Yeah, a while ago, he called Gold a Miscreant or something like that. It was an accurate statement on his part.Originally Posted by danceyogamom
Yeah, a while ago, he called Gold a Miscreant or something like that. It was an accurate statement on his part.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Tired...
I don't think that was Christopher. That's why there's a "Christophera" here now...
Yo Somebigguy.
Thanks for the Sept. 11 accounts from those that were there.
It's important to get eyewitness accounts from the exact time. To discount the fabricated stuff.
How about the guy with his skin burned off? Right after Rodriguez hears the rumbles, a guy shows up with no skin? The plane hits the top floors, and Rodriguez sees a guy right after that noise (supposedly the plane) in the basement coming from 100 floors up with his skin burned off? Very weird. He must've been a fast runner (Or, how about, another explosion did this guy in?)..... of course, eyewitness accounts are always conflicting.... but I've heard a lot of accounts of multiple explosions within the buildings.... and then the building fall to the earth so perfectly. It's very confusing. Especially building 7. A building with minimal fire damage collapses in perfect implosion fashion, just like the owner of the building said it would (Larry Silverstein). So many questions.
People...... a quick message (a plea). Keep asking yourself about these occurrances. Don't become distracted by Survivor or American Idol or NCAA Basketball or Sitcoms.... those are great distractions.... but don't miss this chance to research about the most important event in your lifetime (up to now).
I must admit, I was intentionally *not* thinking about they poor guy with no skin. That has to be one of the most personally disturbing images I can congure ... but you do make a very good point. Why was he in that condition so close to the ground?
a miscreant? I've only heard that term used in reference to children ... and then only in jest.
Really??? He was a troll???
Hey HST, there's still 4 and a half more tapes to go. Unfortunately, I can't tell what time it is. I know when Guiliani is taking it's about 2:40 because there is a clock on the wall behind him. Based on that, I'm guessing the video I'm watching begins about 12:30.
Regarding the guy with his skin falling off, it gets stranger. There's another fellow they interviewed that saw Rodriguez on the way up as he was going down. He said he figured it was Rodriguez because he saw the lady in the wheelchair. Anyway, as he was going down, around the 40th floor, the smoke got really thick and made it difficult to go any further. So if he's going down and the smoke is getting worse, then the smoke must be coming from somewhere below wouldn't you think? Couple that with the guy's skin falling off in the basement and it really sounds like something was going on far below the impact area.
What I'll do is start at the beginning and time it, when I get to the scene with Giuliani talking, I'll be able to figure out the approximate time these statements were made. There's a couple other statements I wanna go back and get so I'll do that, including the guy walking down the stairs and running into Rodriguez.
Another thing, anyone seen the Naudet video? When they first walk into the first tower that got hit, there was a guy on the floor ON FIRE. They didn't film it, they mentioned it, but didn't put the camera on him for obvious reasons.
Also, lots of the windows in the lobby, etc were blown out, they made the statement that the fire from the crash probably travelled down the elevator shaft to the lobby. Maybe that's what happened, however, I also heard the elevators were disjointed meaning they'd go up only 50 floors or so and then you'd get into another elevator to get up the next 50. That may or may not be true, just what I heard.
Definitely
The elevators didn't run straight from top to bottom.
Let's picture this...the plane hits and explodes in the tower. OK, I get that.
An elevator cart survives the destruction, fills with burning kerosene, makes it 78 floors down to the lobby, opens and said kerosene fire erupts from the compartment blasting out lobby windows. Can anyone visually imagine this scenario? To conjure up what it might have looked like is something Hollywood specialises in, not reality.
If I took a flamethrower and fired it at a plate glass window a few feet away, the pane would probably melt before it breaks.
High explosives going off in the sub levels would account for this.
That glass was exposed to an energy so strong, it shattered in place, from standing strong to pieces all over, in an instant.
As for the alleged burning corpse, I have to wonder...can a human being engulfed in flames live long enough to go down 78 floors and still have the life in them to stumble out of the elevator, dropping dead a few feet away?
Would someone on fire have the calm required to get in a closed-space elevator compartment, push the L button and wait it out?
Very convenient that the corpse wasn't shown. I wonder how many cameramen would have resisted the instinctual urge to "get the shot"
I mean, they enter the lobby unaware of the scenes to unfold before their eyes. I'm no camera guy but am I going out on a limb to suggest that the operator was seeing things through the lens? When you're looking through the viewfinder, you're locked in and unable to "look around" beyond the point of focus, right? That's why the handy-cams all have fold-out screens these days. It's much easier to get the shot looking with both eyes at a small screen. The pros still use the "scope" obviously and I believe Naudet was using something a bit better than consumer handy-cam offerings.
I find it very, very peculiar that a professional camera operator walking into a "war zone", film rolling and locked in to his view-finder, DIDN'T get the shot of the burning corpse.
Does the footage roll along un-cut in this alleged burning corpse moment?
If so, I am amazed that Naudet pulled off this editing-room censoring while filming the piece live and un-scripted. What camera jockey alive could match this achievement??
He's squinting through the lense, assumedly missing out on anything around him outside of his camera's focus. Not one inch of the said burning man appears in the footage. How did he go by it so non-chalantly?
Did he open his left eye for a second, see the burning corpse nearby, and judge it to be unsuitable and too graphic, and kept on filming what lied ahead? What camera jockey alive would do this or even be capable of this, I ask again? Not even a brief shot? Nothing? This is the stuff editing rooms were designed for!! This is the stuff that surfaces on the internet years later for all sickos to enjoy.
Isn't this the same guy that was casually filming some firemen going about their business, heard jet engines and turned his camera towards the direction the firemen's attention? The same guy that then "instinctively" framed the WTC towers and caught the alleged F 11 hitting the tower and exploding? This guy is "good" right?(so good that he zoomed in on the tower only when the explosion began to erupt, after the plane was safely inside)
This Naudet thing is psy-ops super-size, IMO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote