'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9|11'

The most common objection people have to our research: "Too many people would have been involved to pull off such a massive hoax." Well, with trillions of taxpayers' dollars at hand, this operation could certainly afford contracting many individuals (under a gag order and on a need-to-know basis). Meet the real - and unreal - persons, companies & entities assigned to carry out this gigantic, media & military-assisted psyop.

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 4th, 2015, 8:24 am

Going back to Frank Gribbon, for a moment, and his statement regarding the Naudets.

He says "quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon (inaudible)" and I have been wondering what that inaudible word was.

Quite some time ago I did some research on the Leslie Raphael essay on the Naudet movie and in appendix 6 there is a copy of the film agreement that was drawn up between Frank Gribbon and Jules Naudet. In that document is the following:

Permission to film a documentary movie ("Documentary") of a probationary firefighter ("Firefighter")


("Documentary") means 'herein known as' and is legal jargon.

Other examples are Goldfish, Inc ("Goldfish") and New York City Fire Department ("FDNY").

It's no great leap to come to the conclusion that Gribbon is referring to the legal agreement between Goldfish and the FDNY with his use of "quote/unquote" and he's saying:

I have seen videotape from the French guys, quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon documentary. Et cetera et cetera.


It begs the question: when Gribbon was talking to Patrick Campbell and Stephen Steponaitis and said "I have seen videotape from the French guys, quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon documentary Et cetera et cetera" didn't they wonder what the hell he was talking about? Apparently not and although he mentions other film taken on West and Vesey and offers to hand over all footage from "my video unit" there is no confirmation that it included the Naudet "documentary".

Looking back over Gribbon's statement the time period he is referring to when he's on videotape is after WTC2 has come down and before WTC1 came down.

I got them, we go back through 4 World Financial Center, through the glass enclosed connection, through 3 World Financial Center. I basically traced my route back to the pedestrian bridge on West Street. We come through those doors. I don't know who I see, but now I know, because I've seen videotape. I have seen videotape from the French guys, quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon (inaudible). Et cetera et cetera. There they are filming, because I have seen this. I come through with the crew. Chief Pfeifer from the First Battalion is standing there because I catch it on the video. The two guys with the EMS, myself and then the two guys with the stretcher.


I've been through the movie again and at no point do I see two guys with a stretcher going through any doors at the point he is referring to. He's using the footage to back up his statement that he was where he said he was, but no such footage appears to exists in the public domain.

Another interesting statement that Gribbon makes is:

I talked to Chief Pfeifer about trying to set up a tracking system for bodies, Fire Department personnel. That was sort of the original thing that we had set up just so when we had confirmed deceased, that they were coming through him. He had an office set up on like the third floor in 3 World Financial Center.


In what way was Pfeifer qualified to have the names of confirmed deceased going through his office? He wasn't head of anything. He was only a Battalion Chief.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 4th, 2015, 2:28 pm

As what we saw on TV on the morning of 9/11 was a fabricated movie then anyone who claims to have seen what was in that movie in real life must also be a fabricator. Why focus on the Task Force Interviews and their tie-in to the Naudet "documentary"? Why not simply accept that accounts that support the "documentary" are fabricated and forget all about them? Because they have been used, and are still being used, to support the official story. None of the witnesses were cross examined at the time they gave their statements nor were they asked any further questions in a Court of Law. Thankfully, despite that, their typed up statements can still be examined.

There are two schools of statement analysis, one promoted by Avinoam Sapir (an Israeli) called SCAN, and Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA) that has been used in the Courts in Germany. The idea behind CBCA is that accounts of real events differ from invented narratives. I use CBCA mixed in with my own experience of listening to born liars and although I'm not an expert (I'm not infallible) I have read enough witness statements over the years to have a basic handle on the sorts of language patterns to look out for that appear over and over in deceptive statements. Hopefully I can point out those patterns in the TFIs and help others learn how to see them as well.

Not all the TFI statements appear to be have been fabricated. I've been through them a number of times and some of the statements didn't need to be fabricated - there are quite a few witnesses in the TFIs who arrived on the scene a long time after the collapses, who didn't see squat, or only saw the second plane on TV. Those witnesses are sandwiched before and after witnesses who claim to have seen a plane or planes and the vast majority of those statements (I haven't found one reliable statement yet) show indications of deception. The TFIs are not in order of arrival at the scene of the witness, but were randomly taken from different people at different work locations spread across 3 months, where people clearly arrived at the scene at different times or saw different things. As I have already pointed out, the vast majority of the Duane Street firemen who appear in the Naudet "documentary" weren't interviewed by the Task Force despite being the first to arrive on the scene. That indicates that the TFIs weren't taken seriously in any sort of investigative manner.

The way they took the statements makes it difficult to build a timeline without tediously going through the whole lot and plugging it all into Excel. I simply don't have the time for that, but I can see the desperately random pattern that was created around certain witnesses in the TFIs, and that is enough for now. The TFIs were, however, consecutively dated and numbered and, as far as I can see, those numbers and dates couldn't be changed once a statement had been taken. I have my reasons for thinking this which I will cover in a different post. For now I will continue with what I consider fabrication to mean:

Fabrication adjective: formed or conceived by the imagination

As CBCA states, witness statements purporting to describe a real life event should not contain any language formed or conceived by the imagination (invented narrative) and it takes a very good story teller to get away with it. It doesn't matter if a real life person or if a committee has created the statement, if it purports to be describing a real life event then the rules of material reality cannot be breached. Incorrect or inappropriate basic language rules being breached (without good reason) also isn't acceptable. People don't like to lie directly unless they are very good at it, so they will misuse language in order to hide the truth.

For example: "I am sorry you were offended" is a lot different to "I am sorry I offended you". The first statement casts off all responsibility while the second statement accepts it.

An example of the rules of material reality being breached can be found in part of the TFI of James Curran, one of the firemen at the gas leak in the Naudet "documentary".

Okay, a guy called the fire house about 8 o’clock and asked me, it’s not an emergency but I have been smelling gas in the area of my house. He lived on 313 Church Street. He asked if we would follow up on it, so I told him to call the non-emergency number for the Fire Department. They will decide if they want us to go check it out or not.


There is no house at 313 Church Street and it can't conceivably be called a house by anyone. 313 Church Street returns results in Google that show it as having always been used in some sort of business capacity, with what appears to be either apartments or other businesses above.

An innocent mistake? Possibly. Curran saying "house", when there is no house on Church Street, might be an indication that he is creating a story. When telling a story or attempting to hide the truth, the mind is often a few seconds behind the tongue and mistakes tend to slip out into conversation. I mark it in the text before continuing with the rest of what he has to say and if the "innocent mistakes" begin to pile up the further I move towards marking the entire account as either "fabrication indicated" or "deception indicated". I use the word "indicated" due to libel laws and accusing someone of outright lying isn't something to be taken lightly in the UK. When used in putting forward a case of "reasonable doubt" though, a statement full of "fabrication indicated" or "deception indicated" can be very useful.

As there is no house on 313 Church Street what might Curran have been thinking about prior to this slip? He starts off describing "a guy" calling the fire house indicating that his mind possibly wasn't recalling the location he was eventually deployed to, but was focused on the original location where the call was received. At this point I don't know why his mind wasn't thinking about 313 Church Street, as it should have been if he was thinking of a location he subsequently went to and which, if true, shouldn't have presented any problems. It is possible that the man on the phone really did say "my house" despite 313 not being a house, but if Curran then arrived there and discovered that it was a shop, that would be an oddity worth mentioning especially bearing in mind (according to him) a short time later a plane flew into a building. Did that erroneous detail of a house not being a house, but a shop or an apartment, become unimportant due to subsequent events? Possible, but not probable.

There is now the possibility that Curran didn't ever go to that location and he was only required to relay the story of the call and of the subsequent "witnessing" of the "first plane strike". Does any other part of his statement support that possibility? Yes. Since when is a gas leak a non-emergency (another breach of material reality), when only a few months before firemen in New York were killed by a gas leak explosion? Now Curran's story is beginning to look suspicious and the rest of his statement then has to be looked at to see if there is any further support for indications of deception or fabrication.

The TFIs are unique in that very few questions are asked by the interviewer/s, allowing the witness to rattle on and on, in their own words, which is a bonus for CBCA as the worst statements are from Court cases or in TV interviews where there is the habit of asking compound questions or of leading the witness or of their words being pre-scripted. When a witness is asked a compound question then the witness can answer one of the questions while ignoring the other. That in itself can be spotted and taken note of, but it's much better if a person can tell their story, in their own words, without interruption and (mainly) that is what happens in the TFIs.

This is a brief introduction to why I am focusing on the TFIs and the Naudet "documentary" tie in to those TFIs. I hope it goes some way forward to explaining what it is I am trying to do.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby pov603 on November 4th, 2015, 3:13 pm

Does anyone know if this 'gas leak' was ever found to be a non-event or did it have to be dealt with?
Also is there a data base of other fires/incidents requiring first-responders that would have/did occur during the day's events and had to be dealt with by an active fire house not involved with the events at the 'wtc' complex?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 692
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 4th, 2015, 7:06 pm

pov603 wrote:Does anyone know if this 'gas leak' was ever found to be a non-event or did it have to be dealt with?


It would be interesting to know either way, but I don't know of any fireman who would treat a gas leak as a non-emergency. Here in the UK any whiff of gas and they are straight round. They don't take half a hour to deal with it. They don't stand about with their hands in their pockets either, as if waiting for something to happen. :rolleyes: How I see it is - was a person called James Curran in the gas leak footage and if he was did that same person give a statement to the Task Force? No presumptions can be made.

pov603 wrote:Also is there a data base of other fires/incidents requiring first-responders that would have/did occur during the day's events and had to be dealt with by an active fire house not involved with the events at the 'wtc' complex?


Didn't every fireman in New York supposedly rush to the towers and to their deaths? I'd be surprised if there were any firemen left to deal with other any incidents. I suppose they must have left some behind but I'm not sure how that database would help, even if one existed? I wonder if other non-WTC calls are in the 911 dispatcher tapes? I've not listened to them.

I know of 2 other gas leaks in the Task Force Interviews. One on 2nd Street and Second avenue covered by Ladder 7 who left at the time of the second strike for the WTC. The other was at Stuyvesant High School later in the day. There is no report about who dealt with that second one.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 6th, 2015, 3:58 pm

In my post on statement analysis and the techniques that can be used to reveal deception and/or fabrication in a witness account I stated that what a witness doesn't say can be as revealing as what they do say. Are there any examples of this in the Task Force Interviews (TFIs)? Yes. There is a cone of silence around a particular subject and that cone of silence has repeatedly drawn my attention.

The 6 gas leak firemen who were witnesses to the "first plane strike" don't mention any "first strike" footage or of having been filmed during that event.

5 of the "first strike" witnesses don't mention being filmed in the lobby of WTC1 either.

1 of the "first strike" witnesses (Chief Joseph Pfeifer) may have seen film of himself inside WTC1 prior to his interview, but does not overtly state so. He doesn't mention that he's on the "first strike" footage and fails to mention that he knows Jules Naudet ("the civilian") despite then appearing a few months later in the Naudet "documentary".

At least 30 people who claim to have been in the lobby of WTC1 on 9/11 fail to mention seeing anyone filming.


I found all the above facts to be very odd.

I then coupled the above to these facts:

502 out of 503 TFI witnesses don't mention any "first strike" footage at all.

1 witness (Peter Hayden) out of 503 states that there is a tape "floating around" of "the plane hitting the building" at the end of his statement (he makes no mention of his having been filmed inside the lobby of WTC1).

edition.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html

The date on the above is 12 September 2001, from CNN's own website, screen grabbed in case it disappears. I will hold CNN to that date as it is the only proof I can find that the Naudet "first strike" footage was aired on CNN the day after 9/11 and a long time before the TFIs commenced. It is tagged New York firefighters witness the first strike.

The above date isn't crucial to the facts I am going to present. It's simply there to show that for CNN the "first strike" footage was in existence on 12 September 2001.

I could simply stop there and explain what is going on in the above but an opposite example is needed to show that not everyone kept their trap shut about some filming happening that day:

9 witnesses mention a tape or filming in or around WTC1 in an attempt to use that film to support their statements (most are covert, some overt).

The 9 witnesses mentioning a film or a tape of their activities is very important because in the real world that is what people do. In the real world, if a witness has seen something and what they have seen is also on film there is no reason for that witness not to mention that film in order to back up their statement unless they have something to hide.

It's filming first, statement after, then use the film to support your statement. It's not that hard.

Why didn't that happen with the 6 gas leak "first strike" firemen in the TFIs?

Were the 6 gas leak firemen silent about the "first strike" footage because it was being kept under wraps, but it was ok to talk about filming inside WTC1? Well, no, because 1 witness does mention the "first strike" tape (and he wasn't even there!) but then fails to mention he was filmed inside WTC1. Peter Hayden. On 23 October, at the end of his statement he says that there is a tape "floating" around showing "the plane hitting the building" (he doesn’t say which building), despite that footage having already been shown by CNN prior to his interview. It is my reasonable expectation that such an important piece of footage would have been mentioned at the beginning of his interview, but there you go.

It could be stated that Peter Hayden didn't know, on 23 October 2001, that the footage he was referring to had already been shown by the MSM, but it does beg the question -why would a tape be "floating around" of something that had already been on TV? He makes no mention of the tape containing footage inside WTC1, he only mentions "fire" and "the plane hitting the building", so he could only be referring to the "first strike" footage. Why not direct the Task Force to CNN or Jules Naudet, or would that have been giving too much away? There is also the fact that he looks directly at the camera in the Naudet "documentary" so he had to be perfectly aware on the date of his interview that a film inside WTC1 existed.

The "first strike" footage exists. The WTC1 footage exists. At the very least, according to the official record and the Naudets, the "first strike" footage came into existence on 11 September 2001 at 8.46am, and at least 10 seconds of that footage was shown on 12 September 2001 on CNN.

Here is what happens in the TFIs between 1 October 2001 and 1 February 2002.

First strike (in bold - those who were there):
23.10 Joseph Pfeifer - silence
23.10 Peter Hayden tape floating around about the plane hitting the building
30.12 James Curran - silence
9.1.2002 Nicholas Borrillo - silence
9.1 Joseph Casaliggi- silence
11.1 William Walsh - silence
11.1 Thomas Spinard - silence

The "first strike" footage doesn't exist in the TFIs at all until 23 October where it suddenly pops into existence in the statement of Peter Hayden on the same day that Joseph Pfeifer (first strike witness) makes no mention of it. It then ceases to exist totally in the TFIs after Peter Hayden's statement until popping back into existence in March 2002 in the Naudet "documentary".

"WTC1" (in bold - those who were there and don't mention any filming)
:
17.10 film taken inside WTC1
23.10 Joseph Pfeifer hints at film taken inside WTC1
23.10 Peter Hayden silence
23.10 film taken inside WTC1
25.10 film taken between the collapses, the Jules and Gideon (sic) "Documentary"
26.10 film taken inside WTC1
21.11 film taken inside WTC1
12.12 film taken inside WTC1
26.12 film taken inside WTC1
30.12 James Curran - silence
9.1.2002 Nicholas Borrillo - silence
9.1 Joseph Casaliggi- silence
11.1 William Walsh - silence
11.1 Thomas Spinard - silence

Filming going on inside WTC1 doesn't exist until 17 October where it then ceases to exist on 23 October in Peter Hayden's statement. It then pops back into existence immediately after his interview before ceasing to exist again, most especially in December 2001 and January 2002 in the statements of 5 of the gas leak firemen.

The fact is the "first strike" footage does not exist at all in the Task Force Interviews, except in the statement of 1 witness. That's 0.2% and that's not good enough for me, when 6 witnesses who were there fail to mention it or that they knew Jules Naudet was filming them that day.

Inside the TFIs there is a huge Denial of Reality going on, a cone of silence surrounding the "first strike" that makes no sense when there was a film, in existence, at the time of their interviews that the witnesses could have easily referred to, but didn't and the only logical conclusion I have reached is that their statements are there to support the first strike footage, rather than the first strike footage being used to support their statements.

And that is the wrong way around.


Why are the 6 firemen supporting the first strike footage with their statements instead of using the first strike footage to support their sighting if they truly believed that a plane had hit WTC1, they had seen it and it was all on film? 9 other people mention a film taken inside WTC1, no problem, so why not mention the first strike footage and use that footage to support their statements when that film already existed at the time of their interviews?

Ah, there's the rub.

The TFIs were allegedly recorded between October 2001 and February 2002 but according to the above they can't have been. If they were recorded after 9/11 then the "first strike" footage existed and there was no valid reason for the 6 gas leak firemen not to mention being filmed that day unless they were hiding something.

If they were hiding something, despite having footage to fall back on at the time of their interviews, then their silence on the issue of the "first strike" would indicate foreknowledge. Foreknowledge of what? An explosion not caused by a plane? Why would anyone make a statement like that if they didn't have to? 9 others certainly don't and are happy to mention the WTC1 film they are in (Stephen King for one).

No, all the indications are that there was no "first strike" footage when the statements were recorded. If there was no "first strike" footage when the TFIs were recorded for them to use then they can't have been recorded after 9/11, but before. There was no footage or Jules Naudet in existence for them to mention and that is the reality that is reflected inside the TFIs.

Why not simply create the footage and then get them to talk about it in their statements? I don't know. They may have been unsure about exactly what they were going to show on the "first strike" footage and they didn't know who they were going to use, so they kept it down to 6 direct witnesses at the gas leak via the Duane Street spooks, 8 others of varying quality, and 1 reference to a tape. All the statements about the plane itself are generic and could be describing any plane; what mattered was that there were witnesses to a plane and the 6 were the direct ones they used. After all, what do we see on the Naudet footage? - a few men looking up into the sky. We don't see anything until right before some blobby thing, that might or might not be a plane, hits WTC1.

So, why didn't they simply make sure that the oral statements contained references to the Naudets, the "first strike" and the filming inside WTC1? They did - vaguely - and that was good enough seeing as all these statements were going to be buried among hundreds of others anyway. The vaguer, the better; in the same manner as fuzzy blobby planes on TV. The statements are only there to support the official story anyway. And, after all, it was all so confusing that day wasn't it?

How to explain 9 witnesses who have no problem mentioning filming inside WTC1 but not the first strike? Or those who were in the lobby of WTC1 but don't mention it? Order of filming. Some recorded their statements before filming the WTC1 scenes and some were recorded after that filming was completed. The statements were set up to support the official story, not the other way around and they were the script.

Script first (oral statements recorded) pre-9/11
Filming inside WTC1
Filming at Duane Street
"First strike" footage
Broadcast 12 September 2001 last

The order of filming and recording of the statements isn't all that important. They probably mixed and matched; a bit of recording in WTC1, followed by recording of oral statements; a bit of recording at Duane St, then back to WTC1 etc. Of course, this doesn't mean that all the TFIs were recorded pre-9/11; only those that contain statements that support the official story of planes and silly building collapses. That's why the TFIs are a mess, where people are interviewed at the same location within an hour of each other where one mentions a "first strike" tape and the other person doesn't, despite allegedly having a very close working relationship (Pfeifer and Hayden). They then dumped the dated and labeled pre-recorded tapes in among other TFI interviews of genuine first responders, who saw no plane or saw no collapses other than the ones on TV.

Of course, the TFIs themselves could be COINTELPRO, to get researchers to blame the Naudets and the FDNY because that is who the foreknowledge points at, but that doesn't entirely work because the documents themselves are hosted by the New York Times and the 6 gas leak firemen statements are supporting the MSM version of events.

Peter Hayden's statement at first appeared to have been added to after 9/11, with his comment about a tape of the "first strike" footage being at the end, but as Hayden doesn't mention being filmed in the lobby of WTC1 in his TFI (but is ok admitting it to the 9/11 Commission) then I can only come to the conclusion that Hayden's oral statement must have been recorded before any filming took place in the lobby of WTC1 otherwise he would have mentioned that filming. They may have appended his comment about the tape to the end of his statement, but it doesn't really matter anyway because it was only there to support the first strike footage, which was clearly filmed sometime after his statement was finished and was vague enough to be used for either building.

9 different witnesses mention a tape or filming in or around WTC1 in an attempt to use that film to support their statements but they are covert about it instead of open and honest. Their statements are simply there to support the Naudet "documentary", filming inside WTC1 and the official story of the collapses. When some witnesses use the same film that "first strike" witnesses are in, to back up their statements, while those 6 firemen do not, one truly enters the Theatre of the Absurd.

