Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[Ray Ubinger]

even if you can prove that that footage is of reactions to the first hit, you still have no evidence of a government cover-up, or of the Naudets' involvement in it.

Whoever was ALREADY FILMING pedestrians who were ABOUT TO show reaction to the 1st Hit, filmed with FOREKNOWLEDGE of the 1st Hit, and, whoever he was, his Naudet-exclusive footage makes him someone on the Naudet-FDNY team. Gedeon Naudet is the obvious best guess, since known Gedeon Naudet footage from that same location appears several other times in the movie.


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

Just do this when you want to quote. Type {quote} in front of the text, and {/quote}at the end of the text, except replace the {}'s with []'s.

ETA: you can quote a specific individual by starting the quoted text with {quote=Ray Ubinger}, for example or {quote=orphia nay}.

Thank you, I hope it shows that I have been applying your instruction pretty well! Now would someone please tell me how to post a photo from a known url, rather than posting simply the url?


Ray Ubinger
edited to fix bad following of instruction which resulted in a blank quote box, d'oh!

[Mr. Skinny]

Thank you, I hope it shows that I have been applying your instruction pretty well! Now would someone please tell me how to post a photo from a known url, rather than posting simply the url?


Ray Ubinger
edited to fix bad following of instruction which resulted in a blank quote box, d'oh!
You're welcome, Ray. I'm sure the folks in this discussion really appreciate it! Makes the discussion so much easier to follow.

[Ray Ubinger]

YOU are the only one here who thinks that those people are suddenly reacting to anything

FOUR of them SIMULTANEOUSLY (within about one second of one another) and in MID-STRIDE go from walking normally to looking up and/or around.

and you simply ignore all the people in the video who aren't reacting at all.

I submit that they are just about to. The clip cuts short after only about one second of real time. (stretched by the Naudets to about four seconds in slow motion) I calculate this from counting the number of non-duplicate frames in the four-second clip and finding it is about the same (34) as the number of frames (about 30) in several randomly selected single-second snippets from non-slow-motion scenes.

There is NOTHING in that video that indicates anything but a few people turning to look at a disaster that has already happened.

Once it already happened, that block was much more crowded, with almost everyone standing still and looking up. To establish that, watch this undisputed post-1st-Hit snippet from that same (bravenewworld, Church-just-south-of-Murray) location:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
The sparse scene of initially-normally-walking people in the bravenewworld clip is of a quantitatively and qualitatively different crowd, in a different, pre-attack time.

For even more footage of how standing-still and shellshocked the POST-1st-Hit pedestrians looked (farther north on Church St., I think), replace the 4 in that url with 1, 2 and 3.


Ray Ubinger
edited to delete one ungrammatical/redundant word

[gumboot]

If you believe the official explanation of Father Judge's death, see if you can substantiate it by finding the source of the claim that he gave someone Last Rites that morning.


The official story is Father Judge died of a heart attack in the lobby of the North Tower during the collapse of the South Tower. Why do we need to prove he gave last rites that morning to substantiate his death?





Basically the Naudet-FDNY team arranged in advance to make a snuff film out of S11 and then they sold it back to us as a respectable documentary. This is my central thesis.



I believe this has been addressed before. Let me recap. You, sir, are a despicable creep.




It's too small for that. The gas detector is as wide as Chief Pfeifer's palm, like a handheld radio.

*sigh*

Ray. We have been through this. Okay? The "syringe" is a ballpoint pen. The "gun" is a hand-held radio. Got it?




Wherever Tony really was, the truck was driving the opposite direction from the trucks in the funeral procession. They mirror-imaged the truck-passing-Tony snippet to make it look like it was at the funeral.


For the last time Ray... words of one syllable...

The.
Shot.
With.
The.
Truck.
In.
It.
Is.
Not.
Flipped.




1. He never appears in the footage from the fireman's boot camp where they allegedly discovered him.



The "bootcamp" footage has a single shot in which faces of recruits are visible - it depicts a group marching past in their gear. We glimpse perhaps a dozen faces, out of a class of 99. No reason to expect we would see Tony's face in this shot.

The only time we get clear shots of recruit faces is in the interviews. Tony is included. (Incidentally they claim it was in the interviews that they discovered him, so not showing him prior to that makes story-sense).




2. He is never shown doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the entire movie. (Standing around in a uniform doesn't count.)


Have you forgotten the entire thing at the beginning - that probie's either bring a lot of fires with them, or there are no fires? That the Naudet's had been waiting weeks and weeks for Tony to get to attend a fire? But it never came? That when you go too long without a fire a big one comes along? Did you miss all this?




3. An elaborate plot device is constructed to get him off camera for most of the big day.


An elaborate plot known as the "roster". Tony wasn't on duty that morning. When he came in both engines were gone, along with the entire compliment. He remained behind to man the phones because he was the only one there. Makes sense to ME.



Think of him as FONY FDNY TONY.

I could respond in kind, but I will refrain.

-Andrew

[Ray Ubinger]

The official story is Father Judge died of a heart attack in the lobby of the North Tower during the collapse of the South Tower.
You found nothing about his being hit by falling stuff, while or after giving someone Last Rites, in the official explanation? Is the heart-attack determination from an autopsy report? The closest I know of is witnesses saying he had no pulse. (No revival attempt is reported, nor seen in the vid.)


The "syringe" is a ballpoint pen.
It's too fat for a ballpoint, though I've wondered whether it's maybe a magic marker. Still, I discern a plunger-shaped top, and a needle-shaped bottom.
Screenshot:
http://911foreknowledge.com/syringe.jpg
Quicktime:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/911/dust/syringe.closeup.mov


The "gun" is a hand-held radio.
I abandon my original opinion that anything in the scene can be ID'd as a gun. But what is the "cattleprod," with its unsegmented, pointy rod sticking out?
http://tinyurl.com/7kuqx


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

Wherever Tony really was, the truck was driving the opposite direction from the trucks in the funeral procession. They mirror-imaged the truck-passing-Tony snippet to make it look like it was at the funeral.

The.
Shot.
With.
The.
Truck.
In.
It.
Is.
Not.
Flipped.
How.
Did.
His.
Sore.
Change.
Cheeks?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm


Ray Ubinger

[60hzxtl]

There is only one explanation left - Ray was in on it!

This is a cry for help. Ray knew about it! Ray must have been part of the conspiracy, and this is his confession -

Turn yourself in Ray, it's your only hope.

[gumboot]

You found nothing about his being hit by falling stuff, while or after giving someone Last Rites, in the official explanation? Is the heart-attack determination from an autopsy report? The closest I know of is witnesses saying he had no pulse. (No revival attempt is reported, nor seen in the vid.)


Yes heart attack is the official explanation. I am also aware of the myth that he was hit by debris while giving last rites. It is an urban myth, giving a "saintly" end to a man much admired by many people.

He was hit debris while giving last rites, YES. As a result he went inside the lobby where it was safe (other firemen were killed by falling people). That is where we see him in the documentary, shaken and frightened - he has seen firemen killed by people committing suicide due to the horrific conditions above, before being hit himself - find me someone that WOULDN'T be shaken after that!

He then later died during the South Tower collapse, of a heart attack. People heard he was giving last rites when hit by debris, and they heard he was dead. They put two and two together, producing an incorrect conclusion.




It's too fat for a ballpoint, though I've wondered whether it's maybe a magic marker. Still, I discern a plunger-shaped top, and a needle-shaped bottom.


The camera lens is covered in a fine layer of dust, the air is dusty, and the cameraman is using a directional bright light. As a result the light going into the lens is diffused. This gives it a blurry "halo" appearance. Things appear much thicker than they really are because they "blow out" at their edges. Things close to the camera, in the camera light, blow out more than things further away, thus things in the foreground look more distorted.

It is a pen. Ray. A pen. Not a syringe. Not a knife. Not an alien weapon. It is a pen.




I abandon my original opinion that anything in the scene can be ID'd as a gun. But what is the "cattleprod," with its unsegmented, pointy rod sticking out?

*sigh*

That's the radio, Ray. It's the aerial of a hand-held radio. You can see the body of the radio in the guy's hand.

Please stop with this nonsense.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

How.
Did.
His.
Sore.
Change.
Cheeks?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm


We only see his sore in those two shots. Has it ever occured to you that the OTHER shot is the one that is flipped?

Must I do all your thinking for you?

-Andrew

[Gravy]

I was surprised to see the despicable Ray Ubinger back for more. I have him on ignore, but I can see some of his quotes in others' posts.

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger :
It's too fat for a ballpoint, though I've wondered whether it's maybe a magic marker. Still, I discern a plunger-shaped top, and a needle-shaped bottom.

I abandon my original opinion that anything in the scene can be ID'd as a gun. But what is the "cattleprod," with its unsegmented, pointy rod sticking out?

And I pronounce him to be the stupidest conspiracy nut I've come across. And that is really, really saying something.

'zat you, Ray? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY&search=helicopter%20pilot)

[Ray Ubinger]

How.
Did.
His.
Sore.
Change.
Cheeks?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
We only see his sore in those two shots.
I agree the sore is absent from Tony's left cheek in the clip from that same evening when he reflects on how hard it was to watch the casket go by. I also agree the sore is absent from Tony's left cheek three days earlier when he recounts that Gorumba (whose name he doesn't mention) "passed away" (he doesn't say how).
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonyreaction.htm

Yet you're figuring that the sore was on Tony's left cheek?

(Incidentally, no shot from the Gorumba sequence (which is 2% of the movie excluding morgues' gallery and credits) shows both of Tony's cheeks.)


Has it ever occured to you that the OTHER shot is the one that is flipped?
This is the first you've admitted they even did a mirror-image, isn't it? Thank you for answering how his sore changed cheeks.

No, now that you ask; it has never occurred to me that they would direct firefighters to SALUTE with the LEFT hand, and then UNDO THEIR OWN DIRECTION by mirror-imaging the shot to make it appear like it was a normal right-handed salute all along. It has also never occurred to me that a quarter-sized w-shaped bright red sore on a man's left cheek could be distinctly visible in the morning but be vanished w/o trace from the man's left cheek that same evening.


Ray Ubinger

[Regnad Kcin]

...It's too fat for a ballpoint, though I've wondered whether it's maybe a magic marker. Still, I discern a plunger-shaped top, and a needle-shaped bottom.
Screenshot:
http://911foreknowledge.com/syringe.jpgStill "too fat for a ballpoint?" (http://www.mypencil.com/mall/ave49514.jpg)

[gumboot]

This is the first you've admitted they even did a mirror-image, isn't it? Thank you for answering how his sore changed cheeks.


Actually the first time you presented this "evidence" I suggested that if any shot was flipped it was more likely the salute one, providing reasons why. But never mind.



No, now that you ask; it has never occurred to me that they would direct firefighters to SALUTE with the LEFT hand, and then UNDO THEIR OWN DIRECTION by mirror-imaging the shot to make it appear like it was a normal right-handed salute all along.


Not even after I suggested exactly that?

Yet it has occured to you that a couple of French filmmakers and a bunch of New York firemen conspired together to make a snuff movie by murdering a FDNY chaplain with a firearm and syringe against the backdrop of the WTC attack, which they KNEW in advance was going to happen?

Um. Ray. That's... well, it's insane. Completely insane.





It has also never occurred to me that a quarter-sized w-shaped bright red sore on a man's left cheek could be distinctly visible in the morning but be vanished w/o trace from the man's left cheek that same evening.


The only thing we know about the footage of Tony in question is a) it happened after the funeral and b) it happened before 9/11.

Except, of course, since you claim Tony is a lying actor who never went to the funeral, that clip could have been recorded any time whatsoever.

-Andrew

[60hzxtl]

Gumboot, that's it!

The key to the whole 9/11 mystery - Re-open the investigation, Ray will pay for it until the government coughs up the money.

[Ray Ubinger]

This is the first you've admitted they even did a mirror-image, isn't it?
Actually the first time you presented this "evidence" I suggested that if any shot was flipped it was more likely the salute one, providing reasons why.
You are confirming that you resisted the idea that they did a mirror-image at all: "IF ANY shot was flipped..." Instead you tried to pretend the video quality was too poor to determine that the sore changed cheeks.

it has never occurred to me that they would direct firefighters to SALUTE with the LEFT hand, and then UNDO THEIR OWN DIRECTION by mirror-imaging the shot to make it appear like it was a normal right-handed salute all along.
Not even after I suggested exactly that?
You said something about the firemen being directed to salute with the wrong hand?? Why would the Naudets want to film a left-handed salute, in your interpretation? And then why would they undo their very own direction, with a mirror-image?

The only thing we know about the footage of Tony in question is a) it happened after the funeral and b) it happened before 9/11.

I would agree there's no footage of Tony taken at the Gorumba funeral. They sure want us to think there is, though. They faked his attendance. They sneakily spliced him in to the blurry-fast pan-left across the crowd. They did a mirror-image to make the truck passing him be going in the same direction as the funeral procession.

Further evidence of that being the mirror-imaged shot (besides that his left cheek is once again UNblemished later that same day--or did they mirror-image that too, heehee!),
is that the shadow of his hat onto his face when the truck passes him, is in the opposite direction of the shadow of the truck onto the street when we see the whole truck.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm


Ray Ubinger

[60hzxtl]

Free yourself Ray!

Confess!

You know you want to!

You were in on it!

We recognize your cry for help.

[Trifikas]

Definitly a flipped frame in there - you can tell by observing how the light / shadow on his face switches in the two shots, and the pillar in the background switches from over one shoulder to the other*. The clip is too short, but a full view should be able to determine where the lightsource is to determine wich is "Correct" and wich is "Flipped".

However, using this as basis that the Naudets were in on anything is a little too great a leap of logic. It's at most, artistic liscense. I mean, where does he fit into a conspiracy? What's in it for him to be a part of it?

Trifikas

*other possible explanations are he's cut on both sides of his face,and that they got one of the shots then went back later in the day to shoot a few filler clips, that later-day sun having moved so it's shining the opposite direction. This is an unlikely scenario, but it's possible.

[gumboot]

Definitly a flipped frame in there - you can tell by observing how the light / shadow on his face switches in the two shots, and the pillar in the background switches from over one shoulder to the other*. The clip is too short, but a full view should be able to determine where the lightsource is to determine wich is "Correct" and wich is "Flipped".



The light is deceptive. Wider shots from the same scene indicate the light is diffuse and non-directional - a result of an overcast day. This is reflected by the colouring of the shots.

On overcast days the light is also "hotter" - with a colour temperature as high as 7,000 or even 10,000 degrees K (as opposed to 5,600 degrees K (nominal daylight) or 3,200 degrees K (tungsten).

This means you get burn-out pretty easily, especially on pale things like a human face. It also means there is no directional light, so you can't judge the images from that.

I also believe it fairly likely one of the shots is mirrored. I think the salute one more likely simply because some of the salutes look really weird, as if they're doing it with their left hand, and some of them are not wearing gloves.

I don't know WHY they'd do that. Someone would have to ask them why one of these shots is flipped, and see how they responded.

My main point is Ray contends one of the said shots is "faked" later. I find it more plausible that they got together a bunch of people and did a salute fake, than they actually got a fire engine involved.

Of course, after all this there's the rather good point, as you made, that none of this in any way support's Ray's ridiculous notions of a snuff film.

-Andrew

[Trifikas]

It's certainly tough from that shot to determine where the flip is. But it's more a videography curiosity than anything else.

The why is simple - it made the video flow better, and was an editing decision. Even if it is determined that one of those shots was staged, it's not proof that tony WASN'T there.

One of the thing that bugs me the most is: Why tell the Naudets? My thought would be if there is a Government Conspiracy, wouldn't you prefer to have Less video evidence rather than more? Less chance that someone would film something shady going on? Oh, well. add it to the list of things that don't make sense in the Conspiracy angle.

Mark this thread as done.

Trifikas.

[Marquis de Carabas]

One of the thing that bugs me the most is: Why tell the Naudets? My thought would be if there is a Government Conspiracy, wouldn't you prefer to have Less video evidence rather than more? Less chance that someone would film something shady going on? Oh, well. add it to the list of things that don't make sense in the Conspiracy angle.
You're failing to take into account the true genius of the Conspirators. Everyone knows that Conspiracies want as little evidence as possible left behind. So they leave evidence behind so that "skeptics" like yourself will pounce on it as proof that there is no Conspiracy. You've fallen right into their hands.

[CptColumbo]

It is a common practice in documentary (and any) film-making to flip a shot. This is usually done to avoid "flipping perspective," moving from one side of a subject to another, which can be jarring and confusing to a viewer.
Imagine watching a football game on TV, and in the middle of the play they went to a shot from the other side of the field from the previous one. You would probably be so distracted by the change you would loose track of what was actually happening in the play. Furthermore, one cannot always get a shot from the angle or position you want, so you make changes in post-production that make the film more aesthetically pleasing, while not comprimising the intergrity of the film. This also includes insert shots, to make the film flow better.

[Ray Ubinger]

It is a common practice in documentary (and any) film-making to flip a shot. This is usually done to avoid "flipping perspective," moving from one side of a subject to another, which can be jarring and confusing to a viewer.
I agree it's jarring to realize that the truck passing Tony was going in the opposite direction of the real funeral procession. No wonder they flipped that shot. To cover their mistake of driving the truck at the fake funeral the wrong way.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

The camera stayed on the side of the street that was empty, shown at the end of the first excerpt at
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

I can't decide which was more slick -- the mirror-image to cover the mistake of the truck direction, or the way they spliced Tony in to the real funeral scene during the blurry-fast pan-left of the crowd.

The Aug. 28 timing of Michael Gorumba's unusual death, at a fire of uncertain origin, was highly useful. First it advanced the plotline and dramatic tension of the ongoing Naudet movie, right when the Naudets were getting worried that the movie was going nowhere due to lack of fires for Tony to fight ... but "be careful what you wish for," the elders warn them -- cue Gorumba's death. Then, the death enabled Rudy Giuliani to arrange (at Gorumba's Sept. 1 funeral) to make political gain two weeks later, by giving away Gorumba's sister Diane at her wedding on 9/15, in a life-goes-on, "return to normalcy" four days after the catastrophe.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=giuliani+gorumba


Ray Ubinger

[CptColumbo]

You completely misunderstood what I was writing about, but why should I be surprised?

[Trifikas]

Do we know that Tony wasn't at the funeral? Getting Make-up shots doesn't mean he WASN'T there to begin with, just that they wanted a few more shots. What do we have on that?

And from everything I've read so far, there wasn't anything sinister about Gorumba's Death. Gorumba had a childhood heart murmur, And although had passed a fireman's physical earlier in the year, had an irregular heartbeat. He suffered a heart attack at a 3-alarm blaze working one of the more strenuous positions on the Firefighting team:

http://www.worldfiredepartments.com/news_fdny_ff_gorumba.htm

Also, Gorumba's Mother ASKED Mayor Giuliani to give away His sister at Her wedding. Unless you want to try and convince us he used his mind-controlling super powers to get Gorumba's Mother to ask him, your going to have to drop this line of reasoning.

Trifikas

[Ray Ubinger]

You completely misunderstood what I was writing about[.]
You wrote that flipping a shot "is usually done to avoid 'flipping perspective,' moving from one side of a subject to another". I stand by my retort: The camera in this case stayed on one side of the street, the side that didn't have firefighters on it, visible at the end of the first excerpt at
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm


Ray Ubinger

[60hzxtl]

C'mon Ray, admit it - editing techniques, the grammar of film, avoiding a jump cut -- they all do it. It's part of the conspiracy.

Surrender Ray, you know you want to clear your conscience!

You knew Ray! That's why they can't count your votes!

[Ray Ubinger]

Definitly a flipped frame in there - you can tell by observing how the light / shadow on his face switches in the two shots, and the pillar in the background switches from over one shoulder to the other*. The clip is too short, but a full view should be able to determine where the lightsource is to determine wich is "Correct" and wich is "Flipped".
The light is deceptive.
Hee hee, "deceptive light" made the pillar on the house in the background move from one side of Tony to the other!

How about the way one side of his neck is much brighter than the other--except that the much-brighter and much-darker halves change sides? Did some "deceptive light" make that switch? Sneaky ol' Sun, har har!

And how about the shot on the train on the way to the funeral, where the sore is first seen ... on Tony's RIGHT cheek:
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/train.htm
Do you think they flipped THAT shot, since you're still clinging to the notion that the sore was on his LEFT cheek?

And how about the FIRST shot of him allegedly at the funeral, when his LEFT cheek is UNblemished?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/clearface.jpg
Do you think they flipped THAT shot TOO?

And how about the shot later that same day, where Tony, in closeup, with LEFT cheek UNblemished again (after being blemished when the truck passed him), tearfully talks about how hard it was to watch the casket go by? (Not excerpted yet, sorry.) Do you think they flipped THAT shot TOO?


I also believe it fairly likely one of the shots is mirrored.
"ALSO" believe "FAIRLY LIKELY?" Trifikas said there was DEFINITELY a flip.


I think the salute one more likely
But you concede POSSIBLY the passing-truck shot MIGHT be the flipped one, INSTEAD? In other words you now RETRACT your condescendingly absolute assertion, "The. Shot. With. The. Truck. In. It. Is. Not. Flipped."?


I don't know WHY they'd do that [i.e. ask firemen to salute with their left hands for the camera].
Yeah, you sure don't why, do you -- because there's no conceivable reason! Especially since your interpretation then commits you to saying the filmmakers REVERSED the salute to make it LOOK like it was RIGHT-handed all along.


GUMBOOT'S SCENARIO:

Firefighters: Um, salute with our LEFT hands?? Why the hell do you want us to do that, Naudet Brothers?

Naudet Brothers: Trust us, we know what we're doing -- even if a highly experienced moviemaker from New Zealand also can't imagine any possible reason for it.

Firefighters: Well, okay, if you say so. Here goes.

Naudet Brothers, later in the editing room: Oops, they SHOULDN'T have trusted us, we DIDN'T know what we were doing! Now we have to mirror-image it, so it will look OPPOSITE to what we specifically REQUESTED from them.

HAW HAW HAW!!!


Someone would have to ask them why one of these shots is flipped, and see how they responded.
Um, someone would have to FIND them first, and get them to talk. I don't think they'll ever be sighted in public again, unless we get lucky and see them in handcuffs.
http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200510



I find it more plausible that they got together a bunch of people and did a salute fake, than they actually got a fire engine involved.
I find it more plausible that they got a fire engine involved than that they flipped the train shot AND flipped the first-Tony-at-funeral shot AND flipped the tearful-recollection shot.

Incidentally, his left cheek is also shown as unblemished three days earlier, when he had trouble keeping a straight face while recounting that Gorumba (whose name he doesn't say) "passed away" (he doesn't say how):
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonyreaction.htm

And you can call me nuts, but I also think it's more plausible that they got a fire engine involved than that they got the SUN to jump around. Since you still haven't conceded that they definitely did a mirror-image.


Of course, after all this there's the rather good point, as you made, that none of this in any way support's Ray's ridiculous notions of a snuff film.
Tony is the starting point of the story. He is the alleged original subject of the whole documentary. Showing they faked his attendance at Gorumba's funeral supports my claim that Tony was just an actor in an elaborate ruse -- a cover story -- an excuse -- a ruse scripted to explain in advance how they would become able to get their intended-all-along 9/11 footage.

I think they also faked Tony's attendance at one of his almost-fire calls, the one he called something like 'just some smoke from an elevator.' (Not excerpted yet, sorry.) The one shot of him there has background details and other firemen in it which do not match up with any other shot from that incident. As a staged appearance it serves to show him on the job, even though he is once again not actually doing anything. He is once again just standing there looking pretty in a uniform. Same as in his FEMA photos at Ground Zero (links now blocked or broken, but maybe someone can find them on an archive?
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/high/ny_wtc_519.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/high/ny_wtc_520.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/high/ny_wtc_522.jpg
).

I also think Tony wasn't really at GZ on 9/11, when it was most dangerous. I think they only trained him to act, not to do real firefighter work. A plot device is constructed to separate him from the cameraman on his way to WTC/GZ on 9/11. (Tony deems some forgotten-by-him "box of medical gloves" important enough to make the cameraman go fetch, but not important enough to wait for.) Then in a post-9/11 clip he has trouble keeping a straight face while telling an outlandish tall tale about being there.
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm
A man with a major arterial bleed, his arm SEVERED AT THE SHOULDER, was HOLDING his severed arm AND RUNNING AROUND? Yeah, right! But hey, they needed to have Tony say SOMETHING about being there, since they didn't SHOW him being there.


Ray Ubinger

[gumboot]

You wrote that flipping a shot "is usually done to avoid 'flipping perspective,' moving from one side of a subject to another". I stand by my retort: The camera in this case stayed on one side of the street, the side that didn't have firefighters on it, visible at the end of the first excerpt at



Ray you clearly don't understand what is being said. Go do some research into a thing called "crossing the line".

It's a very bad mistake that inexperienced filmmakers often make. The easiest way to solve it is to flip the shot.

Hint: it has to do with eye-lines.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Hee hee, "deceptive light" made the pillar on the house in the background move from one side of Tony to the other!


It never occured to you that the "house" (I say building) has more than one pillar? You can do better than that.



How about the way one side of his neck is much brighter than the other--except that the much-brighter and much-darker halves change sides? Did some "deceptive light" make that switch? Sneaky ol' Sun, har har!


When you have a large light source it becomes more difficult to judge direction of light. On an over-cast day the light source becomes the entire sky. The sun becomes irrelevant. This is called diffusion. It produces AMBIENT light. Which is NON-DIRECTIONAL. It means THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM EVERY DIRECTION AT ONCE.

Got it?



Now. I don't care about them flipping shots, at all. I don't care if they flipped every shot in the entire film.

I will happily and cheerfully conceed that your precious fire-engine shot has been flipped. If you conceed that your entire accusation towards the Naudets and FDNY is sick and completely without basis in reality.

Deal?

I didn't think so.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

A man with a major arterial bleed, his arm SEVERED AT THE SHOULDER, was HOLDING his severed arm AND RUNNING AROUND? Yeah, right! But hey, they needed to have Tony say SOMETHING about being there, since they didn't SHOW him being there.


Ray have you ever seen a film called "Saving Private Ryan"?

Do you recall, in the Omaha Beach landing scene, a shot of a soldier wandering around, picking up his severed arm, and wandering off with it?

That really happened, Ray. That particular account was recalled by an actual veteran, so the filmmakers included it. Truth is stranger than fiction. Limbs are severed in horrific events sometimes. People feel a strange attachment to those limbs. They don't want to leave them.

How many horrific events have you been in, Ray? Ever seen someone butchered? Ever seen people torn to pieces? Ever been surrounded by death and chaos and pain and suffering?

-Andrew

[Ray Ubinger]

Les is saying Jules Naudet wasn't just in the right place at the right time, he was in the perfect place at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

Had they known in advance, and had they intended to get a "perfect" shot of the first hit, there were dozens upon dozens of far superior vantage points.
For instance?

See again the section "Objections--and answers to them" at
http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm


Les' "69 conveniences" are laughable. Virtually all of them are utterly identical.
For instance?


Speaking of cell phones, can you believe the Naudet brothers didn't have them, despite being documentarians working in NYC?

Yes, I can. Not everyone in the world owns a cellphone.

Yeah but how many documentarians working in NYC don't?


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

Speaking of cell phones, can you believe the Naudet brothers didn't have them, despite being documentarians working in NYC? If they had them, that would destroy the heavily scripted Separation Anxiety subplot, wherein each brother thinks the other dead, only to be happy-Hollywood-ly reunited.

It's reasonable to think perhaps: 1) their cell coverage was not international,
Reportedly they had been in America for over a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudet_brothers
I would agree it's confusing for such longterm American residents to call themselves Frenchmen.

2) one or both of them (if they did each carry a phone) was left behind at their hotel room, 3) they did carry them (are you saying they say they didn't?), but couldn't get service after the towers were hit.

They didn't tell us of any such obstacles or developments. That's not suspicious by itself, but consider all the obstacles and developments they did tell us of. They made such a big repeated deal out of how worried each brother was about the other. Gedeon says he was asking every ff he saw, Have you seen my brother? There was also specific stuff about the FDNY radio communication inside Tower 1 having trouble, several shots of unanswered calls, inaudible transmissions, and Jules himself remarking in a later interview how the poor radio commo underscored that things were "getting more and more difficult." But nowhere among all the talk of how concerned each brother was for the life of the other, and all the talk of the radio network, is any connection between the two, like, 'The poor radio connections even prevented anyone from being able to ask after Jules for Gedeon.'


Questions aren't evidence.

The questions are numerous, though.


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm
A man with a major arterial bleed, his arm SEVERED AT THE SHOULDER, was HOLDING his severed arm AND RUNNING AROUND? Yeah, right! But hey, they needed to have Tony say SOMETHING about being there, since they didn't SHOW him being there.

Ray have you ever seen a film called "Saving Private Ryan"?
Do you recall, in the Omaha Beach landing scene, a shot of a soldier wandering around, picking up his severed arm, and wandering off with it?
That really happened, Ray.
I have not seen SPR. Sounds like the character you describe had already gotten the bleeding stopped, unlike the man in Tony's tall tale.


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

Other friends of mine saw that plane hit from their office windows. Are they lying?

Is the Naudet camera lying?? Do you see anything sized or shaped like a 767 in those frames (taken from a known distance of only 7/10ths of a mile)? Are people at a skeptic's forum supposed to give more weight to hearsay than to photos?

Answer the question. Are they lying?

They are either mistaken, or Gravy is paraphrasing them incorrectly, or they are lying. I'd have to see their actual statements to go further. And where were the statements first published? Or am I just supposed to take Gravy's word for them?

