't enough to make you suspicious that they knew something was going down,
how many would be?
64?
65?
165?
1,000,065?

Put your next non-answer right here:



Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

...since we're getting all grammatical....

Ray, if you went to Duke and are such a stickler for grammar, why is your website utterly incomprehensible? Who gives a shit about a stupid film? What are you trying to prove? If I were a betting woman, I'd bet that you were trying to confuse the whole 911 truth movement on purpose, pulling down a convoluted rathole that is completely irrelevant. Were you honorably discharged from your job in army "communications", or where you ever discharged at all?

So what?


> What are you trying to prove?

The S11 perps had a moviemaking team which infiltrated the FDNY (particularly the 100 Duane Street firehouse), at least months in advance, for the specific purpose of arranging to make a snuff film out of the day's events and then selling it back to us as a respectable documentary, full of dramatic "lucky" footage with unique propaganda value.

For ONE example, there are at least five dozen significant coincidences behind their explanation of how they got that only known shot of the first impact. ONE ELABORATE DECEPTION BEATS A SIXTY-THREE PART MIRACLE, statistically speaking.

To make the footage SEEM unplanned, they scripted and acted out a totally fictitious cover story about a documentary on a rookie fireman. That alleged fireman is artificially INSERTED into at least two scenes where he was not really present.

> Were you honorably discharged

Yes. Commended too. From the army signal corps. Which you seem to be unaware has the job of installing, operating and maintaining Communications, like phones, faxes, radios and teletypes. Doesn't matter, though. The evidence matters. When are you going to counter my evidence?

For instance,
How many coincidences behind that famous 1st Hit footage would be too many for YOU to swallow, if not 63?
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm
64?
65?
165?
1,000,065?
How many would it take?


Ray Ubinger

But at least mine's derived from a word: Perp; with Perply to be taken as meaning: associated with (the S11) perps and their activities. Kinda like Friendly means associated with friends and their actions. Fair enough?

Did Confuscated mean CONFUSed and obFUSCATED, mashed together? That could be cute, but only if it were intentional, like Perply, which is a conscious little attempt at an extension of an existing slang word..


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Sinister clues of inside info and deep deception lurk in Emmy-winning S11 "documentary" by the Naudet "brothers."

I'll grant you that "confuscated" is not a word, but a lot of people seem to use it.

"Perply" is an original :)

Perply isn't original w/me, by the way. I picked it up somewhere in my circle of researchers and think it has a useful and discernible meaning.

Per your post #9

Why is it that whenever an OCT'er is afraid to answer a substantive question or point, they either ask for a link and then attack the link instead of answering the question that they said they would or else they resort to belittling the original message as being unworthy of a shill's response? Why do they do that?

Ahhhh.......They're shills?

The episode title is "Nature or Nurture?" Hanlon plays a mugger. Original air date was 2/28/2000. I taped the 12/23/2005 rebroadcast.

It's just one of many documented pre-S11 PROFESSIONAL TV ACTING appearances (dating back to 1995) by the perply "fireman"-narrator-interviewer/CO-DIRECTOR of the Naudet movie.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=130269

I'm guessing he played Narrator again, not really a "cast" member, since it too is a "documentary."

And note who the directors are! This 1999 movie is the Naudets' ONLY other production. Hanlon's name on it strengthens my theory that it was only made to establish the Naudets' credentials. People might not have been able to believe if the miraculously "lucky" Naudet 9|11 movie was the Naudets' FIRST film.

Note also Jules Naudet got Cinematographer credit for Hope, Gloves & Redemption (which won a minor award or two). Yet in Naudet 9|11, Hanlon claims Jules needed CAMERA PRACTICE, and that that's why Gedeon sent Jules to cover the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas, at Church & Lispenard, where Jules miraculously filmed the famous 1st Hit footage.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Alleged NYC fireman "Bill Walsh" appears in the Naudet movie. He is a lieutenant at the Duane St. firehouse where the Naudets filmed.

Third Watch takes place in NYC.

"Firefighter Bill Walsh" gets acting and consulting credit on some Third Watch episodes. He plays a character who gets called simply "Walsh."

Remember also the alleged FDNY rookie in the Naudet movie, Tony Benetatos, gets a SINGING credit in the Naudet movie.

S11 was a giant media hoax, which was helped along greatly by a propaganda team that infiltrated the FDNY. The alleged Duane Street "firefighters" are one big happy showbiz family.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Sept. 9, 2002

Some widows and some firefighters from other companies let them know they did not appreciate that Engine 7 was the focus of a documentary that included footage from inside the towers just moments before they fell. Still, the men of Engine 7 defend the French brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who made the documentary and who had been following them for months prior to the tragedy, filming the life of a probationary firefighter. They say the brothers were offered millions for their film but turned it down because they did not want to lose control of how it was presented.

Much of the criticism abated after the footage was aired, tastefully.

Still, when tourists drop by, they often ask: "Is Tony here?" Tony Benetatos, the probationary firefighter prominently featured in the documentary, has moved on to another unit.


http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep02/78721.asp

http://extratv.warnerbros.com/dailynews/extra/03_02/03_11a.html

What a quick transition, from his very first fire as a brand-new fireman (on 9/11), to a specialty Hazardous Materials Unit, in under six months. I think they're just covering his tracks. He's really a singer, and some kind of agent or actor, not a fireman. He's never shown doing one lick of actual firefighting work anywhere in the Naudet movie. Plot points are invented to keep him off camera. He does not even appear anywhere in the footage from the boot camp where they claim they discovered him. Also in the pre-S11 picnic scene another fireman has to help him use a firehose (during a game in a field). Also when he is shown being "terribly nervous" (awaiting his first fire), it's not his nervousness that makes a walkie-talkie fall, it's someone off camera, yanking on the straps. Tony is a Fony. Fony Fdny Tony.