My conclusion that the statements were recorded prior to 9/11 is based on the reality of the Naudet firemen gas leak "first strike" footage in which a "first strike" exists in the real world and the Task Force interviews of those 6 firemen where that "first strike" doesn't exist.

All the above is right there in the TFIs, and the TFIs coupled with the Naudet "first strike" footage proves foreknowledge.

Please let me know your thoughts about what I have presented.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby simonshack on November 6th, 2015, 8:08 pm

Apache wrote:The 6 gas leak firemen who were witnesses to the "first plane strike" don't mention any "first strike" footage or of having been filmed during that event.


Dear Apache,

First off, let me warmly compliment you for your patient and methodical work - and the logical thought processes you eloquently present in reaching your conclusions. As it is, your conclusions are entirely consistent with our collective efforts over the years here at Cluesforum to expose the "Naudet's movie" as a prefabricated fraud and, consequently - of course - the FDNY as a participant in that fraud.

Let me just remind our new readers of a few conclusions we reached, many years ago, following our analyses of that all-important video clip depicting Joseph Pfeifer and his crew 'checking that gas leak' - and allegedly 'witnessing Flight 11 smashing into WTC1 ".

As they say, if "a picture is worth a thousand words" - then a (fake) video must be worth a million words :
Image

As I see it (i.e. "in my world" - and if I were a public prosecutor, which I'm not of course) the above animated gif would suffice to call out their video for the digital construct that it was. However, that short "gas leak clip" credited to the Naudet bros contained many more aberrations / absurdities - and I have done my very best to point them all out. Here's my brief and succinct "THE PLANE FACTS" analysis:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo

And here are two animated gifs extracted directly from the "Naudet bros" movie "911" (a HD-quality DVD copy of which is in my possession). Needless to say, these "dancing buildings phenomena" are NOTHING that could ever occur in a real / authentic video - nor can it be ascribed to ANY known 'artifact' due to format conversion or any other 'pixel translation' :
Image

Image

Let me now put my imagery analyses aside - and try and 'join your research methods' - by submitting what are, in my mind, some obvious and overdue questions regarding the individuals involved in this FDNY-abetted scam / simulation :

- WHAT ARE THE ODDS for these two French videographer-brothers' surname (the Naudets) to be an anagram of "Duane St." - the very street address of the FDNY firehouse they were 'embedded' with? WHO ARE the Naudet bros - WHO do they work for - and where are they now?

But more significantly:

- WHAT ARE THE ODDS for Joseph W. Pfeifer (the very FDNY-chief who 'by chance, just happened to witness the Flight 11 crash from that gas-leak location on September 11, 2001') to successively be chosen and promoted to a career as "International Counterterrorism Expert" - writing books about it - and getting interviewed on TV whenever a "terror attack" occurs around the world ?

Example: Joseph Pfeifer being interviewed (as 'terror expert') on MSNBC - following the "Charlie-Hebdo terror attack":
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... 2639683626 (Pfeifer appears at 5:20)

Image


Moreover, check out this PDF document, chock-full of expert advise from "counterterrorism expert Joseph W. Pfeifer" :

“Agencies implicitly think of themselves as being the most important, and, as a group, their natural tendency is to resist deferring to another organization,” FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph W. Pfeifer said in article presented in Psychology of Terrorism [NO LESS!!] , “this is especially true for police and fire departments whose organizational development reinforces a sense of belonging to an important group” (2007, p. 212). Pfeifer added that “during large, complex incidents, agencies must change this perception by viewing themselves as part of a unified command”.
(...)

Pfeifer, J. (2007). "Understanding how organizational bias influenced first responders at
the World Trade Center"
. In B. Bongar, L. E. Beutler, P. Zimbardo, L. M. Brown,
(Eds.), "Psychology of Terrorism" (pp. 207–215). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.


file:///C:/Users/ssii/Downloads/11Mar_Newman.pdf


WHO IS this Joseph Pfeifer? And WHO does he work for? I think these questions need to be answered.

In any case, to those who think that the FDNY is just a bunch of heroic fellows putting out fires - think again. The FDNY has been a para-military division ever since its inception. Research it for yourselves - if you don't believe me.


The HARVARD / KENNEDY-school graduate Joseph Pfeifer (who just happened to witness "FLIGHT 11"):

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO5tLmXeD-c


Lastly - both 'Joseph' and 'Pfeifer' are quite jewish names - 'Pfeifer' meaning "player of the pipe". Learn about it here:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 7th, 2015, 11:35 am

simonshack wrote:to expose the "Naudet's movie" as a prefabricated fraud and, consequently - of course - the FDNY as a participant in that fraud.


After listening to Hoi and Kham's radio show on the Vicsims report the other night, Hoi reminded me of the "veil of tears" surrounding the questioning of the amount of victims alleged to have died that day. I thought - that's what they've done with the FDNY. They've created a similar wall that no-one wants to breach, but it's not a veil of tears, it's a "veil of suffering of the brave". No-one wants to question the statements of the firefighters. They risked their lives for you! How dare you point out that they were involved in the scam :o

simonshack wrote:- WHAT ARE THE ODDS for these two French videographer-brothers' surname (the Naudets) to be an anagram of "Duane St."


Good to point it out again.

simonshack wrote:has been a para-military division ever since its inception. Research it for yourselves - if you don't believe me.


Indeed and that para-military language is all over the Task Force Interviews. "Proceeded".

Pfeifer's book also appears to have been edited by Philip Zimbardo, creator of the Stamford Prison Experiment.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 8th, 2015, 10:54 am

I have shown that there is strong evidence that the Task Force Interviews were created in order to support the "first strike" footage, fake filming inside WTC1 and the official story of planes on 9/11. This can be added to September Clues, the other research on this forum about fake images on 9/11, and the Vicsim report.

I did wonder why all the TFIs weren't officially released until the end August 2005. Why not release them as soon as they were created, seeing as the vast majority of them were created to keep the official story going? Turns out, a lot of them were.

nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/city-to-release-thousands-oforal-histories-of-911-today.html

The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records.


law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0034.htm
The New York Times and Dwyer brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure. Later, family members of eight men who died at the World Trade Center were permitted to intervene in support of the Times's and Dwyer's position. No family member of anyone else killed in the September 11 attacks has appeared on either side.


Despite the above court case, one fifth of the TFIs were released by the New York Times, contrary to law, via unofficial channels over a period of 3½ years.

Over the last three and half years, The Times has obtained some of these records through unofficial channels, and they can be found on the Web at nytimes.com/sept11. These include the dispatch tapes, nearly 100 of the Fire Department oral histories, and a log of calls to Emergency Medical Service dispatchers that were channeled through the 911 system.


But in the ongoing FOIL court case the Justice Department are shown to have kept 6 of the TFIs back for the Moussaoui trial.

The Fire Department asks us to affirm the Appellate Division's order with two exceptions: It asks us to "reinstate" Supreme Court's ruling by authorizing the redaction from the oral histories of "passages recounting moments of high emotions and revealing personal details," and it asks that disclosure be denied as to six records said by the United States Department of Justice to be possible exhibits in the impending federal criminal trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who is alleged to have had a role in the September 11 attacks.


Naughty, naughty. The US Justice Department using fabricated evidence in a criminal trial? How perfectly normal of them.

6 of the 503 testimonies are from the gas leak firemen in the Naudet "first strike" footage. Coincidence?

The testimonies weren't ultimately submitted in evidence to the Jury by the Justice Department in the Moussaoui trial anyway. Go figure.

vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Compilation of videotape of the World Trade Center taken on September 11, 2001 [This video includes 14 clips and runs 20 minutes, 46 seconds. Viewer discretion is advised. Clip one is copyrighted by Goldfish Pictures.]


I can find no record at the above link that the prosecution submitted any testimonies from the TFIs.

All the TFIs were finally released at the end of 2005 before the Moussaoui trial commenced.

As to the six unidentified tapes and/or transcripts which the United States Department of Justice has said it intends to use in evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the issue is whether they were "compiled for law enforcement purposes" and whether their disclosure would either "interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings" or would "deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication." We agree with the courts below that, on this record, there is no showing that disclosure would interfere with the Moussaoui trial or cause any unfairness.


At a time when questions were being asked about fake planes.

Here is the dissenting comment about full release of the TFIs, from Judge Rosenblatt.

My final thought relates to the performance of the firefighters, police officers and others who spearheaded the rescue efforts. It may well be that the 911 transcripts reveal imperfections or mistakes amid the chaos. This, however, is no reason to withhold the transcripts. On the contrary, they will give the public the clearest picture of how the first responders reacted, and that picture should be as comprehensive as possible. The revelation of any deficiencies on the part of the departments or their personnel is essential to improving and enhancing lifesaving procedures. Of course, no one can rightly expect perfection and exquisite orderliness in the face of an attack as horrific as this one. Exposing mistakes may prove discomforting, but this will pale in the face of the unforgettable heroics that we will always associate with September 11th. For every person critical of an error or omission, ten thousand voices will rise up in praise of the firefighters, police officers and others who risked life and limb in the line of duty.


10,000 voices can rise up in praise of the firefighters, but that doesn't change the facts. The error or omission of 6 of those "brave and heroic" firefighters, who were blind on 9/11 and failed to see a cameraman filming them during the "first strike", can't be covered up via a veil of the suffering of the brave.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby Apache on November 12th, 2015, 10:18 am

As a last post in this thread and to round off the information that I have already submitted, I will now turn to the statements of the 6 gas leak firemen. I will only be quoting those sections surrounding the "first strike".

Here is a list of basic indications of fabrication and/or deception in a witness account:

Switching of tense from past to present for no valid reason. (story telling)
Substitution of one noun for another with no explanation for that switch. (jet to plane, photographer to cameraman)
Inappropriate use of second person "you" instead of "I".
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I".
Avoidance of the use of "I" (inappropriate dropped pronoun).
Overuse of "I" following an "and". (effort to convince)
Incorrect or inappropriate demonstrative pronouns (this instead of that or vice versa).
Missing or incorrect article introduction (the car instead of a car).
Inappropriately attaching a gender to an object.
Inappropriate use of "then" to cover up a gap in time in the account.
Inappropriate use of "just" or "only". (minimisation).
Convoluted use of very long sentences (multiple 'and'). (as a technique of information overload)

As I have already mentioned James Curran in a previous post, I will turn to his statement first, moving past the paragraph I have already covered.