Is the Naudet camera lying? At least you have its 50 statements per second.
http://missilegate.com
Where in any frame do you see anything sized or shaped like a blurry 767 just 7/10ths of a mile from the camera?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg


Gerard Holmgren on Why They Didn't Use Planes
http://911closeup.com/


Scott Loughrey on What About the Eyewitnesses
http://www.911hoax.com/gWitnesses2.asp?intPage=80&PageNum=80


example of a believable witness
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm


example of a laughable witness
http://thewebfairy.com/911/curtainchewer


Ray Ubinger

[orphia nay]

Gravy writes:
...
> Other friends of mine saw that plane hit from their office windows. Are they lying?

Is the Naudet camera lying?? Do you see anything sized or shaped like a 767 in those frames (taken from a known distance of only 7/10ths of a mile)? Are people at a skeptic's forum supposed to give more weight to hearsay than to photos?

Answer the question. Are they lying?

Are we supposed to give more weight to distortions of out-of-focus images or trusted eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence?

They are either mistaken, or Gravy is paraphrasing them incorrectly, or they are lying. I'd have to see their actual statements to go further. And where were the statements first published? Or am I just supposed to take Gravy's word for them?

Or are you plain and simply wrong?

Where is the evidence for murder?

[Ray Ubinger]

In Gravy's pic [Post #140] the corner of Church & Murray is not in sunlight, as it is in the bravenewworld clip. Any ideas on how to check what it would look like about an hour earlier?

I would say an hour earlier the streets are only going to have less sun on them. With those taller buildings east of Church Street I'd be very surprised to see any sun on int. Church and Murray at an earlier time in the morning (it may sneak down Park Place, but I doubt it).

The sunlight on Church-Murray in the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is sneaking down Murray. Not over the top of the bldgs on the E side of Church. In Gravy's pic from 10:28 a.m. this slice of light down Murray is still visible, but narrower and angled slightly northward, hitting the E side of the bldg on the NE corner of Church-Murray, but no longer flooding the Church-Murray intersection. The sun has moved slightly southward (independent of moving significantly higher) between the 8:46 a.m. bravenewworld shot and the 10:28 a.m. Gravy Post #140 shot.


Ray Ubinger

[Gravy]

Oh, Goody! Ray "D.C." Ubinger is back! Join Sir Knight and Killtown, Ray: they've been waiting for the third stooge to arrive.

[Ray Ubinger]

At the corner of Broadway and Park is the magnificent Woolworth building, one of the world's great skyscrapers, and the tallest building in the world from 1913-29. (Now condos.)

Specifically the NW corner of Broadway-Park?

The WW Bldg was also the site of some unexplained incident around 4 p.m.
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4035

If you want I can take some photos there in the daytime this week.
The closer to Sept11, the more truly the sun's position will match what it was at the same time on 9/11.

I still think the row of 4+ squarish white blobs in the middle of Church in the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
are window reflections from the Emigrant Savings Bank on the SW corner of Church-Murray. Not patches of dust as Andrew Gumboot claims. I see a guy walking right through one in the Naudet dvd, and not kicking up any dust. It's in an as-yet unexcerpted scene, but a screenshot of it forms the bottom half of Marcus Icke's comparison pair
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
I submit that that row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of Church St. is closer to the trash can in the lower pic than in the upper pic. If so, then as window reflections they would establish the lower pic as later than the upper pic, which is from the bravenewworld clip. The earlier lower sun would cast the window reflections back more eastward with a more acute angle of reflection.

Once you see the top (bravenewworld) pic was earlier, you know the bravenewworld clip was not reaction to the 1st Collapse, b/c the later clip was still free of the very heavy 1st Collapse dust.


Ray Ubinger

Edited to add that last para and to delete two stray pics Gravy pointed to at the end of his post but which I have no comment on.

[Ray Ubinger]

When the crane known as 'Big Blue' collapsed (killing 3 iron workers) during the construction of the Milwaukee Brewer's new stadium, the event was captured by Japanese tourists driving down the highway next to the construction site. What are the odds that:

1) Japanese toursists would be in Milwaukee
2) They would be filming stuff while riding in the car
3) They would be going by at exactly the right moment to capture that footage

You could dig into this and find 100 reasons why they shouldn't have been able to shoot that video. But they did - does this mean they were in on it?

http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul99/timside15071599.asp

An interesting possible comparison case, but where's the vid itself? The article describes it as shaky, for starters. Jules Naudet's famous 1st Hit Impact shot seems to have been with a big hairy steadicam, it panned so perfectly smoothly up and left, from the alleged odor of alleged gas scene, directly to framing the 1st Hit impact point in almost the exact middle of the viewfinder, all within about a second, and stopping about a second before impact.


Ray Ubinger

ps/Edit
To repeat a way I may or may not have described in this forum before, Jules Naudet's camera aim was analogous to a perfect bullseye throw in darts.

[gumboot]

Jules Naudet's famous 1st Hit Impact shot seems to have been with a big hairy steadicam


I can tell you with confidence that that footage is handheld, not steadicam. I'm very familiar with determining how footage was shot based on frame movement.

-Andrew

[Ray Ubinger]

WHOEVER shot
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
it is EXCLUSIVE to the Naudet film, appearing nowhere else, and I stand by my argument that it shows pedestrian reaction within sight of WTC (at Church-Murray) at the instant of the first hit.

You don't seem to understand that even if you can prove that that footage is of reactions to the first hit, you still have no evidence of a government cover-up, or of the Naudets' involvement in it.

Having a camera already running at 8:46 to capture pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit, implies foreknowledge of the attack. The fact that the footage comes from the Naudet-FDNY team implicates the govt and Naudets in that foreknowledge.


Ray Ubinger

[gumboot]

I see a guy walking right through one in the Naudet dvd, and not kicking up any dust. It's in an as-yet unexcerpted scene, but a screenshot of it forms the bottom half of Marcus Icke's comparison pair
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft


I would like to see this moment where a man walks through the light patches. I couldn't find it in their film. Perhaps you can guide me in the right direction? Upon a brief glance at this footage I will be able to tell you if it is a reflection or not.

-Andrew

[Ray Ubinger]

Then what were the suddenly-reacting pedestrians suddenly reacting to?

The problem is, Ray, that YOU are the only one here who thinks that those people are suddenly reacting to anything

In about only one second of real time (stretched to around four seconds by the Naudets' rendering of it in slow motion), a crowd of 10+ pedestrians walking along normally -- not standing still, not looking up -- suddenly includes 4+ people whirling around and/or looking up, toward where WTC was.

and you simply ignore all the people in the video who aren't reacting at all. Why are you doing this?

Because the clip stops short after only about one second of real time, just long enough to show the quickest few people's reactions.

The way people at that location looked a moment later, between the 1st and 2nd Hits, can be seen at
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
(click to play).

Note how the post-1st-Hit location4 crowd qualitatively and quantitatively differs from the pre-1st-Hit bravenewworld crowd at the same place. (shortly south of Murray along the east side of Church) In bravenewworld, the crowd is relatively sparse and everyone at the start of the clip is walking along normally. In location4, the crowd is packed and practically everyone is standing still and/or looking up.

Replace the "4" in the location4 url with 1, 2 and 3 to see other typical post-1st-Hit crowd shots along (I think) Church St.

There's nothing post-1st-Hit about the crowd at the start of the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
and no sensible reason to think a third of them would suddenly whirl around/up within half a second of one another in some spontaneous simultaneous impulse of "Wow, it sure is terrible what's going on and now I need to take another look at it to really believe it."--as you and my other opponents seem to be arguing.

There is NOTHING in that video that indicates anything but a few people turning to look at a disaster that has already happened.