Oh and have you heard Hanlon's claim about Chief Pfeifer and the 47 shards of glass? Google Hanlon 47 shards. That must be their prepared explanation for why Chief Pfeifer is never shown back at the firehouse on 9/11.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Ok Ray. It's time to put up or shut up. Where is your proof that Tony is a "singer, actor or agent" and not a firefighter. This is pure crap made up by you with out any evidence. Time and time again you exhibit your astounding ignorance of anything fire dept. related. Tell us, how long do you need to be a firefighter before you can transfer to a hazmat unit? Is this a desirable transfer? I actually know the answer but I would like to hear your version. You said in another post that Tony isn't in the FDNY any longer. Since personnel records are not public how do you know this? You say Tony is an actor but someone else had to pull on the straps to make him drop his radio. As an actor wouldn't he be able to feign nervousness? Your entire series of posts from the strange death of Father Judge to the 100 mile an hour holographic shape shifting chem trail sprayers is just so much bull shit. And no, I don't care that there is a 3 second clip of a fire truck going the opposite way at a funeral. It doesn't prove anything. Using the Ray Ubinger scientific method of deduction, I surmise that your hostility towards Tony and the other firefighters means that you must have caught one of them boinking your girlfriend or your mother.

piobair writes:

> Where is your proof that Tony is a "singer, actor or agent" and not a firefighter.

Same as where I said it was before. In the Naudet movie, where:

He ("Tony Benetatos") ACTUALLY GETS A SINGING CREDIT (on a number called "Defy"), "with the Original Bamboozler." (To bamboozle means to SWINDLE, right?)

He is absent from all the footage from the boot camp where they claim they discovered him. Dozens of trainees appear, but he doesn't.

He never does one lick of actual firefighting work anywhere in the movie. (Standing around in a uniform doesn't count.)

Plot points are devised to keep him off camera. For instance there was allegedly a "box of medical gloves" which were important enough for Tony to send someone, THE CAMERAMAN, to fetch for him, but weren't important enough for Tony to WAIT for. That got Tony off-camera for the crucial 7+ hours when they CLAIM that he walked from the Duane St. firehouse to WTC and spent the afternoon doing heroic search/rescue attempts.

He is inserted fakely into at least two scenes where he was not really present. For instance the funeral scene documented in the last link at 911foreknowledge.com.

He tells a preposterous lie (wiping his mouth to stop a smile from breaking out) about a victim allegedly walking around CARRYING his own SEVERED-AT-THE-SHOULDER ARM:
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm


> How long do you need to be a firefighter before you can transfer to a hazmat unit?

Only about three months, is what we're supposed to believe. Articles say he graduated from fire academy in November 2001 (but he was already working at the firehouse on 9/11?), and by the time the March 2002 Naudet movie was aired on CBS he was already being reported transferred to Queens HazMat. How long is the specialized HazMat training period?


> You said in another post that Tony isn't in the FDNY any longer.

I don't believe he is. I said I bet you can't locate his current station assignment.


> Since personnel records are not public how do you know this?

Are the names and station assignments of firemen really a state secret?


> You say Tony is an actor but someone else had to pull on the straps to make him drop his radio. As an actor wouldn't he be able to feign nervousness?

Yes, and he does feign nervousness. But if he had actually pulled the radio down with his own hands, that would have shown us that it didn't fall from his nervous bumbling. So they had him bumble nervously with the radios while the straps were yanked by an unseen a second person, offscreen below. It's within the first 15 minutes. The audio cue is Gedeon saying, "Tony was nervous, terribly nervous." Whole movie is at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version.


> Your entire series of posts from the strange death of Father Judge to the 100 mile an hour holographic shape shifting chem trail sprayers is just so much bull shit.

You resort to profanity because you can't explain why Mr. Backofhead was jabbing at Father Judge, nor how there got to be TWO videos of it when Jules Naudet allegedly had THE ONLY camera there.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
You would rather just BELIEVE that Father Judge gave someone Last Rites that day, and died outside, from something falling on him, even though you have NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS STATEMENT attesting to ANY of that story.

As for holography, what's YOUR explanation of this thing
http://tinyurl.com/63zle
and how it cast a "shadow" LEFTward of itself, TOWARD the sun, onto the side of the truck in Frames approx. 140-155?
And what's YOUR explanation for how "UA175" didn't break apart when it hit Tower 2? Perhaps you think it was just a cartoon?


> And no, I don't care that there is a 3 second clip of a fire truck going the opposite way at a funeral.

Right you don't care about evidence that Tony was filmed somewhere else and then INSERTED into the Gorumba funeral scene. Unless of course it's maybe four seconds long? Yeah, three seconds is just too short to see which direction a truck is moving, right?


> I surmise that your hostility towards Tony and the other firefighters means that you must have caught one of them boinking your girlfriend or your mother.

I have caught them as accessories to the murder of my countrymen!


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Sorry Ray,no dice. You still don't cite any proof...only conjecture. Of course he was listed in the film credits. He was in the movie! Do you have any proof he acted in anything else. How about a SAG card? Your radio dropping scenario is ludicrous. As to the singing credit,a reasonable person would see it as tongue in cheek. Monty Python once credited an entire film to various Peruvian Llamas. Your continued reliance on your own vanity site and webfairy add nothing in the way of proof. Until you know all of the variables such as distance, angles of incidence,focal length,and the refractory characteristics of a particular dust cloud, you can't rule out the shadows as a natural event and just jump to the holograph excuse. If you don't think flt 175 didn't break up and explode on impact I'm not sure you should be out unattended.
You haven't been right about anything yet Ray. Case in point is your latest ground breaking thread about Naudets ear wire. As soon as you assign some sinister reason for it, half a dozen people who actually know what they are talking about provide the logical explanation. Your posts are like a game of wack a mole. You pop up and get smacked down. If you really think you have proof of these murders then why don't you contact the FF union? If they thought there was any merit to your accusations they would shut the city down.

> Your radio dropping scenario is ludicrous.

The facts available from examining the scene are that Tony is not touching the walkie talkie in question; its straps showing yanking from below offscreen; and then it falls.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version

It's within the first 15 minutes. The audio cue is Gedeon saying, "Tony was nervous, terribly nervous."


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Still not buying it. I watched the video again and see nothing suspicious. It's to bad you have to scroll past the flying saucer, secret government crap to get to it. Kind of diminishes its impact. You make a point of James Hanlon being an actor and that is somehow suspicious. He has also been a Firefighter for 9 years. Are you saying this conspiracy was 9 years in the making? Also,lets assume for the sake of arguement that everything you claim is true and the Naudets were actually there to document 9/11 under the guise of doing a routine rookie FF documentary. Wouldn't they have realized the implications of the plot and exposed it? They would be Woodward and Bernstein times a hundred and would be hailed as heros for exposing this dastardly plot.

And I say again...if you had the courage of your convictions you would bring your accusations to the FDNY, the States Attorney General or even the 9/11 families instead of trying to convince the people on this board that can have no impact. Until you do that,and assuming you truly believe what you post, then you sir, are a coward.

No one can argue with that. Even to me it only looked mildly strange until I slowed it down and really saw what was going on. This anomaly (the fake radio drop) is just one more thing of many in my queue of as-yet unpublished finds. When/if we post it, it will be in slower motion.


> You make a point of James Hanlon being an actor and that is somehow suspicious.

In part because they steer clear of mentioning it. There's no 'You may recognize me from such TV shows as Third Watch and NYPD Blue, I've had bit parts since 1995 but I'm ALSO a fireman.' There's no 'These same brothers and I made our first movie together three years ago.' There's just 'I'm a 9-year firefighter and the documentary filmmakers Naudet are old friends of mine.' He's also a Co-Director, and the Interviewer. And all the interviews were done in the same room, which strikes me as pretty highly coordinated documentary making.

AND "Bill Walsh" is ANOTHER firefighter name in Naudet 911 who has appeared in TV shows. Third Watch episodes, to be exact; credited as "Firefighter Bill Walsh," playing "Walsh". Walsh further consults for Third Watch.

And rookie Tony gets a SINGING credit and is never shown at his own boot camp, nor doing any firefighter work. He is even inserted into scenes that he wasn't really at. And he can't keep a straight face while talking about the death of Michael Gorumba
(click Tony's Reaction at http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral)
nor when he's telling a whopper about a man who allegedly was RUNNING AROUND asking for help WHILE CARRYING HIS OWN SEVERED-AT-THE-SHOULDER ARM.
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm
Preposterous!

An early line of Hanlon's narration is perhaps the most evil inside joke in the whole movie: "The strange thing is, the tape--the whole story--it kinda happened by accident." I want to say back to him: "NO, you smooth bastard, the STRANGE thing is, the tape kinda happened on PURPOSE."


> He has also been a Firefighter for 9 years. Are you saying this conspiracy was 9 years in the making?

I suspect the outline of the plan was framed for longer than that, but I don't claim to prove it and I don't think Hanlon's length of time as a firefighter is relevant to it.


> Also,lets assume for the sake of arguement that everything you claim is true and the Naudets were actually there to document 9/11 under the guise of doing a routine rookie FF documentary. Wouldn't they have realized the implications of the plot and exposed it?

Of course not. The perps would never hire HONEST filmmakers to make a SNUFF film and DISGUISE it as a fireman documentary. I'm saying the Naudets were and are CRIMINAL participants, fully IN LEAGUE with the perps. (But the cover story of their movie falls apart under scrutiny, so they've gone into hiding.)

> They would be Woodward and Bernstein times a hundred and would be hailed as heros for exposing this dastardly plot.

Only if they were honest. The perps hired their own trainees, is my conjecture. They went through the motions of putting out ONE prior movie (Hope, Gloves and Redemption: The Story of Mickey and Negra Rosario, WHICH HANLON ALSO IS IN) to establish that they WERE filmmakers, but they've done nothing SINCE S11 but disappear.


> And I say again...if you had the courage of your convictions you would bring your accusations to the FDNY, the States Attorney General or even the 9/11 families instead of trying to convince the people on this board that can have no impact. Until you do that,and assuming you truly believe what you post, then you sir, are a coward.

A coward willing to stick my neck out for the swift kick of a libel suit if I'm wrong, eh? But I'm not wrong, therefore the Naudets and FDNY don't sue me, even though I've been talking this stuff up online for a year and half. If you can't answer the evidence (like the TWO cameras that taped Mr. Backofhead jabbing at Father Judge), just go back to lurking, don't resort to cowardly name-calling.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

You are content to throw out these unsubstantiated charges on fringe web sites but you won't take them to the people who matter the most, The friends and families of the victims. I've forwarded your stuff to FDNY line firefighters and the result was a collective shrug and 1 very expressive "fuckin nut job". It's been said that a prosecutor could get a ham sandwich indicted but I guarantee that you would not be able to secure an indictment based on what you provide.

Be that as it may, if you feel so strongly why don't you get one of the many lawyers here on DU to help you file a friend of the court brief or if that's not the right way maybe something to do with the RICO statutes. Your "proof" does not stand up in the light of day{or clear video for that matter} and I still say you are not as convinced as you say or are a coward.

Don't hide your light under a bushel Ray, let it shine!

piobair writes:

> You are content to throw out these unsubstantiated charges

Substantiated Naudets had TWO cameras rolling at the instant of the FIRST Hit, one specifically focused on pedestrian reaction, while lying by saying the second cameraman was still back at the firehouse.
http://team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.98
Unrefuted by you, cowardly ignoring the perfect match between the pedestrian reaction location and the later footage ADMITTEDLY shot by Gedeon on Church Street.

Substantiated they also had two cameras inside WTC-1 lobby, plus something like a cattleprod or syringe with a smooth narrow unsegmented sharply pointed metallic rod sticking out of it.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
Unrefuted by you, cowardly ignoring the existence of two different clips of a man with no helmet vigorously jabbing his arm at the space where Father Judge is about to be "found."

Substantiated Pavel Hlava footage as shot by a THIRD FDNY-associated camera (or else faked, which would ALSO contradict the official story) filming at the INSTANT of the FIRST Hit, on a firetruck ALREADY ON ITS WAY TO MANHATTAN from Brooklyn.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel
Not only unrefuted by you, but you even offered your well-educated guess as to WHICH MODEL of firetruck it was shot from.

Substantiated Tony as inserted into Gorumba funeral scene.
http://tinyurl.com/cy7cl
Unrefuted by you, cowardly pretending that video clips three seconds long are just too darn short to establish which way a truck is driving.

Substantiated Tony as a smirking liar who couldn't keep a straight face talking about Gorumba's death, who jauntily WHISTLED on his way up the stairs to lower the flag to half-mast for Gorumba
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral
and who keeps his eyes closed and covers his mouth while telling a ludicrous tale about a man with a severed-at-the-shoulder arm CARRYING his own arm while RUNNING AROUND for help.
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm
Unrefuted by you, too cowardly to stop clinging even for a moment to your foregone conclusion that people portrayed as FDNY members can't POSSIBLY be a gang of killers in disguise.

Substantiated shadows cast toward sun, and comprised of white light, and associated with unidentified flying objects, in response to YOUR repeated initiation of the holography topic.
http://tinyurl.com/63zle
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/blackbird
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/newwhatzits
http://thewebfairy.com/911/canale
Unrefuted by you, cowardly not finishing what you start.

Substantiated the second "plane" as not breaking on impact.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bluebeam
Unrefuted by you, cowardly initiating personal insult (about how I shouldn't be let outside unsupervised for believing it didn't break on impact) and not countering with a video that shows it breaking on impact.


"THE NAME OF THIS MOVIE. The name of the Naudet Brothers' video is 911. The documentary they were shooting was about firefighters answering the call. Their bravery was an essential element of the Naudet Brothers' story. Meanwhile, September 11, 2001 is the day of the greatest tragedy in US history. There's an obvious symmetry to the video with the events of September 11." -- Scott Loughrey of 911hoax.com and reviewer of Naudet 911 at http://tinyurl.com/5ne5q


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

ps
Speaking of ludicrous tales I don't think I've yet brought up James Hanlon's account that Chief Pfeifer suffered FORTY-SEVEN (47) SHARDS OF GLASS IN HIS EYES. Yeah, right!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2248717.stm
My speculation is that this was a rehearsed cover story in case anyone noticed that PFEIFER NEVER RETURNS TO THE FIREHOUSE ON 9/11, HE DISAPPEARS FROM THE MOVIE AFTER THE SECOND TOWER DEMOLITION, EVEN THOUGH THEY *SAY* THAT EVERYONE CAME BACK SAFELY, AND THEY ACTUALLY MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF ROOKIE TONY BEING THE VERY LAST UNACCOUNTED-FOR PERSON TO COME BACK, EARLY IN THE EVENING.

Tell the families and the authorities if you think you have a case.
Repeated references back to bizarre websites do not constitute proof and I do think websites that promote "no plane" theories and holographs as a catch all excuse to explain things you can't understand qualify as bizarre.
Also,a statement asserting a fact such as Hanlon being an actor as well as a firefighter is not proof of anything greater than that one statement. Your continued attempts to weave a huge 10 plus year conspiracy that must have included thousands of players is laughable.
There may yet be a conspiracy revealed but I'm confident that it does not involve the Naudet film in the way you portray and that the FDNY is not poulated with CIA operatives and murderers.

piobair writes:

> Tell the families

Bring them here, where I am equally addressing ALL of our brothers and sisters in citizenship.

> and the authorities

That would be us again. We the People are the authorities when it comes to firing the criminal coup d'etat and re-establishing the Constitution.


> Repeated references back to bizarre websites do not constitute proof

My evidence is not from any website, silly. It's from a publicly available DVD, Naudet 911. Try to keep up.


> I do think websites that promote "no plane" theories and holographs as a catch all excuse to explain things you can't understand qualify as bizarre.

Straw man. The Naudets created the content of the movie excerpts. The Naudets are not no-planers. The Naudets are not hologram theorists.

But since you bring it up again, WHY do you find it "bizarre" for people to think that a real plane would have broken on impact? (which is the opposite of what the 2nd Hit videos actually show)

And how do you possibly explain shadows cast toward the sun and comprised of white light?


> Also,a statement asserting a fact such as Hanlon being an actor as well as a firefighter is not proof of anything greater than that one statement.

That is not to say it's a trivial datum. It's a piece of a puzzle. It is not a directly damning thing like the sneaky cut that was used to insert Tony into the Gorumba funeral crowd, but it's intriguing to look into further. And when I did look into it further, I found Hanlon and "Firefighter Bill Walsh," ANOTHER Naudet 911 name, BOTH with appearances on the TV cop/firefighter show Third Watch, which is set in NYC. And Hanlon made a PREVIOUS movie with the Naudets. And the Naudet 911 movie says NOTHING about this side of him.

Incidentally I wonder what Hanlon and Tony doing were doing at WTC before S11?

As I said, Tony is real good at standing around in a uniform and looking pretty. That's him, second from the left, and Hanlon, first from the right, in an unexplained scene early in the movie. Hanlon's narration claims that they would sometimes get called to WTC five times in a single shift! What for? Just standing around to have their picture taken, like Tony (again second from left) is seen doing in this other clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
?


>Your continued attempts to weave a huge 10 plus year conspiracy that must have included thousands of players is laughable.

Straw man. I specifically said I have only suspcion, no proof, regarding how long the planning was.


> There may yet be a conspiracy revealed but I'm confident that it does not involve the Naudet film in the way you portray and that the FDNY is not poulated with CIA operatives and murderers.

Simply repeating your foregone conclusion is not an answer to any of the points I cited as remaining unrefuted by you.

Your inability to believe that your own govt could even POSSIBLY have not only done S11 but also infiltrated the FDNY for S11 propaganda purposes, is what makes it so ingenious that they did do that very thing. They knew that that particular infiltration would give them cover beyond suspicion. They knew the FDNY would be put on a pedestal after S11, and rightly so FOR ITS LEGITIMATE EMPLOYEES. But this firehouse at 100 Duane Street is or at least was loaded with agents, because the film they're in is full of holes and they participated in it in a highly coordinated way.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Sinister clues of inside info and deep deception lurk in Emmy-winning S11 "documentary" by the Naudet "brothers."

If you bothered to watch the video you despise so much and derive so many clues from, you would know that that particular station responded to the wtc as many as 4 or 5 times per shift.
You have been wrong about so many things in your posts that you have absolutley no credibility and your noble "I am addressing all our citizens" is just so much crap. You are addressing a very small subset by posting here.
I've just realized that it is mostly my fault that this has gone on as long as it has. No one has stepped forward to compliment your information or support your theory. Without my objections to your wrong headed theory then this would have died the quick death it deserved.

piobair writes:

> that particular station responded to the wtc as many as 4 or 5 times per shift.

Yes I already quoted that claim, if you read my last post. Now please explain WHY they might be called there so often. WTC catching on fire five times a day?? Remember that Tony is portrayed has not having a fire until 9/11. When he's shown at WTC in that pre-S11 scene, he's just standing around in a uniform, smiling and getting his picture taken. It's a tough job, but some fake firefighter's gotta do it!


> your noble "I am addressing all our citizens" is just so much crap. You are addressing a very small subset by posting here.

I'll talk to anybody, was my point. (Reread what you misquoted.) This is the forum I have time to do so in. For all I know, you are a S11 victim family member. I would tell them same as I tell you: the Naudet movie was intended to be about S11 all along, ever since they started filming in June 2001. There were three FDNY-associated cameras filming at the instant of the 1st Hit, and two of them were pointed at the WTC while the third was just 3 blocks from WTC.


> you have absolutley no credibility

That's why I directly show the video evidence so people can see what I'm talking about for themselves. For instance the sneaky splicing of Tony into the blurry pan-left to make him look like he was really present in the crowd at the Gorumba funeral on Sept 1:
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral
and the cattleprod or syringe looking thing, with a narrow smooth unsegmented sharply pointed metallic rod, that they wielded at the time and place of "finding" Father Judge's body on Sept 11:
http://tinyurl.com/7kuqx



Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Hi Ray....

Keep up the good work man!

You know I always wondered how that fire crew on Lispenard and Church(with Naudet filming) just "abandon" the "odour of Gas" complaint when the first plane hits and made their way straight to the WTC.

They just left that "Odour Of Gas" to be inhaled by all those spectators on Lispenard/Church street when the second plane hit!

According to this source:

1. It was "an alleged suspected gas leak".
2. "The gas leak has just been dealt with seconds before the plane appears..."

- Make7

In the words of Jules Naudet:
Because that morning when we went to the gas leak, I thought, OK, he jumped in the truck with Tony and James and when the plane had hit he had responded also, but he was in a different car than I was, he was in the fire truck and I was in the battalion car.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/forum/txt/naudet_transcript.txt

I guess ol' Jules forgot to mention that it was a "supected gas leak" on this occasion!

I'll take anything the Naudet brothers say with a pinch of salt...thank you very much.

Although, in retrospect, it does appear that they haven't provided any information upon which they are basing their conclusions. Was it mentioned in the Naudet film? I don't remember that being the case.

Oh, just forget I even mentioned it.

- Make7

The problem isn't whether or not the gas leak call was resolved or not. The problem is that the OP doesn't have even the most elementary grasp of FD operations. He even questioned in one post why the FD would even respond to a gas leak. I can't fathom this level of ignorance about a topic he expounds on so voluminously.He is been wrong about almost every bit of "evidence" he finds suspicious. He directly accuses several individuals of murder but doesn't have the balls to tell anyone about it that could actually do something.

See Post #30, "Shining on," for just a few of my points that piobair leaves unrefuted.

You don't need to know anything about firefighter duties to tell that the Naudet movie was intended to be about S11 all along, ever since they started filming in June 2001. The whole "documentary about a rookie" line is a cover. For instance see how they inserted the "rookie" into a scene where he really wasn't; click
Tony and the Crowd
at
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral

And yes incidentally I do question what training firemen have on plugging gas leaks. An interview of Chief Pfeifer interview says there WAS leaking gas. Is it still leaking? Who fixed it and when?
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/pfiefer.html
"It was a gas leak in the street<.> The meters went off. They called Con Ed." -- Pfeifer.
(They who? Pfeifer was supposedly the man of highest rank on the scene.)

But wait, a different interview has fireman Tom Spinard saying it turned out to be a false alarm?
No I can't cite that yet, but I've heard it.


The alleged odor of alleged gas was a COVER STORY, a CATALYST, a PLOT DEVICE, something that enabled something else to happen (the filming of the 1st Hit) without undergoing any change on its own. It is excellent that people are asking for clarity about the "odor of gas." Because it was just a completely phony excuse for getting the camera in the perfect place to film the 1st Hit.
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Once again Ray, you display your complete ignorance of all things Fire related. The Firefighters aren't there to "plug" the leak. That's the job of Con Edison or whatever utility owns the line. Did you ever think that maybe they called the FD because,oh, I don't know, maybe natural gas is flammable!

Your opinions on "plot devices" and such are just that. Opinions with no basis in fact. You should stick to things you know something about like shape shifting chem trail sprayers.

Not that I've ever once mentioned chemtrails. But remember the shadow cast LEFTward of the orb, TOWARD the sun, onto the side of the truck in Frames 143-154?
http://tinyurl.com/63zle
and the WHITE shadow it casts onto the second bldg. from left in Frames 168-188?
and the same cast onto the left-most bldg. in Frames 197-204?
Remember how you've never addressed this evidence?


Observe the Seven-Second Stall between when they stop waving the wand and when they start reacting to the alleged plane sound:
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
Observe Pfeifer stepping OUT ONTO THE GRATE to wave the gas-sniffing wand, and the fireman LOOKING DOWN INTO THE GRATE--since when is that SOP for a potentially explosive situation?
Observe Pfeifer looking around like an idiot waiting for his cue. Observe that he does not even look at his alleged gas-sniffing instrument to see what its reading is. Observe his left hand drift aimlessly into his pocket. Then he yanks it out when he remembers he's on camera and supposed to be looking professional. Observe the ABSENCE of at least eight guys who talk of being there:
Borrillo, Braithwaite, Casaliggi, Fahey, O'Neill, Van Cleaf, Walsh, Zoda. They are not in any shot from this scene. Meanwhile several firemen who appear NOWHERE ELSE in the movie, and are never named, ARE there at the alleged odor of alleged gas. Observe the lack of anyone trying to "steer" the "plane" with their torso, which Fahey says is one thing he remembers clearly he and everyone else were doing.

Observe 63 coincidences enabling this perfect moment to film from the perfect place in the perfect way:
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm
Would 64 be enough to make you suspicious? 65? 165? 1,000,065?

Observe the interview record of Jules allegedly thinking that Tony AND Hanlon AND Gedeon (Jules' own alleged brother) were there, when the movie's own narration puts them ALL elsewhere.

Now what's your explanation of all these observations, and why is it a simpler or otherwise better explanation than my explanation that the whole scene was a ruse, with no actual call ever having come in about any odor of gas?

You act like just because you have a job that requires bravery and much training then no one else who has that job could be capable of murder. You are not about making sense of the evidence, you are about insulting me and hoping that will get people to stop looking at the evidence. Which makes you part of the cover-up.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

If there was a gas leak then ,by the time the 1st plane hit ,was it:

1)Resolved.

2)Unresolved

If there was not a gas leak....then it makes no difference anyway.

However in the video, Cheiff Pfeiffer makes one final check with his meter for the gas leak just before the roar of the 1st plane is heard.

But in the seconds between the roar of the plane occuring and the final check for the odour of gas with Pfeiffer's meter ...there is nothing from Pfeiffer that indicates either way that there was a gas leak or there was not a gas leak......

He also forgot that NEITHER Tony (Benetatos, the alleged rookie) NOR James (Hanlon, co-director) was at the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas location (Church & Lispenard). Tony was back at the firehouse, getting filmed by Gedeon. Hanlon "was off that day," per his own narration (not that I believe that for a minute).

Even if Jules hadn't made this double-goof, there is still an extremely strong anomaly here. GEDEON says Gedeon SENT his brother Jules to cover the "odor of gas," but, JULES says Jules thought Gedeon was THERE WITH JULES, AT the "odor of gas." They had to narrate things in this contradictory way in order to enable the Separation Anxiety subplot, wherein EACH brother thinks the other has died. Which in turn enables the Hollywoodesque reunion scene. Except why does Jules look like he's giving Gedeon the brush-off, if he's so gol-durn elated to see him?

http://911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_11.asp?intPage=53&PageNum=53
And what happened to Jules' camera?
And isn't that Hanlon (allegedly "off that day") on Jules' left, coming back in with Jules?


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

At least eight firemen who are NOT seen in Jules Naudet's "Odor Of Gas" footage, talk like they were there.
Alphabetically:

Nick Borrillo ('We got a call for a gas leak, er, an ODOR of gas, I think it was')

Jamal Braithwaite ('It was like the whole world stopped, everyone was just looking up')

Joe Casaliggi ('You get on the rig and you ride away and you think, no big deal, an odor of gas')

Eddie Fahey ('I remember how everyone was moving their torsoes as if to steer the plane away from the building') (COMPLETE BS, NO ONE IS SEEN DOING ANY SUCH THING)

John O'Neill ('Right then and there I knew this was going to be the worst day of my life as a firefighter')

Damian Van Cleaf ('When we pulled up, I wasn't prepared for the damage in the Lobby')

Bill Walsh ('On the way to respond to the WTC, I wondered could we handle it? We've never experienced anything like this before')

Pat Zoda ('It was around 8:30 when the call (odor of gas) came in')


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
NAUDET 911: SNUFF FILM

Those pix are new to me.
The author calls it Franklin St., though? I agree with you it's Church & probably Lispenard just like where Jules Naudet was. Intriguing. Here's a comparison image from Naudet:




I think they have to be ambiguous about the alleged odor of alleged gas, because if they say abandoned an active gas leak, that sounds dangerous, but if they say they fixed the leak, that sounds implausible for firemen, and is not shown happening in the movie. Nowhere in the movie do they even state whether there really was a leak or not. They definitely don't want us pressing for details on it, like, is there a log book or some other record that such a call ever actually came in to begin with? Or are gas leaks at metropolitan intersections another state secret, like the names and station assignments of firemen?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

piobair writes:

> As to the singing credit,a reasonable person would see it as tongue in cheek. Monty Python once credited an entire film to various Peruvian Llamas.

So this thing that so many people consider the most hallowed documentary about an intensely tragic turn in history, is to be seen as a lighthearted comedic venture in your opinion?

Jules Big J Naudet and his brother Goofy Gedeon present, FDNY Follies on One Krazy Day! Sing along, everyone! "I'm a fireman and I'm okay, I sleep all night and I work all day ..."


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

piobair dismisses:

> Until you know all of the variables such as distance, angles of incidence,focal length,and the refractory characteristics of a particular dust cloud, you can't rule out the shadows as a natural event and just jump to the holograph excuse.

What kind of variable would explain the shadow cast TOWARD the sun, LEFTward of the flying object, onto the side of the white truck, in Frames 143-154?
http://tinyurl.com/63zle

Then in Frames 168-188 it casts a WHITE shadow onto the second bldg. from left. Then it Frames 197-204 another white shadow dot moves down the FIRST bldg. at left. What kind of variable would explain shadows comprised of white light?

Still more white shadow dots at
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/blackbird


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

piobair resorts to insult when he has no evidence:

> If you don't think flt 175 didn't break up and explode on impact I'm not sure you should be out unattended.

Here's one video showing how the whole thing just vanished into the surface of the tower, without so much as a beverage tray breaking off on impact and falling down the side.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/insane/index.htm

How many videos can you point to which show something breaking off on impact?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

piobair writes:

> If you really think you have proof of these murders then why don't you contact the FF union?

I thought you had already done me that favor yourself. You were thinking they were going to sue more or something like that, right? Anyway it is not government employees' job to restore our legal government. If the FF union wants to listen, I'll talk to them same as anyone, but I don't seek out special audiences.

> If they thought there was any merit to your accusations they would shut the city down.

Not if they're with the perps.

Meanwhile Mr. Backofhead is jabbing Father Judge in two separate videos and there's a closeup of something that looks more like a cattleprod or syringe than any fireman's tool, and a video of a second camera at 8:46 specifically to catch the pedestrian reaction; but you cling to your foregone conclusion of government innocence rather than wrestle with disturbing evidence.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

filmmakers Jules (right) and Gedeon Naudet (left), and NYC firefighter James Hanlon (center).



Is a visit to the Duane Street fire station to see 9/11 co-producer James Hanlon in order for Caccavo? He worked closely on the documentary with Hanlon, who is a longtime friend of the Naudet brothers and also happens to also be an eight-year veteran firefighter at the Engine 7, Ladder 1, station house.

http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/archive/digizine_september02/feature/index.cfm


Here's a little more from the French Embassy:


About the Filmmakers

Jules and Gedeon Naudet, 28 and 31 respectively, moved to New York City from Paris in 1989. The Naudets attended New York University film school, graduating in 1995. Their first feature, Hope, Gloves and Redemption, about young boxers in Spanish Harlem, took grand-jury honors in 2000 at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Both brothers live in New York City.

Ten years ago, the Naudets met actor James Hanlon. In 1994, Hanlon became a New York City firefighter, and was assigned to the Duane Street firehouse, where he has worked ever since. Even after becoming a firefighter, Hanlon, 36, has continued to act. He has appeared in more than 30 plays, as well as films and television shows. Recently, he has guest-starred on "Law and Order" and "NYPD Blue." He is married to a French woman, Sophie Comet, and speaks French.

http://www.frenchculture.org/tv/programs/naudet911.html

Interesting photo of the three co-directors, from left, Gedeon Naudet, James Hanlon, Jules Naudet:


Three 9/11 Ghouls

Revisit Their Crime Scene.
Or to be precise, the scene where they committed the crime of filming, for propaganda purposes, their bosses' opening attack on 9/11. They are posing at CHURCH AND LISPENARD, THE SAME INTERSECTION WHERE JULES TOOK THE FAMOUS FIRST-HIT FOOTAGE. As we look at these three ghouls we are facing south on Church St., same as Jules' camera was facing when filming the first hit. The Twin Towers used to be up ahead in the background, where there is now only empty sky.

Hanlon, in the center, is the Fireman/Narrator/Co-Director/Interviewer who also just happens to be a PROFESSIONAL TV ACTOR since 1995.

Gedeon, on the left, seems to have been the cameraman behind the incriminating "BRAVE-NEW-WORLD" footage, which was ALSO shot at the moment of the first hit. Click First Moment of a Brave New World at
http://911foreknowledge.com.


Ray Ubinger

Ray for examining the Naudet video. Some things about it look strange, indeed.

After watching it again, I heard the same sound of prior explosion like in 911 eyewitness, a few moments before the North Tower starting to collapse. Just very quitly.

And, another strange thing: After Naudets running to the North and hide behind a van, you can see for seconds that the lighter debris turned back to the tower, like in an implosion, when wind turns towards the implosion-center.

I wonder If anyone mentioned it yet. Maybe you can look for this and confirm my view.

We need more people scrutinizing the video evidence.

I haven't gotten 911 Eyewitness yet. On Naudet 911 I'll try to remember to listen for those pre-T1-demolition explosions. I don't do much audio analysis in my research. That said, I do think the alleged crashing of alleged "jumpers" in Naudet 911 more resembles explosions with tinkling glass, than the thud of flesh onto pavement.

As for the implosive turn-back of the debris wind, you're onto something, but the better evidence is the long-range shots of the demolitions. The main dust trails predominantly ROSE off of the large falling debris pieces, all the way back up to the rooftop height, and only then fell, straight down the core axis. Run the demolitions in slow REVERSE, and you'll see the dust trails spewing out of the top like a fountain, then falling while traveling outward too, then rising up and in to form the next "healthy" storey of the "rising" tower.

Whatever technology resulted in that reverse/vacuum effect, the dust that already thickly coated everything in that part of the streets would have been even much more voluminous without the effect.

Note that the second demolition is when Chief Pfeifer disappears from the movie. Yet they depict rookie TONY as being the very last unaccounted-for fireman to finally return to the firehouse. How could they be so forgetful of their own Chief? Then they trot Hanlon out this cockamamie malarkey in a later interview to explain that Pfeifer got 47 shards of glass in his eyes! This thing first aired in March 2002! We're supposed to believe you can get 47 shards of glass in your eyes and show no signs of eye damage during interviews filmed less than six months later.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Because the domain is registered to Rosalee Grable, The Web Fairy.
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=911foreknowledge.com

Seems to be hosted on the same server too...
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ping.ch?ip=http%3A%2F%2Fthewebfairy.com
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ping.ch?ip=http%3A%2F%2F911foreknowledge.com%2F

So I'm just a little confused. Are you working with Rosalee Grable? Are you Rosalee Grable? Are you a hologram? Or do you work with Amy Goodman in the CIA?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/salvorhardin/104

Yes I am working with Rosalee Grable. No I am not Rosalee Grable. No I am not a hologram. No I do not work with Amy Goodman in the CIA.

The short version of how 911foreknowledge.com happened:
Scott Loughrey, the first person to publicly cast suspicion on the Naudet brothers, made 911hoax.com in 2002 or 2003. I found it in 2004 and got inspired that if he was right, there might be a lot more clues to be found in the Naudet movie than the 10 or 20 pages that he put up. So I got the dvd. I found new anomalies in the Naudet movie and wrote it up and referenced it by dvd clock time, and shared my findings with Scott, who shared them with Rosalee Grable, who was impressed and who kindly excerpted the vid clips and published them with my commentary. That's most of 911foreknowledge.com. (I have no web or video skills.) She doesn't mind my calling it my site since I wrote most of the pages, but neither do I try to hide that she created and maintains the domain. She also contributed some pages of her own discoveries from the Naudet movie, like
http://911foreknowledge.com/setup.htm
and
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/tonycalls.htm

The long version includes the stories of Les Raphael and Jim Scott as well.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

I think you're totally wrong in this, but thank you very much for satisfying my snarky curiosity.

For those that think Ray only accuses imposter firefighters of murder...here is his list.

who are themselves imposter documentarians. That's my list all right. The big five are imposter firefighters Hanlon, Pfeifer and Benetatos, plus imposter documentarians Gedeon and Jules Naudet.

Actually I suspect Hanlon and maybe Pfeifer might have gone through legit firefighter training and perhaps even years of legit experience on the job, but were at least groomed, if not outright planted, for eventual participation in this very elaborately scripted mock-you-drama.

By contrast, Benetatos the alleged rookie appears to be a total actor/agent, playing a totally fictional character, appearing nowhere in the footage from the boot camp where they allegedly discovered him, and never shown doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the whole movie, and actually having to be spliced in to some scenes where he was not really present.

Also, Benetatos' whole character is a walking cornball! 'I know it sounds corny but I wanted a job where I could be a hero.' 'I hope I don't let these guys down, I want to do a good job, but it's scary, I don't know how I'll react when flames are actually blazing around me.' 'I got to use the hose, I'm gettin' closer.' 'Still no fire, but I'm gettin' closer, I'm trying to fit in, and I think I'm doing okay, but I think it'll make a big difference once I get my first fire.' 'Still no fire, still no fire, but I'm gettin' closer, I'm gettin' closer.'


One of my discoveries under development (it could use some video enlargement and enhancement, but I think it's pretty clear on my large TV w/dvd zoom capability) is the similarity between a jagged line of blood spots on the face of fake FDNY rookie Tony Benetatos
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

--allegedly while attending the funeral of real FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba--

and ... a jagged line of blood spots on the NY Post's photo of ... Gorumba himself!

(on his left cheek near his nose).

That photo of Gorumba appears in the Naudet movie itself, which is where I can see the similarity to Tony's sore when I click the dvd picture enlargement button.

Did some kind of initiation ritual leave both Gorumba AND Benetatos with strangely angular bloody marks on their faces, I wonder?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral

was also interesting so kicked it too.