James Curran - interview date 30 December 2001. Ladder company 8.
Us, Engine 7 and ladder 1 we all responded with the First Battalion. We were there for 5, 15, 16 minutes. We had found out what grate the leak was coming from and our Chief Pfiefer (sic) was bent over with the gas meter. We heard the plane. We looked up. It was low enough that it was rattling the buildings we were standing at. We saw it come out from behind the buildings and hit tower one and like I said a fireball, looked like 10 or 30 stories big, shot out of the south side of the tower and then out of the hole that the plane made going in.


At least 3 units (or more) were called out to a “non emergency” gas leak.
Changes 5 minutes to 15, 16 minutes for no valid reason.
A Battalion Chief is at a gas leak, contrary to expectation.
Incorrect article introduction - "the gas meter" should be "a gas meter".
Incorrect article introduction - "the plane" instead of "a plane". (acting as if a plane is an established fact. It's incorrect English even if a plane is an established fact)
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I".
The use of the word “at” indicates that they were all standing on the pavement otherwise he'd say "around us" indicating that they were standing in the road.
Do planes “rattle buildings”?
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I" again.
"like I said" - The interview has only just started and he has not mentioned a fireball prior to this. Indicates that he's told this story before or spent time rehearsing.
Was it 10 or was it 30 stories? (generic).
Convoluted use of very long sentence (multiple 'and').
Last sentence - overall, is that what happens in the footage? Again, generic.
Instead of describing all this why didn't he say "Everything I saw is on film"?

Deception indicated.

James Curran is not seen anywhere else in the Naudet film. It is not possible to identify which firemen he was in the "first strike" footage as I can find no other information about him on Google.

Please note that the above statement is out of sequence with the rest of the statements of the 6 gas leak firemen. The rest of the statements will be in interview order. I point this out because there was time, between the first and last interviews, for these people to confer and get their stories straight, which they clearly didn't, indicating pre-written scripts for people that most likely do not exist in real life or were following the script for their taped interviews.

Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion Chief, Duane Street - interview date 23.10.2001.

I was working the night before in the 1st Battalion, and sometime about 8:15 or so in the morning we got a call to Lispenard and Church for a gas leak in the street. We were there for a while checking on the gas leak, and then we heard the loud roar of the plane come over, and we turned around and we looked and we saw the plane coming down, heading south towards the Trade Center, and made a direct hit on the Trade Center.
Q: You saw it hit?
A: I saw it hit.


Why does he need to tell the listener that he'd been working the night before in the 1st Battalion? Did he usually work elsewhere? Overall, so what? Did the listener need to know that?
Deliberately vague timings.
Why does he need to say "we were there for a while"?
"and then" - indicates a gap in time. Why "and then", why not simply "then"?
Incorrect article introduction - "the plane" should be "a plane".
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I".
"and made a direct hit on the Trade Centre" - missing article - it.
"I saw it hit" - why didn't he say "and what I saw is on film"? Avoids the use of "the plane".
Note he doesn't say which tower it hit. He says "the Trade Center". Generic.
Note he avoids mentioning or describing an explosion, unlike James Curran (whose statement isn't until December 2001). Generic.
Convoluted use of very long sentences (multiple 'and').

Deception indicated.

Nicholas Borrillo - interview date 9 January 2002. Ladder 1, Duane Street.
We were at a box for odor of gas in the street on Church and Lispenard. We were investigating that. We were just about ready to take up from that box and come back when we heard the roar of the engines of the plane. Before we knew it, it was overhead. Within two seconds it hit the north tower.


Why would they be at a gas leak other than to investigate it?
At no point is "I" used in relation to the plane.
Incorrect article introduction - "the plane" instead of "a plane".
Borrillo does not directly state that he saw a plane. It was “heard”, it was “overhead” then "it hit the north tower”.
Why not mention that what he saw was filmed?

Deception indicated.

Joseph Casaliggi - interview date 9 January 2002. Engine 7. Duane Street.

On the morning of September 11th we were operating a box up on Church Street Near Canal. There was an odor of gas in the area. While we were out operating, we heard the first plane coming in. I turned around and I watched the plane crash into the north tower.


Initially appears to be an honest account except it's too short, plus
“watched” instead of "saw" along with -
Inappropriate secondary use of "I" after "turned around and" - should be "I turned around and watched". (Effort to convince.)
Why not mention that what he saw was on film?

Fabrication indicated.

Joseph Casaliggi (incorrectly spelled as Casalissi in the TFIs) also says he saw the second plane strike WTC2. That sighting is backed up by another "first strike" witness, Thomas Spinard.

14 people out of 503 claim to have seen the first plane (3%). 9 of them are connected to Duane Street.
2 people out of 503 claim to have seen both strikes (0.39%) and both are connected to Duane Street.

William Walsh - interview date 11 January 2002. Ladder 1. Duane Street.