To the contrary, there's nothing post-1st-Hit about the crowd at the start of the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
And there is no sensible reason to postulate that a third of them would suddenly whirl around/up within half a second of one another in some spontaneous simultaneous impulse of "Wow, it sure is terrible what's going on and now I need to take another look at it to really believe it."--as you and my other opponents seem to be arguing.


Ray Ubinger
edited to correct creation of final quoted bit

[Ray Ubinger]

I can tell you with confidence that that footage is handheld, not steadicam. I'm very familiar with determining how footage was shot based on frame movement.

-Andrew

If you're right, we have no way to know it. I argued from how the vid looks. You simply appeal to your own authority.

Small, brief version of the shot in question:
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
aka
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html


Ray Ubinger

[Matthew Best]

That is definitely not a Steadicam. I don't think a Steadicam is even capable of being that jerky.

[Gravy]

In about only one second of real time (stretched to around four seconds by the Naudets' rendering of it in slow motion), a crowd of 10+ pedestrians walking along normally -- not standing still, not looking up -- suddenly includes 4+ people whirling around and/or
These people "react" at different times, and what do the other 10+ people do when, as you say, an ENORMOUS explosion happens three blocks away?

Why, they don't react at all. Not even a flinch. Naturally.

Ray Ubinger, your behavior is despicable. Please seek professional mental health care before you slide further into your sick, delusional state.

[gumboot]

If you're right, we have no way to know it. I argued from how the vid looks. You simply appeal to your own authority.


It's not an appeal to authority, because my expertise is relevant to the question at hand. I also never said we have no way to know. I am telling you right now I DO know. It is NOT a Steadicam shot.

-Andrew

[Ray Ubinger]

Why would the whole firehouse worth of men and vehicles have been at the allegedly no-big-deal, Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas?
Perhaps you missed the news:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/am-collapse0710,0,1623755.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
Gas leaks are hardly something to show little concern over.

Tell that to all the firemen in the Naudet movie who allege that the odor-of-gas call was no big deal. Several of them are quoted directly in Les Raphael's rticle which is the original subject of this thread. Typical remarks went like

"pretty simple," "just routine" (Chief Joseph Pfeifer)

"you don't think much of it" (Joe Casaliggi)

"just odor of gas, Lispenard & Church" (Capt. Dennis Tardio)

"the call was for a gas leak in the street, or an odor of gas, I think it was" (Nick Borrillo)


I submit that the reason they pretended gas leaks are no big deal is that the whole alleged odor of alleged gas was a complete fiction, a scripted invention, a call that never actually came in, and most importantly, a CATALYST type plot device, something which ENABLES an important plot point (their ability to film the 1st Hit) without undergoing any change in and of itself. That is, we are not supposed to actually wonder what became of the reported odor of gas. They never tell us. We are just supposed to go Oh My God Look At That Tower On Fire and totally forget what enabled the filming of it in the first place.


Ray Ubinger

[gumboot]

That is definitely not a Steadicam. I don't think a Steadicam is even capable of being that jerky.


If you were a REALLY good operator with years of experience I reckon you MIGHT be able to get it to look like hand-held, but it's thoroughly unlikely. I very much doubt after the plane hit the fireman hang around waiting for him to get out of his rig though...:rolleyes:

A very good friend of mine, Neil Cervin (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0148986/) (one of our top SteadiCam operators before he went into DPing) once told me getting SteadiCam to look like hand-held is next to impossible (and obviously totally illogical).

-Andrew

[gumboot]

"pretty simple," "just routine" (Chief Joseph Pfeifer)

"you don't think much of it" (Joe Casaliggi)

"just odor of gas, Lispenard & Church" (Capt. Dennis Tardio)

"the call was for a gas leak in the street, or an odor of gas, I think it was" (Nick Borrillo)


Ray, do you know what context is? They thought an odour of gas call out was "just routine" and "don't think much of it" because two hours later the two tallest buildings in New York had totally collapsed AFTER HAVING FRIKKEN AIRLINERS FLOWN INTO THEM!

In comparison with what was to come, an odour of gas callout WAS routine and not much to think of.

-Andrew

[Ray Ubinger]

They thought an odour of gas call out was "just routine" and "don't think much of it" because two hours later the two tallest buildings in New York had totally collapsed AFTER HAVING FRIKKEN AIRLINERS FLOWN INTO THEM!

No, they said that even before 8:46 they didn't consider the gas call a big deal. Watch the movie and see the context for yourself. Watch them step right out onto the grate where the alleged odor of alleged gas is rising from. Watch them stick their faces over that grate too.
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm


Les Raphael has a valid point in noting that the NYC Father's Day 2001 gas leak fire which killed FDNY members is suspiciously absent from the Naudet movie, which purports to have started filming that same month. If they had mentioned that explosion-fire, they would not have been able to get away with pretending that they rode to the 9/11 alleged odor of alleged gas with 'no big deal' and 'routineness' dominating their thoughts like they claim.

The wider point is that the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas is a PLOT DEVICE. It is merely a CATALYST, something which facilitates the REAL plot -- getting the 1st Hit on camera -- but does not undergo any change itself.

The movie never tells us whether there really was a gas leak or not. It never tells us how that call resolved. We are not supposed to wonder. We are just supposed to trust that such a call really was placed, and then be awestruck at the footage of how the attacks started.


Ray Ubinger

[Gravy]

The movie never tells us whether there really was a gas leak or not. It never tells us how that call resolved. We are not supposed to wonder. We are just supposed to trust that such a call really was placed, and then be awestruck at the footage of how the attacks started.

Ray Ubinger

That "call resolved" when flight 11 hit the north tower, you creep.

[60hzxtl]

Hmmm. Last posting August. Now half past Oct. Hmmm. 45 day supply of meds, runs out the week after the full moon. . .

RAY!

[Gravy]

Hmmm. Last posting August. Now half past Oct. Hmmm. 45 day supply of meds, runs out the week after the full moon. . .

RAY!
Maybe this will hold him over for another month or two.

How about E.M.T. Alexander Loutsky, who saw flight 11 hit, Ray? Lying? http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110151.PDF

How about PAPD P.O. David LeClaire, who saw flight 11 hit, Ray? Lying? http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf (pg. 85)

How about E.M.T. Oscar Martinez, who treated a woman with horrible injuries from flight 11's landing gear, Ray? Lying? gear:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110183.PDF

How about PAPD P.O. Pat McInerney, who saw flight 11 hit, Ray? Lying? http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf (pg. 32)

How about Rob Marchesano, Ray? Lying?

"... as the jetliner buzzed toward Lower Manhattan. Rob Marchesano, a construction foreman, was working at a site at La Guardia Street and West Third. He heard a roar overhead, and saw a plane flying by, low and fast and at an angle that at first made him fear that it would hit his crane. He and his co-workers watched in astonishment and then horror as the plane approached the North Tower of the World Trade Center. He noticed that the plane seemed to tilt at the last second, as though someone wanted the wings to take out as many floors as possible." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15

How about Ezra Aviles, Ray? Lying?

"Ezra Aviles was in the north tower and saw flight 11 approach:
From a window on the 61st floor in the north tower, Ezra Aviles had seen everything. He knew it was no bomb. His window faced north, and he saw the plane tearing through the skies, heading straight for the tower. It had crashed into the building over his head-how far, he was not sure. In fact, its lower wing cut the ceiling of the 93rd floor, and its right wing had ripped across the 98th floor, at the very moment that Patricia Massari was speaking to her husband about her home pregnancy test.

Aviles worked for the Port Authority. He dialed five numbers, leaving identical messages, describing what he saw, and telling everyone up the chain of command to begin the evacuation. He called one colleague, John Paczkowski, but reached his voice mail. "It seems to be an American Airlines jetliner came in from the northern direction, toward-from the Empire State Building, toward us," Aviles said. He ticked through a list of notifications-he had called the police and the public affairs office, and had beeped the chief operating officer for the agency. "Smoke is beginning to come, so I think I'm gonna start bailing outta here, man.... Don't come near the building if you're outside. Pieces are coming down, man. Bye." http://tinyurl.com/f4efr

How about Michael Scott, Ray? Lying?

"In the Port Authority Office of Public Safety, Assistant Director Michael Scott received one of Aviles’ calls:

I received a telephone call from my good friend Ezra Aviles of the Office of Policy & Planning who said an aircraft had just struck the North Tower at a location above his office which was located on the north side of the 61st floor. In our discussion he was very calm and stated he saw the logo on the aircraft (American Airlines) as it approached the building. In further dialog it became clear that this was not a small commercial aircraft but a full size passenger aircraft. He stated he was contacting me to notify Public Safety officially and would make a few other calls, depart the tower and come over to the PATC “to help us out.” http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf Page 2

Take your sick act elsewhere, creep.

[orphia nay]

Still jumping at shadows, Ray?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/17949p-17009c.html

According to Dr. Charles Hirsch, New York's chief medical examiner:

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

Using DNA alone, 673 people were identified. Using dental records only, 187 were identified; fingerprints only, 71; photo identification, 16; miscellaneous X-rays, 45.


This article lists many of the Forensic organisations and their directors who identified the victims:
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0906_dna_ids.htm

Are all of them lying?

[dissonance]

No, they said that even before 8:46 they didn't consider the gas call a big deal. Watch the movie and see the context for yourself. Watch them step right out onto the grate where the alleged odor of alleged gas is rising from. Watch them stick their faces over that grate too.
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm

Les Raphael has a valid point in noting that the NYC Father's Day 2001 gas leak fire which killed FDNY members is suspiciously absent from the Naudet movie, which purports to have started filming that same month. If they had mentioned that explosion-fire, they would not have been able to get away with pretending that they rode to the 9/11 alleged odor of alleged gas with 'no big deal' and 'routineness' dominating their thoughts like they claim.

The wider point is that the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas is a PLOT DEVICE. It is merely a CATALYST, something which facilitates the REAL plot -- getting the 1st Hit on camera -- but does not undergo any change itself.



Do you have any idea how many calls fire departments get about suspected gas leaks? I live in a town of about 50,000 people, and there was a front page story in the local paper this week about the fire department being called to investigate gas leaks. The fire chief said they get 50-60 calls a month. And in the last year, not one of those calls has actually been a gas leak.

Now, I have no idea if it's the same in NYC, but I suspect that it is. No wonder the firefighters weren't worried about the gas leak. Calls about potential gas leaks ARE routine and common.

[60hzxtl]

Les Raphael has a valid point in noting that the NYC Father's Day 2001 gas leak fire which killed FDNY members is suspiciously absent from the Naudet movie, which purports to have started filming that same month. If they had mentioned that explosion-fire, they would not have been able to get away with pretending that they rode to the 9/11 alleged odor of alleged gas with 'no big deal' and 'routineness' dominating their thoughts like they claim. . .



One little problem.

The "father's day" fire was not a gas leak, it was: The fire origin was a flammable liquid - gasoline that was accidentally spilled outside the rear security door of the cellar.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200123.pdf

Gotta read what's there Ray, not make it up in your head. Busy place in there? Monday the mail man will bring the Pharmaceuticals.

[Ray Ubinger]

The "father's day" fire was not a gas leak, it was: The fire origin was a flammable liquid - gasoline that was accidentally spilled outside the rear security door of the cellar.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200123.pdf

Gotta read what's there Ray
Take your own advice; Page 3 at your link says that the store had 178 cylinders variously of natural gas (tradename MAPP), propane and oxygen.

Les Raphael's argument makes sense to me that the Naudets had to ignore the Father's Day 2001 fatal gas explosion because otherwise they could not have the firemen be nonchalant about the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas at Church-Lispenard at 8:30 on 9/11.

They needed to make Church-Lispenard a nonchalant call because it was to serve as just a plot catalyst. Something which would enable Jules Naudet's 1st Hit footage, and which would thus bring on our the audience's witnessing of the attacks, but which would not undergo change in its own right. We are deliberately left NOT wondering what became of the alleged odor of alleged gas. They downplay it because its only function was as an excuse for that cameraman to be there in view of that face of that Tower at that time.


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

Calls about potential gas leaks ARE routine and common.
They are potentially LETHALLY EXPLOSIVE. This is common knowledge, not an esoteric point from some specialized FDNY Battalion Chief training course. So why is the FDNY Battalion Chief in the Naudet video stepping directly out onto the street grate which is the supposed source of the suspected gas odor, and why is he wearing only his garrison uniform, not his protective outergear?
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm
Is that standard operating procedure?


Ray Ubinger

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They are potentially LETHALLY EXPLOSIVE. This is common knowledge, not an esoteric point from some specialized FDNY Battalion Chief training course. So why is the FDNY Battalion Chief in the Naudet video stepping directly out onto the street grate which is the supposed source of the suspected gas odor, and why is he wearing only his garrison uniform, not his protective outergear? Is that standard operating procedure?


Ray Ubinger
Based on what the rep from PeoplesEnergy was wearing when they came out to address a gas leak in my basement two weeks ago, yeah, it probably is SOP.

[Ray Ubinger]

The movie never tells us whether there really was a gas leak or not. It never tells us how that call resolved. We are not supposed to wonder. We are just supposed to trust that such a call really was placed, and then be awestruck at the footage of how the attacks started
That "call resolved" when flight 11 hit the north tower
Resolved how? How do crashes of alleged planes make gas stop leaking?

No Flight 11 was on the Logan Airport schedule that day, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics database as recently as 2005.


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

They are potentially LETHALLY EXPLOSIVE. This is common knowledge, not an esoteric point from some specialized FDNY Battalion Chief training course. So why is the FDNY Battalion Chief in the Naudet video stepping directly out onto the street grate which is the supposed source of the suspected gas odor, and why is he wearing only his garrison uniform, not his protective outergear? Is that standard operating procedure?
Based on what the rep from PeoplesEnergy was wearing when they came out to address a gas leak in my basement two weeks ago, yeah, it probably is SOP.
Do tell. What "was" "they," "the rep," wearing?

Had PeoplesEnergy just lost three veterans in a gaseous explosion, less than three months before coming to your basement?

Do you dispute that suspected gas leaks are potentially lethally explosive?


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

Regarding
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
These people "react" at different times, and what do the other 10+ people do when, as you say, an ENORMOUS explosion happens three blocks away?
Why, they don't react at all. Not even a flinch.
The whole slow-motion snippet is only about half a second in real time. It is not reasonable to expect every pedestrian's reaction to have occurred exactly simultaneously.

Please seek professional mental health care
The very first shrink I talked to about this (a board-certified, Duke-trained M.D.) became convinced I'm onto something within one day of scrutinizing it himself.


Ray Ubinger

[Ray Ubinger]

I account for the squarish white blobs in the middle of the street at
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
as window reflections. In answering why they're not patches of Dust, I wrote:
I see a guy walking right through one in the Naudet dvd, and not kicking up any dust. It's in an as-yet unexcerpted scene, but a screenshot of it forms the bottom half of Marcus Icke's comparison pair
http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/4787/naudetreactionmurray2qo.jpg

Then Andrew Gumboot wrote:
I would like to see this moment where a man walks through the light patches. I couldn't find it in their film. Perhaps you can guide me in the right direction? Upon a brief glance at this footage I will be able to tell you if it is a reflection or not.
We have a PARTIAL vid excerpt of that scene; the bad news, it's cut off at the bottom, for the sake of memory/runspeed, where his feet are touching the ground. Inconclusive as it might be, please try FIRST EXCERPT (CLICK TO PLAY IT) at
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm

The stronger argument that they're not Dust patches is to remember how dusty the Dust really was, that close (3-4 blocks) to WTC. Here from that same intersection (known Church-Murray location of alleged 2nd "plane" debris) is a screenshot from Tim Canale's VCR footage:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/peopleindust3.jpg

The squarish-white-blob scenes, therefore, are clearly pre-Demolition.


Ray Ubinger

[orphia nay]

Regarding
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

The whole slow-motion snippet is only about half a second in real time. It is not reasonable to expect every pedestrian's reaction to have occurred exactly simultaneously.


The very first shrink I talked to about this (a board-certified, Duke-trained M.D.) became convinced I'm onto something within one day of scrutinizing it himself.


Ray Ubinger

Ever heard the saying "don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease"?

[JimBenArm]

Holy crap. Talk about zombies coming back to life!

This thing lay dead for over six months, and someone had to resurrect it?
Why?

[Ray Ubinger]

Regarding
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
I don't care about them flipping shots, at all. I don't care if they flipped every shot in the entire film.
Do you care if they constructed an elaborate lie about a gravely serious matter, in faking their own subject's attendance at a funeral?

That's what I'm saying the PURPOSE of the mirror-imaged shot was. Not artistic license, but deliberate cover-up of an act of gross fakery.

It was not random. They HAD to do the flip, because they ACCIDENTALLY filmed the truck at the FAKE funeral (the "funeral" shots which Tony DOES appear in) DRIVING THE WRONG WAY.

Then, upon noticing their error in the editing room, it was obviously much easier to do a mirror-image than to reconstruct the whole staged shot.

Unfortunately for them, Tony had a distinctive wound on one of his cheeks, which betrayed the mirror-image by changing cheeks.

If they had NOT done the flip, the funeral procession would have appeared to have suddenly REVERSED DIRECTION. Funeral processions don't really do that, and the Naudets knew that we know that, so they covered up their error.

Going hand-in-hand with this is the fact that there is independently a separate snippet of video evidence showing that Tony wasn't really there: they deceptively SPLICED HIM INTO THE FORMATION during a blurry-fast pan-left:
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm


Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004

[Ray Ubinger]

Regarding
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

These people "react" at different times, and what do the other 10+ people do when, as you say, an ENORMOUS explosion happens three blocks away?
Why, they don't react at all. Not even a flinch.
The whole slow-motion snippet is only about half a second in real time. It is not reasonable to expect every pedestrian's reaction to have occurred exactly simultaneously.

Please seek professional mental health care
The very first shrink I talked to about this (a board-certified, Duke-trained M.D.) became convinced I'm onto something within one day of scrutinizing it himself.

Ever heard the saying "don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease"?
I'm not sure. Feel free to elaborate. Do you agree it's not reasonable to expect all 13+ pedestrians' reactions to have started within less than one second of one another?


Ray Ubinger

[LashL]

Holy crap. Talk about zombies coming back to life!

This thing lay dead for over six months, and someone had to resurrect it?
Why?

Hmmm. From Flame Warriors:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_111034664b7ea8d2c1.jpg

Necromancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

Unlike Archivist, who compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

[Ray Ubinger]

Finally there are the possibility that Gedeon were there [allegedly at the Duane St. firehouse at 8:46, when I, Ray Ubinger, contend Gedeon was really filming 1st-Hit pedestrian reaction at Church-Murray] to coordinate schedules like when someone had the time to give an interview, when he, or his brother, were to ride with the ladders etc.


So maybe he was so busy with that stuff that he just didn't notice the zillion-alarm call at 8:46, and all the firemen left before he realized anything major was going on, and that's why he had to walk instead of ride with them? Maybe he was on prescription-strength sedatives?


Exactly where/what/when does he say he walked to the WTC just after 8:46am?

That is answered in Les Raphael's essay, under item #10a at
http://www.spingola.com/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%204.htm


Ray Ubinger

[Gravy]

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/gettinghelp.cfm

[gumboot]

Oh... look who's back...

-Gumboot

[Ray Ubinger]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_111034664b7ea8d2c1.jpg
I'm not collecting old threads for resurrection. This is the only thread I've been on at jref. I'm just defending my position as best I can, being one against many disagreers coming from many angles. I took a break here, posted to other forums and did other things in my life for awhile, and am now back to try to field valid questions that I never got around to before. Go to another thread if you don't like this one. I won't be there to bother you.


Ray

[Ray Ubinger]

Oh... look who's back...
As are you, so Hello. Now that we've exchanged pleasant recognitions, do you concede the Naudets faked Tony's attendance at Gorumba's funeral? My argument is that that follows from

1.
they spliced him into the pan-left across the crowd

plus

2.
they mirror-imaged the shot which in its original version would have depicted the funeral procession as having suddenly reversed direction.


Ray

[gumboot]

As are you, so Hello. Now that we've exchanged pleasant recognitions, do you concede the Naudets faked Tony's attendance at Gorumba's funeral?


No, I don't.

-Gumboot

[Ray Ubinger]

do you concede the Naudets faked Tony's attendance at Gorumba's funeral? My argument is that that follows from
1.
they spliced him into the pan-left across the crowd
plus
2.
they mirror-imaged the shot which in its original version would have depicted the funeral procession as having suddenly reversed direction.

No, I don't.

Please share your alternate explanation for that splice-in
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
and that truck-reversal
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm


Ray

[Gravy]

http://www.p71.html (http://www.mentalhealth.com/p71.html)

[gumboot]

Please share your alternate explanation for that splice-in
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
and that truck-reversal
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm


Ray


1) Cutting on a whip pan is a common and widely used film technique. In fact I have worked on a short film where every single cut was on a whip pan.

2) You have provided no evidence that the funeral in question was faked.

3) The burden of proof for fakery lies with you. Thus far you have presented no evidence to support your contention.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Resolved how? How do crashes of alleged planes make gas stop leaking?

No Flight 11 was on the Logan Airport schedule that day, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics database as recently as 2005.


Ray Ubinger
Have you been in jail for making up 9/11 junk? Source? OMG?


Thank you Mark, I will need the services, best post of all. Award winning advice. Perfect.

[LashL]

I'm not collecting old threads for resurrection. This is the only thread I've been on at jref. I'm just defending my position as best I can, being one against many disagreers coming from many angles. I took a break here, posted to other forums and did other things in my life for awhile, and am now back to try to field valid questions that I never got around to before. Go to another thread if you don't like this one. I won't be there to bother you.


Ray

Ray,

You missed the point, not surprisingly. However, I have seen you do the exact same thing on other forums over the past few years, and I am very much aware of your "theories".

You seriously need to seek psychiatric help.

Contrary to your assertions: FDNY members did not murder Father Mychal Judge; the Naudet brothers were not shooting a "snuff film"; gas leak calls are not at all unusual to a large urban fire department; the engine parts found in the streets were not "planted"; etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, please seek help.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do tell. What "was" "they," "the rep," wearing? A button-down shirt, and slacks.

Had PeoplesEnergy just lost three veterans in a gaseous explosion, less than three months before coming to your basement?
Dunno

Do you dispute that suspected gas leaks are potentially lethally explosive?


Ray Ubinger
Your strawman fallacy is not appreciated.