We received a run about 8:30 in the morning for a gas leak up at Lispenard Street and Church. We were operating at that box along with Engine 7, Battalion 1 and Ladder Company 8. I believe 55 Engine was there also, maybe Engine 24. I'm not [sure]. After about 15 minutes, we conclude our operations there. Lispenard is about one block south of Canal Street. I believe the chief gave the code for a gas leak, 1040, code 1. All the units were about to go 108 when we heard this loud roar. Everybody thought or at least to me it sounded as though there was going to be a Con Edison steam explosion. This was about a quarter to 9, I'd say. So everybody looked up to where they thought they heard the sound coming from, and we saw an American Airlines plane. To me it looked as though it was going treetop level right down West Street. Then he appeared to rise a little bit. We were under the impression he looked like he was going down, but we didn't hear any mechanical difficulty. We couldn't figure out why an American Airlines plane would be so low in downtown Manhattan. We sort of expected him to veer off and go into the Hudson. But he just rose a little bit, his altitude, leveled off, and he was headed straight for the Trade Center. So just before he got to the Trade Center, it seemed as though he gained power. We were just watching this airplane on target for the World Trade Center. All of a sudden, boom, he disappears into the Trade Center. You hear this sickening noise as if two pieces of fiberglass had hit. You hear this loud explosion. He just disappeared into the Trade Center. You could see a huge fireball come out of where he had hit. I guess it was about 10 stories high of brown smoke coming out and thousands of pieces of paper being blown through the other side of the World Trade Center.


Starts off in the past tense. (received)
Switches to the present tense. (conclude)
Switches back to the past tense. (heard)
All the above is an indication of story telling.
At no point is "I" used in relation to the plane.
"we couldn't figure out" - speaks for others.
Identifies an AA plane despite only seeing it for a few seconds.
"this loud roar" instead of "a loud roar".
Objects do not have a gender. (I know he's referring to the pilot but it's inappropriate language considering what is alleged to have happened.)
Inappropriate use of "just" in "just watching" = minimisation.
Inappropriate use of "this" in "this airplane" (indicates closeness to the subject instead of distance from it)
"on target" - how could he tell where it was headed?
Switches back to the present tense. (disappears)
Planes do not disappear.
Switches back to past tense. (disappeared)
Inappropriate use of "just" in "just disappeared" = minimisation
Switches to "you".
How could he see that it was paper from where he was standing?
Why not mention that what he saw was on film?

Fabrication and deception indicated.

Thomas Spinard - Interview date 11 January 2002. Engine 7. Duane Street.

I relieved the chauffeur probably about 8:20 or so. We got a box on Church and Leonard (sic) of an odor of gas. So Engine 7 and Ladder 1, Battalion 1, responds. It turned out to be a false alarm. As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one. With that, everybody got on the rig. We started driving.


Deliberately vague timings.
At no point is a personal pronoun used in relation to the plane.
Starts off in the past tense. (relieved)
Switches to present tense. (responds)
Switches back to past tense. (turned out)
Switches back to present tense. (passes)
Switches to "you".
Switches back to past tense. (turned, impacted)
Use of "just" - minimisation.
"started driving" - incomplete action.
Why not mention that what he saw was on film?

Fabrication and deception indicated.


Spinard also supports Casaliggi's claim that he saw the second plane strike.


Overall, the timings for the call out to the gas leak are:

Pfeifer - 8.15 or so.
Borrillo - no time.
Casaliggi - no time.
Curran - call came at 8. Run at 8.30.
Walsh - 8.30.
Spinard - 8.20 or so.

As Pfeifer, Borrillo, Casaliggi, Walsh and Spinard are all from the same firehouse and their call out is on the Naudet "documentary" there should be an exact time in all of their statements.

All their statements show deception and/or fabrication.
All their statements are without the personal pronoun "I" in relation to the sighting of a plane (using "it" doesn't count).
Various witnesses change tenses, an indication of story telling.
No-one mentions being filmed or being with Jules Naudet that day.

The number one rule is "follow the pronouns". This rule (which comes directly from law enforcement) might help us all spot deception a lot more easily in our efforts to prove media fakery. The other markers for deception and/or fabrication take practice, along with a good grounding in the rules of English language, but anyone can use them. B)
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: 'Super "Not It" Bros.' : early video critique of film '9

Postby simonshack on November 12th, 2015, 12:49 pm

Dear Apache,

Again, thanks for your great work. Here's my favorite 'firefighter eyewitness testimony'...This one truly takes the cake for absurdity :

William Walsh - interview date 11 January 2002. Ladder 1. Duane Street. (claims to have been at the 'gas leak' location):
" So everybody looked up to where they thought they heard the sound coming from, and we saw an American Airlines plane. To me it looked as though it was going treetop level right down West Street. Then he appeared to rise a little bit. We were under the impression he looked like he was going down, but we didn't hear any mechanical difficulty. We couldn't figure out why an American Airlines plane would be so low in downtown Manhattan. We sort of expected him to veer off and go into the Hudson. But he just rose a little bit, his altitude, leveled off, and he was headed straight for the Trade Center. So just before he got to the Trade Center, it seemed as though he gained power. We were just watching this airplane on target for the World Trade Center. All of a sudden, boom, he disappears into the Trade Center. You hear this sickening noise as if two pieces of fiberglass had hit. You hear this loud explosion. He just disappeared into the Trade Center."



Yeah, and all of the above (from 'airplane appearance' > to 'airplane crash")... lasted for about 9 seconds ... with the first man looking upwards halfway through these 9 seconds, with the 'plane' being mostly obscured by a large building - and with captain Pfeifer initially looking in the opposed direction of the 'airplane sound'! :lol:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJu-JofS5A

SHAME ON YOU, FDNY ! TRAITORS OF THE USA !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Previous

Return to THE 9/11 HOAX infrastructure - and its operatives: too many people involved?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests